Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 101

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

JURISDICTION:
Jurisdiction the power and authority of the court to hear,
try and decide a case. Jurisprudence considers jurisdiction to
include the authority to execute the decisions rendered by the
court.
Jurisdiction may be a matter of object, nature, and
extent:
As of nature:
1. Original
2. Appellate
As of extent:
1. Exclusive
2. Concurrent
As of object:
1. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter;
2. Jurisdiction over the Parties;
3. Jurisdiction over the Issues;
4. Jurisdiction over the Res;
5. Jurisdiction over the Territory.
I. JURISDICTION AS A MATTER OF NATURE:
A. Original Exercised by court to take cognizance of
cases for the first time
B. Appellate Exercised by court to take cognizance
of a case for the second, or third time.

II.

JURISDICTION
EXERCISE

AS

MATTER

OF

EXTENT

OF

A. Exclusive Confined to a particular court, with the


exclusion of other courts.
B. Concurrent Possessed by courts together with
other courts.
Concurrent jurisdiction is applied in ORIGINAL
Jurisdiction. There is no such thing as Concurrent
Appellate Jurisdiction.
PRINCIPLES
APPLIED
TO
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION:
1. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts Lower
courts shall initially decide a case before it
is considered by a higher court.
XPN: 2. Doctrine of Transcendental
Importance The doctrine of hierarchy of
courts can be dispensed with when the
redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts.
e.g.
a. Special and important reasons clearly
stated in the petition;
b. When dictated by public welfare and
advancement of public policy;
c. When demanded by broader interest
of justice;
d. When challenged orders were patent
nullities; or
e. When analogous exceptional and
compelling circumstances called for

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


and justified the immediate and
direct handling of the case.

PHILIPPINE
TERMINALS

AEDC filed a petition for Declaration of


Nullity of the Proceedings, Mandamus
and Injunction against the DOTC
Secretary directly to the Supreme Court
on the ground that workers of
international service providers shall lose
their
employment
upon
the
implementation of the agreements.

Asias Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC)


submitted an unsolicited proposal to
the DOTC for the development of NAIA
III, under a BOT agreement.

Respondent alleged that the case has


already been subject to arbitration
proceedings. Also, the Supreme Court
has no jurisdiction to try the case as it
is in violation of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.

Pursuant to this project, a Bids and


Awards Committee (BAC) was created by
the DOTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme


Court may take cognizance of the case
at bar.

One of the challengers of AEDC was


PHILCARGO, which was incorporated to
private respondent PIATCO.

HELD: YES.

3. Supreme Court is not a trier of Facts

AGAN
vs.
INTERNATIONAL
CO.
May 5, 2003

AIR

The BAC formally informed AEDC that


it had accepted the price proposal
submitted by PIATCO, and gave AEDC
30 days to match the bid, otherwise, the
project would be awarded to PIATCO.
AEDC failed to match the same, hence,
PIATCOs proposal was submitted to
NEDA. Later on, the project was
awarded to PIATCO.

The rule on hierarchy of courts will not


prevent this Court from assuming
jurisdiction over the cases at bar. The
said rule may be relaxed when the
redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts or where
exceptional
and
compelling
circumstances justify availment of a
remedy within and calling for the
exercise of this Courts primary
jurisdiction.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

The cases are of transcendental


importance
as
they
involve
the
construction and operation of the
countrys premier international airport.
Also, the instant controversy involves
significant legal questions. The facts
necessary to resolve these legal
questions are well established and,
hence, need not to be determined by a
trial court.
Also,
petitioners
have
presented
legitimate
interests in the resolution of
the controversy, but are not
parties to the PIATCO
contracts.
Hence,
arbitration will not lie.

