27.

COURT

PLAINTIFF Korea Exchange Bank

RESPONDENTS PHDI, Hon. Rogelio

Gonzales
Lourdes
de
Mesa
Mendoza, Meneleo Mendoza, Antusa
de Mesa Magno, Francisco Magno,
Teodoro de Mesa, Firmo de Mesa,
and Mercedes de Mesa
1. PHDI, Lourdes de Mesa Mendoza,
Antusa de Mesa Magno, and Teodoro de
Mesa filed a COMPLAINT against Jae II
Aum and KEB with RTC Pampanga.
(1996)
KEB granted a loan US$500,000.00 with
REM in the name of PHDI.
Signatories Jae II Aum and Lourdes
Mendoza.
J
withdrew
US$160K
forging
LM
signature.
J withdrew again, leaving US$163K.
J connived with KEB. LARGE SCALE
ESTAFA. DAMAGES.
Civil Case No. G-3012

2. Filed a MOTION TO DISMISS.

Lack of jurisdiction. SEC dapat!
3. RTC Order: Motion
DENIED!
4. MR!
5. RTC: MR DENIED!
6.
Petition
for
CERTIORARI
prohibition with the CA.
Nullify Orders of RTC.
CA-GR SP No. 43363
7.
CA:
DISMISSED!

and

Petition
8. MR!

9. CA: MR DENIED!
10. Petition for REVIEW on CERTIORARI
with SC
GR No. 139460
11. Meanwhile, KEB filed a COMPLAINT
against Lourdes Mendoza, Meneleo
Mendoza, Antusa Magno, Francisco
Magno, Teodoro de Mesa, Firmo de
Mesa, Mercedes de Mesa Magno and
PHDI with RTC Pampanga.
Sum of money and reformation of REM.
No payment of loan despite demands.
REM: only PHDI as debtor dapat!
Foreclosure and sale in case of failure to
pay within 90 days from notice of
judgment.
Civil Case No. G-3119
12. Motion to DISMISS
Forum shopping. Counterclaim dapat to
sa unang finile namin with RTC (Civil
Case No. G-3012)! LITIS PENDENTIA!
Loan was mentioned in their complaint
13. Opposed the Motion
Unang finile involved corporate fraud,
hence, RTC had no jurisdiction. Litis

pendentia lang if RTC had jurisdiction.

Actions in the cases UNRELATED!
14.
RTC
Order:
Motion to Dismiss
DENIED!
Essential
elements of LP not
present.
15. Ah okay! Filed ANSWER with
COUNTERCLAIMS in Civil Case No. G3119 filed by KEB for sum of money.
Wala kaming utang sa KEB! Niloko kami
ni Jae II Aum. Withdrew based on the
forged signature of Lourdes Mendoza.
Believing he could not validly withdraw
without Lourdes presence, Lourdes
signed withdrawal slips, which Jae used
to withdraw. Js acts constitute LARGE
SCALE ESTAFA. Kaya si Jae actually ang
may utang samin for deceit! For
damages! (alleged as their special and
affirmative defense). At idismiss na tong
kasong to! Excuse me lang. Loan should
be extinguished under the principle of
set-off or compensation. Set off the
$160K na ninakaw ni J in connivance
with you KEB against the $500K na
niloan namin.
16.
1. Motion to DISMISS Answer with
Counterclaims in Civil Case No. G-3119.
No Certification of Non-Forum Shopping!
(Sec. 5 Rule 7)
Causes of action for sum of money and
damages in Civil Case No. G-3012 and
their claim in Civil Case No. G-3119 for
the set-off of the said amount against its
claim of US$500K were identical hence
Counterclaims in Civil Case No. G-3119
should be dismissed for forum shopping
and consequently Complaint in Civil
Case No. G-3012 should likewise be
dismissed!
2. Motion to DISMISS again Complaint in
Civil Case No. G-3012 for forum
shopping.
17. Opposed Motion to Dismiss in CC No.
G-3012
KEB
FAILED
to
INCLUDE
FORUM
SHOPPING as a ground in its Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint; hence, is bound
by
the
OMNIBUS
MOTION RULE.
Nagmotion to dismiss ka na nung una
eh. Motion to dismiss na naman!
Besides, nadismiss na yung Motion to
Dismiss ng CC G-3119 finding that there
was NO LITIS PENDENTIA.
Opposed MD in CC No. G-3119
Subject matter, causes of action, and
the issues are different

