Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
INTERPLEADER
#1
LEONEN, J.:
FACTS:
On March 9, 1995, Lui Enterprises, Inc. and
ZuelligPharma Corporation entered into a 10year
contract of lease4 over a parcel of land located in
Barrio Tigatto, Buhangin, Davao City.
x xxx
(e) That there is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause;
x xxx
Litispendentia is Latin for a pending suit.140 It
exists when another action is pending between
the same parties for the same cause of action x x
x.141 The subsequent action is unnecessary and
vexatious142 and is instituted to harass the
respondent [in the subsequent action].143
The requisites of
litispendentiaare:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1 Identity of parties or at least such as represent
) the same interest in both actions;
(2 Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for,
) the reliefs being founded on the same facts;
and
(3 The identity in the two cases should be such
) that the judgment that may be rendered in one
would, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the other.144
RULING:
The nullification of deed in dation in payment case
did not bar the filing of the interpleader case.
Litispendentiais not present in this case.
Under Rule 16, Section 1, paragraph (e) of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss
may be filed on the ground of litispendentia:
Section 1.Grounds. Within the time for but before
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be
made on any of the following
grounds:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
#2
#3a
En Banc
Teehankee , J. :
Facts :
An interpleader suit was filed on Aug. 21, 1962 , by
plaintiffs own behalf and in behalf of all residents
of Project 4 in Quezon City.
Praying the (2) defendant - govt corps be
compelled to litigate and interplead between
themselves their alleged conflicting claims
involving said Project 4.
Rulling :
Court ruled that plaintiffs entirely miss the vital
element of an interpleader. Rule 63 , Sec.1 of the
Revised Rules of Court requires that Conflicting
claims upon the same subject matter are or maybe
made against the plaintiff in interpleader who
claims no interest whatever in the subject matter
#3b
ISSUE Whether or not an action for Interpleader is
proper in this case.
G.R. No.147812.
April 6, 2005
RULING
Yes. Tirona should have filed an interpleader and
need not wait for actual filing of a suit by petioner
against her. The action is proper when lessee does
not know who to pay the rentals due to conflicting
claims in the subjects property.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS
#4
RULE 63
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
#1
FACTS:
#2
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 175064
the
for
for
an
#3
#4
RULING:
#5a
Facts:
The proceedings at bar had their origin in an
agreement
denominated
"Contract
of
Constitutional Purchase and Sale of Reparation
Goods" entered into between petitioner Visayan
baking Corporation (VISPAC) and the Reparations
Commission (REPACOM). Subject of the contract
were a cannery plant, a tin manufacturing plant,
and three (3) filing boats sold to VISPAC, for which
it bound itself to pay the total price of
P1,135,712.47 in ten (10) equal yearly installments
with interest.
PADILLA, J.:
This action purports to obtain a declaratory relief
but the prayer of the petition seeks to have
Ordinance No. 61, series of 1946, and Ordinance
No. 10, series of 1947, of the Municipality of
Malabon, Province of Rizal, declared null and void;
to prevent the collection of surcharges and
penalties for failure to pay the taxes imposed by
the ordinances referred to, except for such failure
from and after the taxpayer shall have been served
with the notice of the effectivity of the ordinances;
and to enjoin the respondents, their agents and all
other persons acting for and in their behalf from
enforcing the ordinances referred to and from
making any collection thereunder. Further,
petitioner prays for such other remedy and relief as
may be deemed just and equitable and asks that
costs be taxed against the respondents
Facts:
The petitioner is the manager of a theater known
as "Cine Concepcion," located and operated in the
Municipality of Malabon, Province of Rizal, and the
respondents are the Municipal Mayor, the Municipal
Council and the Municipal Treasurer, of Malabon.
The petitioner avers that:
>Ordinance No. 61, series of 1946, adopted by the
Municipal Council of Malabon on 8 December 1946,
imposes a license tax of P1,000 per annum on the
said theater in addition to a license tax on all
tickets sold in theaters and cinemas in Malabon,
pursuant to the Ordinance No. 58, series of 1946.