Power of Judicial Review:


(1) is original
(2) Is appellate

LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONA


vs. CITY MAYOR OF MANILA
January 21, 2004
See discussion in the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, in relation to hierarchy of
courts.
The concurrence of jurisdiction is not,
however, to be taken as according to
parties seeking any of the writs an
absolute, unrestrained freedom of
choice of the court to which application

thereof will be directed. There is after all


a hierarchy of courts.
The hierarchy is determinative of the
venue of appeals, and also serves as a
general determinant of the appropriate
forum for petitions for extraordinary
writs.
The issuance of extraordinary writs
against first legal courts should be filed
with the Regional Trial Court, and those
against the latter, with the CA. A direct
invocation of the Supreme Courts
original jurisdiction to issue these writs
should be allowed only when there are
special and important reasons thereof,
clearly and specifically set out in the
petition.
The disregard of the hierarchy of courts
should be put to halt for two reasons:
(1) it would be an imposition upon the
precious time of this court; and (2) it
would cause an inevitable delay,
intended
or
otherwise,
in
the
adjudication of cases, which in some
instances had to be remanded or
referred to the lower courts as the
proper forum under the rules of
procedure, or as better equipped to
resolve the issues because the Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


III. JURISDICTION AS A MATTER OF OBJECT
A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
The power to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong and
is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes
the court and defines its powers. (Reyes vs. Diaz,
November 1941)
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is conferred by
the Constitution or by law.
1. Sec. 5, Art. VIII (8), 1987 Constitution
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus;
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question


of law is involved.
2. Laws that confer jurisdiction over the subject
matter:
(1) BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980), as amended by RA 7691 (An Act
The law confers jurisdiction over the subject
matter, except with the Supreme Court
because the Constitution confers jurisdiction
over it. (Atty. Brondial)
Expanding
the
Jurisdiction
of
the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the
Purpose, BP 129, otherwise known as the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
(2) RA no. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997);
(3) RA no. 7975 (An Act to Strengthen the
Functional and Structural Organization of
Circular No. 20 which designated several Regional Trial
Courts as Circuit Criminal Courts has already been
abolished.
Courts created by law (e.g. Family Courts) can only be
abolished by law. It cannot be abolished by the
Supreme Court through a mere circular. However,
courts created by the Supreme Court (e.g. IPL Courts
and Circuit Criminal Courts) can be abolished by the
SC any time. (Atty. Brondial)
the Sandiganbayan, Amending for that
Purpose PD no. 1606, as Amended).

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


(4) SC-AO No. 113-95 (Designation of Special
Courts for Intellectual Property Rights)

b. TIMELY payment of the CORRECT


and COMPLETE docket fees. (Alday
vs. FGU Insurance)
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the
Defendant. How acquired?
a. VALID service of summons; OR
b. Voluntary Appearance in Court.

B. Jurisdiction over the Parties


It is the legal power of the court to render personal
judgment against a party to an action or proceeding.
In Civil Actions:
(1) Plaintiff;
(2) Defendant;
(3) Co-defendant;
(4) 3rd, 4th, etc. co-defendants;
(5) intervenor
In Criminal Actions:
(1) Plaintiff;
(2) Accused;
Special Proceeding:
(1) Petitioner
XPN: In a petition for Habeas Corpus,
there are respondents.
1. Jurisdiction over the person of the Plaintiff.
How acquired?
a. By filing of the complaint; AND

What about the 3rd. 4th, etc. party defendant? same


with the defendant.
What about the intervenor? Rule 19. Jurisdiction over
the intervenor is acquired when the court grants the
motion for leave of court to intervene. (Atty. Brondial)
C. Jurisdiction over the Issues
The power of the court to try and decide the issues
raised in the pleadings of the parties.
Is it necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the issue? Yes.
Do you
also of
acquire
ondid
the not
person through
e.g. in an action
for sum
money,jurisdiction
the pleading
seizure
of the res?
NO.
assert the issue
of demand
to pay.
limitation to the jurisdiction over the res, relief is
What will be As
theaeffect?
only to
theno
extent
of the property.
If there
The court
has
jurisdiction
on the issue
of is a balance
(the
value
of
the
claim
exceeds
the
demand, and the plaintiff cannot submitvalue of the
property),
plaintiff cannot claim from the defendant.
evidence
on the the
same.
What is the remedy of the plaintiff?
To amend the complaint. An amendment to
conform to evidence under Sec. 5, Rule 10.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and
determined by the pleadings of the parties. The
pleadings present the issues to be tried and determine
whether these are fact or law.
An issue is a disputed point or question to which
parties to an action have narrowed down their several
allegations and upon which they are desirous of
obtaining a decision.
D. Jurisdiction over the res
How is the jurisdiction over the res acquired?
1. By seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law. (e.g. Attachment); or
2. As a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court
is recognized or made effective.
E. Jurisdiction over the territory
Only applies in criminal cases and not to civil cases.
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. In civil
cases, venue is a matter of place.