18. RTC Order in CC No. G-3012: Motion to Dismiss DENIED!

Causes of action are different.
RTC Order in CC No. G-3119: Motion to Dismiss DENIED! No
forum shopping. Reliefs prayed for were different.
19. MR in both
20. RTC Order: Both
MR DENIED
21. Pet for CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION,
and MANDAMUS with CA
22. CA: affirmed RTC but dismissed counterclaims for moral and
exemplary damages in CC No. G-3119 on the ground of forum
shopping. The counterclaims were merely PERMISSIVE hence
PHDI mandated to append a cert of non forum shopping
23. SC: permissive only not compulsory in nature. Sec. 7 Rule 5
Compulsory Counterclaim arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing partys claim and does not require for its adjudication
the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction
Such counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court
both as to the amount and the nature, except that in an original
action before the RTC the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.
Criteria or tests compulsory or permissive:
1. are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and
counterclaim largely the same
2. would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants
claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule
3. will substantially the same evidence support or refute
plaintiffs claim as well as defendants counterclaim
4. is there any logical relation between the claim and the
counterclaim
28. COURT

BA Finance Corp

Rufino Co, Highline

Lucita
Veloso
Yap,
Supermarket,
San
Commercial, and CA

Mercantile,
Cloverleaf
Andres

COMPLAINT to recover SUM of MONEY

with COUNTERCLAIM (1989)
MOTION TO DISMISS without prejudice
Pet failed to attend at Pre-Trial
Conference
Motion to set reception of evidence in
support of their counterclaim
Opposed
Trial court:
denied

Motion
Elevate to CA

CA: Reversed. Trial

court, iset na yang
reception
of
evidence. Go na!
MR
CA: MR denied
Petition with SC
Dismissal of complaint carries with it the
dismissal of the counterclaim

SC:
Compulsory
counterclaim being
ancillary
to
the
principal controversy
must be dismissed
since no jurisdiction
remains for the grant
of any relief under
the counterclaim. It
merely derives its
jurisdictional support
therefrom.

Sec 3, Rule 17
Do not move for the dismissal of the
complaint; instead, move to have other
party non-suited on the complaint so
that he can no longer present his
evidence, and simultaneously move that
he be declared as in default on the
compulsory counterclaim, and reserve
the right to present evidence ex parte
on his counterclaim. With that the court
retains jurisdiction over the case

29. COURT

PET Ao-As

RES CA

Elements of forum shopping:

1. Identity of parties or at least
such parties represent the same
interests in both actions
2. Identity of rights asserted and
the relief prayed for, the relief
being founded of the same facts
3. Any judgment in the other action
will amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration
30. COURT

PAL, Manolo Aquino, Jorge Ma. Cui,

Jr., and Patricia Chiong

NLRC: PAL GUILTY of

UNFAIR
LABOR
PRACTICE
and
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL
of Bhagwani. PAY
DAMAGES!
NLRC later MODIFIED
its
Decision.
SET
ASIDE finding that
PAL is guilty of
UNFAIR
LABOR
PRACTICE,
but
affirmed the rest of
it.
Petition
for
CERTIORARI
w/
CERTIFICATION
OF
NON-FORUM
SHOPPING executed by Cesar Lamberte
and Susan dela Carmen (NOT PARTIES
TO THE CASE) without any proof they
had authority to sign in behalf of
Petitioners

Flight Attendants and Stewards

Association
of
the
Philippines
(FASAP)
FASAP and Bhagwani filed a COMPLAINT
against Petitioners for UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, ILLEGAL SUSPENSION, and
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL with NLRC. (1997)