>the municipal license tax paid by the petitioner
on "Cine Concepcion" was P180, pursuant to the
Ordinance No. 9, series of 1945;
>the Respondent adopted Ordinance No. 10, series
of 1947, imposing a graduated municipal license
tax on theaters and cinematographs from P200 to
P9,000 per annum;
>the ordinance was submitted for approval to the
Department of Finance, which reduced the rate of
taxes provided therein, and the ordinance with the
reduced rate of taxes was approved on 3
November 1948;
> notice of reduction of the tax rate and approval
by the Department of Finance of said graduated
municipal license tax provided for in said
Ordinance No. 10, as reduced, was served on the
petitioner when the respondent Municipal Treasurer
presented a bill for collection thereof;
>Ordinance No. 61, is ultra vires and repugnant to
the provisions of the Constitution on taxation;
> its approval was not in accordance with law;
that Ordinance No. 10, series of 1947, is all null
and void, because the Department of Finance that
approved it acted in excess and against the powers
#5b
10
Commission,
to
guarantee
the
faithful
compliance by the Buyer of its obligations under
said contracts.
The Buyer undertook therein to pay for said
vessels the installments specified in a schedule
of payments, appended to each contract. The
schedule for the M/S Don Salvador (ex-M/S
Magsaysay) reads as follows:
RULING:
The decision affirmed from was affirmed by
the SC
11
12
#7
B. Substantive Issues
1. Did the RTC Decision conform to the form and
substance required by the Constitution, the law and
the Rules of Court?
2. May religious leaders like herein petitioner, Bro.
Mike Velarde, be prohibited from endorsing
candidates for public office? Corollarily, may they
be banned from campaigning against said
candidates? (Not answered in the affirmative)
13
During the Oral Argument, Velarde and corespondents strongly asserted that they had
not in any way engaged or intended to
participate in partisan politics. Not even the
alleged proximity of the elections to the time
the Petition was filed below would have
provided the certainty that it had a legal right
that would be jeopardized or violated by any
of those respondents.
Even if the SJS petition asserted a legal right,
there was nevertheless no certainty that such
right would be invaded by the said
respondents.
Parties
bringing
suits
challenging
the
constitutionality of a law, an act or a statute
must demonstrate that they have been, or are
about to be, denied some right or privilege to
which they are lawfully entitled, or that they
are about to be subjected to some burdens or
penalties by reason of the statute or act
complained of.
14
Substantive Issues
15
and
necessarily
involved
in
a
justiciable
controversy and is essential to the protection of the
rights of the parties concerned.
#8
First Division
GR. No. 154380 October 5, 2005
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
v.
CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III
Quisumbing, J.
Given a valid marriage between two Filipino
citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a
foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree
capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino
spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law?
FACTS:
On 24 May 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married
Lady Myros M. Villanueva and their marriage was
blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer
Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V.
Orbecido.
In 1986, his wife left for the United States bringing
along their son Kristoffer. A few years later,
Cipriano discovered that his wife had been
naturalized as an American citizen and sometime
in 2000, learned from his son that his wife had
obtained a divorce decree. His wife then married
Innocent Stanley and is now currently living in San
Gabriel, California with her child by him.
16
#9
LABRADOR, J.:
FACTS:
Therefore,
petitioner's
action
for
declaratory relief is not the proper remedy,
because his desire is to be declared a
Filipino citizen, and because the facts
alleged in his petition constitute no cause
for a declaratory judgment, the judgment
appealed from is affirmed.
#10
17
#11
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 137794
FACTS:
X --------------------------------------------------------x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
18
#12
RULING:
The first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 63
enumerates the subject matter to be inquired upon
in a declaratory relief namely, deed, will, contract
or other written instrument, a statute, executive
order or regulation, or any government regulation.
This Court, in Lerum v. Cruz,[44] declared that the
subject matters to be tested in a petition for
declaratory relief are exclusive,viz:
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari, [1] under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court, filed by petitioner Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), seeking the reversal and setting
aside of the Decision [2] dated 25 January 2007 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76298,
which affirmed in toto the Joint Decision [3] dated
29 May 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati City, Branch 138, in Civil Cases No. 00-1208
and No. 00-1210; and (2) the Resolution [4] dated
14 March 2007 of the appellate court in the same
case which denied the Motion for Reconsideration
of the OSG. The RTC adjudged that respondents
Ayala Land Incorporated (Ayala Land), Robinsons
Land Corporation (Robinsons), Shangri-la Plaza
Corporation (Shangri-la), and SM Prime Holdings,
Inc. (SM Prime) could not be obliged to provide free
parking spaces in their malls to their patrons and
the general public.