Is it necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over


the res?
NO. Jurisdiction over the res is only required
when jurisdiction over the parties cannot be
acquired.

Venue place where jurisdiction is to be exercised.


PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINES INVOLVING JURISDICTION:
Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be
waived by the parties, or even cured by their silence,
acquiescence

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


and judges of lower courts, whether or not such
complaints deal with acts apparently unrelated
to the discharge of their official functions.

JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CIVIL CASES


I. SUPREME COURT
Article VIII (8), Sec. 5 (1), (2)
A. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
Petitions of Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition
against the:
1. Court of Appeals;
2. Commission on Elections, under Rule 66;
3. Commission on Audit;
4. Sandiganbayan;
5. Court of Tax Appeals (EN BANC);
6. Appellate Shariah Courts (Lomondot vs.
Balindog)
Disbarment cases (administrative cases) is
exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
not include criminal cases filed against
justices. (Office of the Court Admnistrator
Sardido, April 25, 2003)

within the
but it does
judges or
vs. Judge

OCA vs. JUDGE SARDIDO


April 25, 2003
Private complainant accused Judge Hurtado
and others of the crime of Falsification by
Private Individual and Use of Falsified
Documents.
Judge Hurtado filed a motion to dismiss
contending that the case should be forwarded
to the SC. He alleged that pursuant to SC
Circular No. 3-89, all cases involving justices

The MTC, presided by respondent judge


excluded Judge Hurtado and stated that it will
not try the case unless the Supreme Court says
otherwise.
ISSUE: Whether or not the MTC has
jurisdiction over the offense of the accused.
HELD: YES.
SC Circular No. 3-89 is a clarification of the
previous circular released by the Supreme
Court. Under the said circular, The IBP
Governors may motu proprio or upon referral
by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of
Officers, or at the instance of any person,
initiate and prosecute proper charges against
erring attorneys including those in the
government service.
The phrase attorneys xxx in the government
service does not include justices of appellate
courts and judges of lower courts who are not
subject to the disciplining authority of the IBP.
Under Circular No. 3-89, the Supreme Court
has vested the IBP to refer to the Supreme
Court for appropriate actions all administrative
cases filed with the IBP against justices and
judges of lower courts.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


ALL administrative cases against justices and
judges fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court.
Circular No. 3-89 does not refer to criminal
cases against erring justices and judges. Trial
Courts retain jurisdiction over the criminal
aspect of the offense committed by justices and
judges of lower courts.
In the case given, the case filed against Judge
Hurtado is criminal, hence, the jurisdiction of
the same lies with the proper courts.
B. ORIGINAL CONCURRENT
1. With the CA:
Petitions
for
Certiorari,
Mandamus
Prohibition against the:
a. RTC;
b. Civil Service Commission;
c. Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
d. NLRC
e. Other quasi-judicial agencies
f. Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan

or

2. With the RTC and CA


Petitions for:
a. Habeas Corpus;
b. Quo Warranto
c. Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus against
inferior courts and other bodies.
3. With the RTC, CA and Sandiganbayan
Petitions for:

a. Writ of Amparo
b. Writ of Habeas Data
4. With the RTC
Cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls
C. APPELLATE
By petition for review on Certiorari (Rule 45)
against:
1. CA
2. Sandiganbayan
3. RTC on pure questions of Law
4. In cases involving the constitutionality or
validity of a treaty, international agreement
or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax,
impost, assessment, toll or penalty.