CA:
DISMISSED!
FAILURE to show it
was AUTHORIZED by
PAL and failure of
OTHER PARTIES to
JOIN
IN
the
EXECUTION of the
Certificate
MR 1. With SECRETARYS CERTIFICATE to
show it is authorized by Board Reso to
initiate Petitions and Pleadings in all
labor related cases.
2. Other Petitioners are mere NOMINAL
parties. Their failure does not justify
dismissal
CA: Denied!
SC: DENIED!
General Milling Corp
v
NLRC:
Reinstatement
of
petition
allowed.
Signatories at the
time of execution of
Certification
were
authorized to sign.
Only proof of their
authority
was
lacking.

Petition for REVIEW on CERTIORARI

under Rule 45
In the case at bar:
Petition was filed January 24, 2000.
Authority to cause filing of the Petition
was only given on February 15, 2000.
At the time Lambarte and del Carmen
signed the Cert. NOT YET AUTHORIZED,
executed ACTS NOT in REPRESENTATION
of PAL.

The required certification of non-forum

shopping must be VALID at the TIME of
FILING OF PETITION.
An INVALID CERT CANNOT be remedied
by ratification after Petition had been
filed

31. COURT
Barfel Devt Corp, Sps. Barrios
CA, Reginas, Zaragoza
Sps. BARRIOS - SELLER of 2 houses and 2 lots in Alabang. Entered into an Agreement to Buy/Sell with
Zaragoza. ZARAGOZA, Pres. of Reginas - BUYER Warranted that except a mortgage in favor of BPI,
properties are free from all liens! Isa lang sabit nito yung with BPI.
Discovered BARRIOS BLATANT MISREPRESENTATION. Theres an existing 2 nd mortgage with PISO/Central
Bank! 2M, man! Walangjo! Ang kapal ng muka mo!
Barrios: Hindi po yan 2M! 54K na lang po yan. Gagawan ko ng paraan promise para marelease na sa 2 nd
mortgage. Wait lang kayo.
PSB approved loan to Reginas/Zaragoza. Loan to pay properties. Subject to the condition security of real
estate mortgage upon subject properties in favor of PSB. Sent letters to Barrios and BPI about an
agreement to consummate the transaction whereby new titles to the properties would first be transferred
to Reginas/Zaragoza and the mortgage in favor of PSB to be annotated thereon. Once done, PSB to directly
pay BPI from the proceeds of the loan the mortgage obligation of P857K and also pay Barrios the balance
of the purchase price.
While they all agreed, offered the properties for sale to other parties. Continued to fail to secure the realse
of the second mortgage preventing the sale to the damage and prejudice of Reginas.
Filed a COMPLAINT for SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE and DAMAGES (1990)
ANSWER
MOTION for LEAVE TO FILE an AMENDED
COMPLAINT and MOTION to ADMIT the
same
Impleading PISO Bank as ADDITIONAL
PARTY and compel it to accept payment
of existing
Trial Court: Amended
Complaint ADMITTED
MR

MR DENIED
Petition
for
PROHIBITION

CERTIORARI

and

ISSUE: WHETHER an AMENDMENT to the

COMPLAINT pleading a CAUSE OF
ACTION against a NEW/ADDITIONAL
PARTY allowed after the respondents
have rested their case and they have
commenced the presentation of their
evidence
CA. YES
Sec 3 Rule 10
Amendments by leave of court after the case is set for
hearing, substantial amendments may be made only upon
leave of court. But such leave may be refused if it appears to
the court that the motion was made with intent to delay the
action or that the cause of action or defense is substantially
altered
The amendment was made without intent to delay the action.
Liberal interpretation to avoid multiplicity of suits. Cause of
action not substantially altered.
MR
CA: MR DENIED
Pet for Review with SC
SC: REVERSE CA
The correct amount of the 2 nd mortgage
owed by petitioners to PISO bank (a
Substantial
controverted poin would have to be
amendment.
litigated and this could be time
Respondents
will consuming. As a general policy,
have
to
present liberality in allowing amendments is
additional evidence greatest in the early stages of a law suit,
on the PISO second decreases as it progresses and changes
mortgage.
Effect at times to a strictness amounting to a
would be to start prohibition.
trial anew with the
parties
recasting PISO is not an indispensable or
their theories of the necessary party without whom no final
case
determination can be had. PISO is not a
party to the 3 contracts subject of the
action for specific performance and
damages.
Release
of
the
encumbrance/2nd mortgage can be
obtained independently of this case.
Even granting that under Sec 8, Rule 3,
joinder of proper parties is encouraged,
it is merely permissive. Did not even
include BPI as party.
32. COURT