19
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE
RULE XIX OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AS HAVING
BEEN ENACTED ULTRA VIRES, HENCE,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE
THE IMPLEMENTING RULES INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT
HAVING BEEN PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS
THE OSGS PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND INJUNCTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
IV
20
RULE 64
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR
RESOLUTIONS OF COMELEC AND COA
#1
EN BANC
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
21
As a result, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed CruzGonzales as the official second nominee of
CIBAC.14 Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as a
Party-List Representative of CIBAC on September
17, 2007.
22
We do not agree.
Ruling:
23
LGU
#2
ISSUES:
BERSAMIN, J.
FACTS:
24
HELD:
25
RULE 65
CERTIORARI
#1
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Subic Bay Distribution, Inc. (SBDI)
entered in two Distributorship Agreements with
petitioner and Able Transport
By virtue of the provisions of the distribution
agreement, petitioner applied for and was granted
a credit line by the United Coconut Planters Bank
(UCPB), International Exchange Bank (IEBank),
Security Bank Corporation (SBC) and Asia United
Bank (AUB) in favor of respondent
All these banks separately executed several
undertakings setting the terms and conditions
governing the drawing of money by respondent
Petitioner allegedly failed to pay her obligations to
respondent despite demand, thus, respondent tried
to withdraw from these bank undertakings
26
#2
FACTS:
27
Sps.
28
ordering
Facts:
RULING:
#3
29
RULING:
The petition is meritorious.
30
#4
February 2, 2011
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 168875
SILVINO ROXAS, SR., represented by FELICISIMA
VILLAFUERTE ROXAS, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA IRENE VDA. DE
MENESES Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
A certiorari writ may be issued if the court or quasijudicial body issues an order with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words,
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or
personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross
as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to
a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to
act at all in contemplation of law. Mere abuse of
discretion is not enough. Moreover, a party is
entitled to a writ of certiorari only if there is no
appeal nor any plain, speedy or adequate relief in
the ordinary course of law.
FACTS:
31
HELD:
#5
#6
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 121438 October 23, 2000
FELIX UY CHUA, ROBERT IPING CHUA, RICHARD UY
CHUA and Atty. FEDERICO C. CABILAO, JR.,
petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SOFIA O. SANCHEZ, assisted
by husband FORTUNATO SANCHEZ, respondents.
QUISUMBING, J.:
32
Facts:
33
#7
Facts:
34
#8
Mendoza J.
Facts:
Public Respondent Commissioner of Internal
Revenue notified Milwaukee of its intent to
examine their books of account and other
accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for
1997 and other unverified prior years. Milwaukee
complied and submitted its documents to CIR.
Subsequently,
CIR
issued
three
undated
assessment notices together with a demand letter
and explanation of the deficiency tax assessments
which Milwaukee allegedly owed totalling to
P173,063,711.58 which include deficiencies on
income tax, expanded withholding and valueadded taxes for the 1997 taxable year.
Ruling:
35
#9
October 5, 2010
Issues:
1. W/N RESPONDENT CTA COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL
EVIDENCE
vs.
FACTS:
36
RULING:
37
#12
#13
Facts:
#10
#11
GREAT
SOUTHERN
MARITIME
SERVICES
CORPORATION, FERRY CASINOS LIMITED and
PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION,
Petitioner
Vs
JENNIFER ANNE B. ACUNA, HAYDEE ANNE B.
ACUNA, MARITES T. CLARION, MARISSA C.
ENRIQUEZ, GRACIELA M. TORRALBA and MARY
PAMELA A. SANTIAGO, respondents
AUSTRIA-Martinez, J. :
Facts/Issue/Ruling :
38
ISSUE/S:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing
Lui Enterprises appeal for lack of subject index,
page references to the record, table of cases ,
textbooks and statutes cited and the statement of
issues in its brief.
RULINGS:
Lui Enterprises did not comply with the rules on the
contents of the appellants brief. (RULE 50,
SECTION 1 PAR.(F) OF 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE)
. Grounds for dismissal of appeal an appeal
maybe dismissed by the CA on its own motion or
on that of the appellee,on the ff grounds:
x xxxxx
(f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the
appellants brief, or of page references to the
record as required in sec. 13, pars. a, c, d, and f of
Rule 44.
These requirements are the subject index of the
matter in brief, page references to the record, and
a table of case alphabetically arranged and with
textbooks and statutes.
LuiEnts failed to show that its failure to answer the
complaint within the required period was due to
excusable negligence. (within 15day requirement
from the day summons was served to the
defendant)
39
40