DONATO
vs. CA
December
8, 2003

Art. 8, Sec. 5(2) does not state appeal but


states the power of judicial review. How will
the SC exercise its power of judicial review?
By (1) Rule 45; or (2) Rule 65.

Petitioner was the registered owner of a parcel


of land. He filed a case for unlawful detainer
against 43 defendants.
20 defendants filed their answer wherein they
alleged that the Urban Law Reform Law
guarantees security of tenure.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


On the decision of the MeTC, the nonanswering defendants were ordered to vacate
the property but the 20 defendants who filed
their answer were favored by the court.

or the act complained of was perpetrated by a


court with grave abuse of discretion, the proper
remedy available is a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.

Petitioner appealed to the RTC. The RTC


sustained the decision of the MeTC.

An error of judgment is one which the court


may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction,
and which error is reviewable only by appeal.

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA.


The appellate court dismissed the same on the
ground of non-compliance with the rules on
the certification of non-forum shopping and
non-compliance with Sec. 3, Rule 6.
Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule
65.

An error of jurisdiction is one where the act


complained of was issued by the court, officer
or quasi-judicial body without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
which is tantamount to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction. This error is correctible only by
the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is


assailing the jurisdiction of the MeTC thereby
warranting a resort to Rule 65.
HELD: YES
The present petition principally assails the
dismissal of the petition on the ground of
procedural flaws involving the jurisdiction of
the CA to entertain the petition. Hence, it falls
within the ambit of a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65.

LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL vs.


CITY MAYOR OF MANILA
January 21, 2004

The proper recourse of an aggrieved party from


a decision of the CA is a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45. However, if the error,
subject of the recourse, is one of jurisdiction,

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Error of Jurisdiction
Petitioner is the national organization of all the barangays in
the Philippines.
Respondent City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No.
8039, series of 2002, providing among other things, for the
election of representatives of the District Chapters in the City
of Manila and setting elections for both chapters thirty days
after the barangay elections.
Petitioner instituted a petition for certiorari
with preliminary injunction with TRO to the
Supreme Court. It assailed that the said
ordinance contradicts the Liga Election Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for
certiorari may be taken cognizance by the SC.
HELD: NO.
In order for Rule 65 to lie, the following
requisites must be present:
(1) it must be directed against a tribunal,
board, or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions;
(2) the tribunal, board, or officer must have
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or in excess of jurisdiction; and
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law.
A body is said to be exercising judicial function
where he has the power to determine what the

10

Error of Judgment
Committed mistakes
in the appreciation of
facts and evidence
Cannot
be
collaterally attacked.
It is binding upon
the
parties
until
annulled.

Proceeding
is
an
absolute
nullity,
confers no rights and
affords no protection,
and can be subject to
collateral attack.
law is and what the legal rights of the parties
are, and then undertakes to determine these
questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the
parties.
Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is a
term which applies to the actions, discretion,
etc., of public administrative officers or
bodies required to investigate facts or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings,
and draw conclusions from them as a basis for
their official action and to exercise discretion of
a judicial nature.
The respondents do not fall within the ambit of
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. The exercise of the
City Council of Manila was done in its
legislative and executive functions.
Also, the instant petition is styled as a petition
for certiorari but, in essence, seeks the
declaration
by
this
Court
of
the
unconstitutionality
or
illegality
of
the
questioned ordinance and executive order. It
thus partakes of a petition for declaratory relief

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


over which this Court has only appellate, not
original jurisdiction.
Under Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution:
xxx
2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm
on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a)
All
cases
in
which
the
constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or
executive
agreement,
law,
presidential
decree,
proclamation,
order,
instruction,
ordinance,
or
regulation is in question.
As such, the petition must necessarily fall. This
Court has no original jurisdiction over a
petition for declaratory relief even if only
questions of law are involved.
Also, there is a clear disregard of the hierarchy
of courts. No special and important reason or
exceptional and compelling circumstances has
been adduced by the petitioner why direct
recourse to this Court should be allowed.
We have held that this Courts original
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction is not exclusive but is
concurrent with the RTC and CA in certain
cases.