Swagman Hotels and Travel Inc

Complete relief may be accorded even

without PISO. A real interest is a present
substantial interest as distinguished
from a mere expectancy or a future
contingent subordinate or consequential
interest.
Pet for Review granted
Case remanded to the court of origin for
continuation of the presentation of
evidence

CA, Neal Christian

NEAL CHRISTIAN extended LOANS TO
SWAGMAN HOTELS (1996 and 1997)
totaling to US$150K evidenced by
promissory notes wherein an interest of
15% per annum was stipulated. For a
while, was paid the 15% but sometime
later was only paid 6%.
Neal Christian filed a COMPLAINT for
SUM OF MONEY and DAMAGES with RTC

Baguio (1999) Pay me now the entire

loan!
ANSWER: DISMISS Complaint for LACK
OF CAUSE OF ACTION and NOVATION of
principal obligations.

RTC: When the case

was filed, none of
the PNs was due and
demandable. As of
this date however,
the first 2 PNs have
already
matured,
hence,
due
and
demandable!
No
novation. The parties
merely intended to
reduce the interest
to 6%! PAY UP!

Di pa due and demandable yung

promissory notes noh! HELLOO! At nagagree ka pa to waive the 15% interest
remember and accept payments of
principal loans in installment basis the
amount and period of which would
depend on the state of the business
since bankrupt na nga kami!
Sec 5 Rule 10 a complaint, which states
no cause of action, may be cured by
evidence presented without objection.
Thus even if plaintiff had no cause of
action at the time he filed the instant
complaint as defendants obligation are
not yet due and demandable then he
may nevertheless recover on the first 2
PNs in view of the introduction of
evidence showing that they are not due
and demandable
Appeal to CA

CA: affirmed RTC

MR
CA: MR Denied!
SC (2005) Petition
GRANDTED.
Case
DISMISSED
Sec 2 Rule 2 cause
of action is the act or
omission by which a
party violated the
right of another.

Findings of fact of
the trial court and
the Court of Appeals
are
final
and
conclusive
and
cannot be reviewed
on appeal to the SC
as long as borne out
by the record or are
based on substantial
evidence. The SC is
not a trier of facts,
its
jurisdiction
limited to reviewing
only errors of law

Petition to SC
RTCs interpretation of Sec 5 Rule 10 is
erroneous. It 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. Evidence may be
presented during trial and complaint
accordingly amended thereafter.

Exceptions: when the finding of fact of

the lower courts is not supported by the
evidence on record or is based on a
misapprehension of facts.
Art. 1253 debt produces interest,
principal not be deemed paid until
interest has been covered. Respondent
would not have signed the receipts if
payment of interest was still subsisting.
Receipts were for the principal loan
(monthly installment of US$750) and
interest was waived. There was a
novation.

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
filed
by
the
defendant.
No person should be summoned before
the public tribunals to answer for
complaints which are immature
SWAGMAN WINS!

that may have been

committed by the
lower courts.

Petitioner did not renege on its

obligation conformably with their new
agreement and even continued paying
during the pendency of the case. No
cause of action.