11

II. COURT OF APPEALS


Sec. 9, BP 129
A. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
Actions for annulment of judgments of the RTC. (Rule 47,
Sec. 1)
Final Judgment
rendered

vs.

Remedies:
1. Appeal
2. New Trial
3. Reconsideration

Executory Judgment
entered

1. Relief from judgment


2. Annulment of
judgment

B. ORIGINAL CONCURRENT
Can the CA annul judgments of the MTC?
No. The remedy is to file a petition to annul the
judgment with the RTC (Sec. 10, Rule 47).
There is no annulment of judgment in criminal cases
because of double jeopardy.
Issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs and
processes whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


C. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, orders or
awards of RTC, quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commission, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Civil Service Commission,
except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,
the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, the
provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph 1 of the third
paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the 4 th paragraph of
Sec. 17 of BP 129.
III. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
A. Regular RTC;
B. Special Criminal Courts;
C. Intellectual Property Courts;
D. Special Commercial Courts
A. Regular Regional Trial Courts
Sec. 19, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
a. In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
b. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the property
involved exceeds 20,000 or, for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such value exceeds 50,000;
assessed value worth or value of property
established by taxing authorities on the basis of which
the tax rate is applied. (Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of
Legaspi, September 12, 2008)

12

ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS, (e.g. promissory notes) the


cause of the action is the BREACH in the contract.
Hence, they are incapable of pecuniary estimation.
c.

In all actions in admiralty and maritime


jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds
300,000 outside Metro Manila, or exceeds
400,000 in Metro Manila;

d. In all matters of probate, both testate and


intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds 300,000 outside Metro Manila, or
exceeds 400,000 in Metro Manila;
The jurisdiction of the MTC or the RTC, as the case
may be, involving matters of probate is in the exercise of
its LIMITED JURISDICTION. Meaning, probate courts
can only determine the authenticity and due execution
of the will, and nothing else. This however, is subject to
exceptions. See your Wills.
e. In cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising juridical or quasi-judicial
functions;
An action capable of pecuniary estimation is one which
may be satisfied with money. If money is incidental,
then the subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
e.g. A obtained a loan from B evidenced by a promissory
note. IF the relief prayed for is specific performance OR
payment of 100,000 pesos the same is capable of
pecuniary estimation.
If the relief prayed for is specific performance AND
payment then the same is Incapable of pecuniary
estimation.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

f. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling


within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of
the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided
by law; and
g. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive
of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds 300,000
pesos outside Metro Manila, or exceeds 400,000
pesos in Metro Manila.
2. ORIGINAL (CONCURRENT)
Sec. 21, BP 129
a. Issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of
their respective regions; and
b. In actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls
3. APPELLATE
Sec. 22, BP 129
Over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions.
4.
SPECIAL

13

XPN: When the MTC exercises delegated


jurisdiction
in
cadastral
and
land
registration cases, the decision of the MTC
shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals.