33. COURT
Shoemart Inc.
CA, Anson Emporium Corp
SHOEMART OWNED a building, Makati Arcade. ANSON LEASED a portion of the building. P18K/month.
Stipulated that after TERMINATION of the lease, should the TENANT be ALLOWED to REMAIN in
possession, it is agreed upon that the lease shall be on a MONTH TO MONTH BASIS
Anson REMAINED after 2 years on an INCREASED RENTAL of P34K. WTF!
4 years later, SM: I TERMINATE the month to month lease. Kindly VACATE.
Anson: Wapakels. Continued to STAY .
Shoemart filed a COMPLAINT for
EJECTMENT against Anson (1977) with
MTC Makati. Ayaw umalis ni Anson,
grabe!
Anson filed an ANSWER:
TRUE AGREEMENT was a lease for a
period of 24 YEARS noh! NOT a MONTH
TO MONTH lease. Sinungaling ka, SM.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT:
RENTAL of all the tenants had been
INCREASED to P45K which Anson
refused to pay. Renta ng renta, wala
namang pambayad!
ANSWER to SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT:
INCREASED RENTAL fee was BARRED by
estoppel,
novation,
statute
of
frauds/limitations, condonation, release,
and/or laches and in any event,
UNCONSCIONABLE. Oa ng increase mo
ha!
MTC: in favor of
ANSON!
Complaint
DISMISSED.
Appealed to RTC
RTC:
REVERSED
DISMISSAL by MTC.
Vacate
and
pay,
Anson!
MR to INCREASE amount of DAMAGES in
the form of reasonable compensation for
the use and occupation of the premises
awarded. Thanks po kagalang-galang na
hukuman sa pagrender ng favorable
decision para sakin, pero pwede po
padagdag ng amount of damages?
Medyo kulang po eh hehehe!
MR
RTC:
Ansons
MR
Denied.
RTC: SM MR Granted.
Sige!
DAGDAGAN
yan.
Appealed to CA to REDUCE AMOUNT of

DAMAGES. SM failed to present any

board
resolution
approving
and
accepting the imposition of higher
rentals, therefore, award of damages
limited
CA:
Ansons
ejectment affirmed.
Amount of damages
REDUCED. SM failed
to present evidence
on their approved
and accepted rental
increases and the
supplemental
complaint
limited
itself only to P45K.

SC: REVERSED CA
SM WINS!
Recovery not limited
to
amount
in
supplemental. This is
not a case of an
original
complaint
getting
abandoned
or
inexistent
because
its
amendment
takes
form
as
a
sole
substitute.
The
amendment aids the
original to supply
deficiencies.
The
original exists side
by side with the
supplemental.
The
original stated, to
pay P34K AND ALL
OTHER
RENTALS
AND CHARGES THAT
MAY BE DUE UNTIL
SUCH TIME ANSON
VACATES
34. COURT

Pet for REVIEW ON CERTIORARI with SC.

Lugi man ako! Pumayag na nga RTC
dagdagan eh. Binaba pa ulit ng CA. May
daya!
In the course of the trial, SM presented
EVIDENT re the 4 rental increases
(although 3 of the 4 were not alleged in
the pleadings) to which Anson DID NOT
OBJECT. Judgment may be rendered
validly as regards the, which shall be
considered as if they have been raised
in the pleadings. Sec 5 Rule 10 When
issues not raised by the pleadings are
tried in all respects, as if they had been
raised
in
the
pleadings.
Such
amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to
the evidence and to raise these issues
may be made upon motion of any party
at any time, even after judgment; but
failure to so amand does not affect the
result of the trial of these issues

Cesar Virata

MOTION TO DISMISS on various grounds

including FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF
ACTION
Sandiganbayan:
DENIED
MR
Sandigan: Denied

Ansons Answer made no reference to a

board reso. Having failed to raise the
board reso as a defense, it is deemed to
have waived the same (Sec 2 Rule 9).
Burden of proof to show rental increases
were unconscionable rests upon Anson
as lessee. Failed to discharge its burden
when omitted to present evidence on
what it considers as the fair rental value.
Other tenants did not question the
reasonableness and paid
Only damage that can be recovered in
an ejectment suit is the fair rental value
or the reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation of real property.
Other damages must be claimed in an
ordinary action