Sec. 23, BP 129


The Supreme Court may designate certain branches
may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial
Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile
and domestic relation cases, agrarian cases, urban
land reform cases which do not fall under the
jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies
and/or other special cases as the Supreme Court may
determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
5. RESIDUAL
xxx
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original
record or the record on appeal, the court may issue
orders for the protection and preservation of the rights
of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated
by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of
indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in
accordance with Sec. 2, Rule 39, and allow withdrawal
of the appeal. (Rule 41, Sec. 9 (5th paragraph)
Residual Prerogative (Sec. 1, Rule 9) is different from
Residual Jurisdiction (Sec. 9, Rule 41).
KATON vs, PALANCA
September 7, 2004
Petitioner filed an action for the reclassification of a
piece of land in Puerto Princesa, Palawan.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Upon investigation, the Director of Lands found out
that homestead patents have already been issued in
favor of the respondent.
Hence, petitioner filed an action with the RTC seeking
to nullify the homestead patents and original
certificates of title issued in favor of the respondent.
He claims that the patents should be issued to him
because he was the one who requested for the
conversion of the said lands.
On a motion to dismiss, respondent alleged that
petitioner was defiant of the courts order to amend his
complaint to effect a substitution by the legal heirs of
one of the respondents. The motion was granted by the
Trial Court.
On petition for certiorari with the CA, the appellate
court ruled on the merits of the case, instead of
resolving whether or not there is abuse of discretion in
deciding the Motion to Dismiss.
The CA, however, corrected itself and motu propio
dismissed the petition on the ground of prescription
and lack of jurisdiction, invoking its residual
prerogative.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA is correct in invoking its
alleged residual prerogative.
HELD:

14

According to the petitioner, residual prerogative refers


to the power that the trial court, in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction, may still validly exercise even
after perfection of an appeal.
Petitioner is mistaken. He has confused residual
jurisdiction with residual prerogative.
Residual prerogative are the general residual powers of
the courts to dismiss an action motu proprio upon the
grounds mentioned in Sec.1, Rule 9 and under
authority of Sec. 2, Rule 1.
Under Sec. 1, Rule 9, defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived, except when (1) lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res
judicata and (4) prescription are evident from the
pleadings or the evidence on record. In the four
excepted instance, the court shall motu proprio
dismiss the claim or action.
In Gamboa vs. Larin, the motu propio dismissal of a
case was traditionally limited to instances when the
court clearly had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter and when the plaintiff did not appear during
trial, failed to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time or neglected to comply with the rules or
with any order of the court. Outside of these
instances, any motu propio dismissal would amount to
violation of the right of the plaintiff to be heard. Except
for the qualifying and expanding of Sec. 2, Rule 9, and
Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
there has been no radical change.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

On the other hand, residual jurisdiction is embodied


in Rule 41, Sec. 9. The residual jurisdiction of trial
courts is available at a stage in which the court is
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case
or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage
is reached upon the perfection of appeals by the
parties or upon the approval of the records of appeal,
but prior to the transmittal of the original records or
records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court
still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue
protective orders, approve compromises, permit
appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending
appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.

B. FAMILY COURTS
RA 8369
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
a. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is
below 18 years of age but not less than 9 years of
age, or when one or more of the victims is a minor
at the time of the commission of the offense:
Provided, that if found guilty, the court shall
promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability
which the accused may have incurred;
b. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,
habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
c. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
thereof;
d. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration
of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital
status and property relations of husband and wife

15

or those living together under different status and


agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal
partnership of gains;
e. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgement;
f. Summary judicial proceeding brought under the
Family Code;
g. Petition for declaration of status of children;
h. Petitions for constitution of family home;
i. Cases against minors under CDDA;
j. Violations of RA 7610, otherwise known as the
Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act;
k. Case of domestic violence.
C.
Intellectual
Property

Family Courts are a creation of law and are distinct


from Regional Trial Courts.

Every case that involves a minor is cognizable with the


Family Courts, even a petition for writ of habeas of
In guardianship,
the person
corpusif involving
a minor.is incompetent?
Depends. If the incompetent is a minor, then the
jurisdiction falls with the family courts, if not, then the
case falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Courts
SC-AO No. 113-95
Cases for violation of Intellectual Property Rights
IV. INFERIOR COURTS (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts)
Sec. 33, BP 129, as amended by RA No. 7691
1. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


a. Over civil actions and probate proceedings,
testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
value of the personal property, estate, or amount
of the demand does not exceed 300,000 outside
of Metro Manila or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of demand
does not exceed 400,000 pesos, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount
of which should be specifically alleged: Provided,
that interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs
shall be included in the determination of filing
fees: Provided, further, that where there are
several claims or causes of actions between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be
the totality of the claims in all causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transactions;
b. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases.
Provided, that when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the questions of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of
possession; and

c. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or


possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the property
involved does not exceed 20,000 or, for civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such value does
not exceed 50,000 exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession
of any land or building by means of force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth.
The possession is illegal from the beginning and the
only issue is who has the prior possession de facto.
expenses and costs: Provided that in cases of
land not declared for taxation purposes, the
value of such property shall be determined by the
assessed value of the adjacent lots.
2. SPECIAL
Sec. 35, BP 129
In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a
province or city, any Metropolitan, Municipal,
Unlawful Detainer
An action to recover possession of real property from
one who illegally withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold possession
under any contract, express or implied.
The possession of the defendant is originally legal but
became illegal due to the expiration or termination of
the right to possess. The proceeding is summary.

16

The action must be brought up within one year from


the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must

DOMINGO

Accion publiciana is
and
theaccion
plenary
reinvindicatoria
action to recover
are the
not
automatically
right of possession
lodgedwhen
with the RTC.
dispossession
The assessed
has lasted
value
should
for morefirst
thanbeonedetermined.
year. It is an
If the
ordinary
assessed
civil action
value
exceeds
proceeding
20,000
to determine
or 50,000,
theasbetter
the case
rightmay
of possession
be, then the
of
realty
independently
of
title.
action is lodged with the RTC. (Vda. De Barrera vs.
Heirs of Legaspi (September 12, 2008)
XPN: Sec. 8, Rule 40. Appeal from orders dismissing
case without trial; lack of jurisdiction.
Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications of
bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the
absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
3. DELEGATED
Sec. 34, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the
Supreme Court to hear and determine land or
cadastral cases covering lots where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the
value of which does not exceed 100,000, such value to
be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more
than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall
be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
In land registration cases, the RTC has regular
jurisdiction. However, the MTC can take over when it
exercises its delegated jurisdiction.
Regional Trial Courts.
(Hence, appealable to the CA)
PROCEDURES IN THE MTC:
(1) Regular
(2) Summary
Sec. 36, BP 129

17

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


In Municipal Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial
Courts with at least 2 branches, the Supreme Court
may designate one or more branches thereof to try:
a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer;
b) Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations;
c) Violations of the rental law;
d) Other cases requiring summary disposition
as the Supreme Court may determine.
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure: (In
Civil Cases)
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, irrespective of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be
rendered. Where attorneys fees are
awarded, the same shall not exceed 20, 000
pesos.
(2)

All other civil cases, except probate


proceedings, where the total amount of the
plaintiffs claim does not exceed 100,000
or 200,000 pesos in Metro Manila,
exclusive of interest and costs.

Pleadings allowed (a) complaints; (b)


compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims
pleaded in the answer; and (3) answer thereto.
Prohibited pleadings
(a) Motion to dismiss or quash the complaint
except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter or failure to comply
with Barangay Conciliation;

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


b) Motion for a Bill of Particulars;
(c)Motion for new trial, reconsideration or
reopening of trial;
d) Motion for relief of judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order
issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) third-party complaints;
(l) intervention
2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases
Sec. 5. Applicability The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply
this Rule in all actions that are purely civil in nature
where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is
solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money.
The claim or demand may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
(1) Contract of Lease;
(2) Contract of Loan;
(3) Contract of Services;
(4) Contract of Sale; or
(5) Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For liquidated damages arising from
contracts;

18

(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable


settlement or an arbitration award involving
a money claim covered by this Rule
pursuant to Sec. 417 of RA 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code.
Prohibited pleadings
(a) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim/s;
b) Motion for a Bill of Particulars;
(c)Motion for new trial, reconsideration or
reopening of trial;
d) Motion for relief of judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order
issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) third-party complaints; and
(l) intervention
Demurrer to Evidence is not prohibited even though it
is a kind of Motion to Dismiss.
BAR ALERT!!
A decision made under a small claims case suit is final
and unappealable (Sec. 23).
Hence, the remedy of appeal is not allowed and the
prevailing party may, thus, immediately move for its
execution. However, it does not preclude the party from
filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.
(AL ANG Network Incorporated vs. CA, January 22,