Sandiganbayan and People

Republic of the Phils filed a COMPLAINT
with the SANDIGANBAYAN. Among the
defendants was Virata. (1987)
Complaint amended thrice and last
amendment
denominated
as
the
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Special civil action for CERTIORARI with

SC
SC:
Affirmed
Sandiganbayan
MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
Could not prepare an intelligent and
adequate pleading in view of the
general
and
sweeping
allegations
against him in the Second Amended
Complaint
Illegal acts imputed to him causes of
action are vague and ambiguous. Not
averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity
Sandigan: GRANTED
PARTIALLY
Of the 4 actionable
wrongs enumerated
in the MBP, only 1
needs
further
amplification the rest
being evidentiary in
nature
Petition under Rule 65 with SC
SC: OVERRULED Sandigan.
Couched in general terms. Similar with the case of Tantuico. Rule 12 not only to properly prepare a
responsive pleading but also to prepare an INTELLIGENT ANSWER, which requires information.
Significant bec defenses not impleaded in the answer or motion to dismiss deemed waived. Issues have
not been joined and evidence has been adduced so Sandigan was in no position to conclude that the
matters are evidentiary in nature or within his intimate or personal knowledge
35. COURT

Lucio Tan, et al

22 Petitioners filed a Motion for a BILL

OF PARTICULARS.
Sandiganbayan:
DENIED
Bill
Particulars

of
MR. PCGGs averments are BARE
GENERALIZATIONS,
PRESUMOTUOUS
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT and LAW, and
PLAIN SPECULATIONS

Sandigan:
MR
Denied.
Expanded
Complaint
already
supplied
the
particulars lacking in
the
original
Complaint. Outlined
IN
DETAIL
the
names, dates, facts
and figures.

Sandiganbayan and Republic of the

Phils represented by Presidential
Commission on Good Government
(PCGG)
PCGG filed a COMPLAINT against the 22
Petitioners with Pres. Marcos and
Imelda, etc for the RETURN and
RECONVEYANCE
of
MONEY
and
PROPERTY IN TRUST (1987)
EXPANDED COMPLAINT

SC:
AFFIRMED
Sandiganbayan.
PCGG WINS!
Before responding to
a pleading, within 10
days after service of
the pleading upon
him, a party may
move for a MBP. If
filed beyond, should
be outrightly denied.
When filed on time,
same time to serve
his
responsive
pleading not less
than 5 days
Amended complaint
sufficient

A motion for a bill of particulars, not a

motion to dismiss, is the proper remedy
against a deficient pleading. In one
case, it was held that in that event a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a
cause of action should be treated as a
motion for a bill of particulars.

36. COURT

Ruben Saw, Dionisio Saw, Lina

Chua, Lucila Ruste, and Evelyn Saw

PCGGs Complaint is not organized in

many respects, but this is no excuse for
sloth on the part of the petitioners.
(1989)

To amplify or limit a pleading to avoid

surprise attacks and prepare an
intelligent answer.
If confused or unaware of the
allegations, the remedy is to deny them
in their answer for lack of knowledge to
form a belief as to the truth of. Cannot
demand for more particulars making
PCGG
to
expose
its
evidence
unnecessarily before trial stage.

CA,
Judge
Pardo,
Freeman
Management
and
Devt
Corp,
Equitable Banking Corp, Freeman
Inc, Saw Chiao Lian, RD Caloocan,
Deputy Sheriff Sigua
Saw Chiao Lian, PRESIDENT and GEN. MANAGER of FREEMAN INC. contracted LOANS with Equitable Bank .
Equitable Bank filed a COMPLAINT for
COLLECTION of SUM of MONEY against
Freeman Inc and Saw Chiao Lian with
RTC Manila. (1987)
Saw, et al filed a MOTION to INTERVENE.
Loan transactions not approved by
STOCKHOLDERS, Saw Chiao Lian no
AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT loans, and
Equitable Bank and Saw Chiao Lian
CONNIVED in securing the loan.
Meanwhile, Equitable entered into a
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT with Saw
Chiao Lian which was approved by lower
court. But NOT COMPLIED with. Two
LOTS owned by FREEMAN INC. levied
upon and sold at PUBLIC AUCTION to
Freeman Management and Devt Corp.
RTC: Motion DENIED.
CA SUSTAINED DENIAL. Compromise agreement will not
prejudice Saw et al as stockholders whose rights to corporate
assets are at most inchoate.
Sec 2 Rule 12 intervention proper only when ones RIGHT is
ACTUAL, MATERIAL, DIRECT, and IMMEDIATE and not simply
contingent or expectant.
Petitioners right to intervene for protection of their interests as
stockholders
Equitable suit is in personam will not prejudice stockholders
SC affirmed CA
Besides, no more principal action to be resolved as writ of
execution had already been satisfied. Decision of the lower
court had already become final and in fact had already been

enforeced. Thre is theretofore no more principal proceeding in

which the petitioners may intervene.
Intervention is merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to the
principal action and not an independent proceeding.
37. COURT

Metropolitan Bank

Presiding
Judge,
RTC,
Raycor
Aircontrol System and CA
Aircon units were installed on a loan it extended to Good Earth in its building in Sta. Cruz Manila after the
land and building foreclosed and purchased at public auction by defendant Raycor. To secure the loan,
Good Earth executed chattel mortgage over properties which included the aircon units.
METROBANK filed a COMPLAINT for
REPLEVIN against Uniwide and BPI
Investment Corp and other banks
collectively called BPI-Consortium for
the RECOVERY of the AIRCON UNITS or
in the event they may not be recovered,
for defendants which acquired Good
Earth building in an auction sale to pay
jointly and severally Metrobank the
unpaid obligations on the units. (1986)
RAYCOR Motion for LEAVE to INTERVENE
I have a direct and immediate interest
on the subject matter.
Motion ADMITTED
ANSWER to the intervention complaint
Metrobank AND UNIWIDE: Motion for
POSTPONEMENT of the HEARING within
which to submit a COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT.
Joint Motion to DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Trial Court: Dismiss
with PREJUDICE
MR
I was not furnished with a copy of the
joint motion to dismiss and received the
order of dismissal so late na.
MR granted
Motion
to
ADMIT
INTERVENTION COMPLAINT

AMENDED

OPPOSITION
REPLY
REJOINDER
Amended
Intervention
ADMITTED
Pet for Certiorari with SC
Motion for extention to file answer to
amended complaint
OPPOSITION. Metrobank
declared IN DEFAULT
Granted
Motion

Metros
Answer with Counterclaim
Petition for certiorari and mandamus
with CA

CA dismissed

should

be

SC: no final dismissal

of the main case.
Reinstatement of the
case is proper.
When intervenor has
been permitted to
become a party, any
settlement made by
the
plaintiff
and
defendant
is
necessarily
ineffective
unless
the intervenor is a
party to it. He had
submitted
himself
and his cause of
action
to
the
jurisdiction of the
court and is entitled
to relief as though

he were himself a party in the action

After the intervenor has appeared in the
action, the plaintiff has no absolute right
to put the intervenor out f court by the
dismissal of the action.
In the case at bar, a reading of the
amended complaint in intervention
shows that it merely supplements an
incomplete allegation of the cause of
action stated in the original complaint
so as to submit the real matter in
dispute.
Contrary
to
petitioner's
contention, it does not substantially
change intervenor's cause of action or
alter the theory of the case, hence its
allowance is in order.
In determining whether a different cause
of action is introduced by amendments
to the complaint, what is

to be ascertained is whether the

defendant shall be required to answer
for a liability or legal obligation wholly
different from that which was stated in
the original complaint. An amendment
will not be considered as stating a new
cause of action if the facts alleged in the
amended complaint show substantially
the same wrong with respect to the
same transaction, or if what are alleged
refer to the same matter but are more
fully and differently stated, or where
averments which were implied are made
in expressed terms, and the subject of
the controversy or the liability sought to
be enforced remains the same.
The fact that the court dismissed
plaintiffs action doest not require
dismissal of the action of the intervenor