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


V. SANDIGANBAYAN
RA 8249, as amended
1. ORIGINAL
a. Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act), as amended, RA No. 1379, and Chapter II, Sec. 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one
or more of the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of
the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989, specifically including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of
the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
provincial department heads;
b. City mayors, vice mayors, members of the
sangguniang
panlunsod,
city
treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other city department
heads;
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the
position of consul and higher;
d. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval
captains and all officers of higher rank;
e. Officers of the Philippine National Police while
occupying the position of provincial director and
those holding the rank of senior superintendent
or higher;

19

f.

City and provincial prosecutors and the


assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities or educational institutions or
foundations;
(2) Members of the Congress and officials thereof
classified as Grade 27 and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice the provisions of
the Constitution;
(5) All other national and local officials classified as
Grade 27 and higher under the Compensation and
Position Classification Act.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed
with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in
relation to their office;
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A
Provided, that the Regional Trial Court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not
allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b)
alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


the same or closely related transactions or acts in an
amount not exceeding 1,000,000.

3. ORIGINAL CONCURRENT
Petitions for the issuance of writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction, and
Subject to the rules promulgated by the
other
ancillary
Criteria to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has
Supreme Court, the cases falling under
writs
and
jurisdiction:
the jurisdiction of the RTC under this
processes in aid of
1. What offense was committed?
section shall be tried in a judicial region
its
appellate
2. Who committed the offense?
other than where the official holds office.
jurisdiction
and
3. How the offense was committed?
other petitions of
In cases where none of the accused are
similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that
occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or
may arise from cases filed or which may be filed under EO
higher, or military or PNP officers mentioned above,
1, 2, 14 and 14-A: Provided that the jurisdiction over
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
proper Regional Trial Court or MTC as the case may be,
Court.
pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in BP
129, as amended.
1. What offense was committed?
a. RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
xxx
b. RA 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeiture in favor of
the State any Property found to have been
In case of private individuals are charged as co-principals,
unlawfully acquired by any Public Officer or
accomplices or accessories with the public officers or
Employee and Providing for the Proceeding
employees, including those employed in governmentTherefor)
owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried
c. Violation of EO 1, 2, 14, 14-A (PCGG Cases)
jointly with said public officers and employees in the
d. Bribery under RPC
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over them.
Jurisprudence dictates additional offenses cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan:
2. APPELLATE
e. Estafa (Serana vs. Sandiganbayan)
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
f. Falsification (Ramiscal vs. Sandiganbayan)
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of
regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.

20

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


All other crimes
Sandiganbayan.

are

not

cognizable

in

the

Rape with homicide is outside the jurisdiction of the


Sandiganbayan. (Sanchez vs. Dimetrio)

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has


jurisdiction over the person of Henry Go.

Murder is not within the jurisdiction of


Sandiganbayan. (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary)

HELD: YES.

the

Violations of RA No. 1379 are placed under the


jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even though the
proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture of the
illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty.
Following the same analysis, petitioner should therefore
abandon his erroneous belief that the Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction only over petitions for forfeiture filed
against President Marcos, his family and cronies.
(Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, June 22, 2005)
2. Who committed the offense?
PEOPLE vs. HENRY GO
March 25, 2014
Respondent was charged with violation of RA 3019 for
conspiring with then DOTC Sec. Arturo Enrile, now
deceased, in relation to contracts entered by them
which is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction as he is only a private individual
and not a public officer. Also, given that the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over him, the crime

21

has already been extinguished because of the death of


Sec. Arturo Enrile.

PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249 states the following:


In case of private individuals are charged as coprincipals, accomplices or accessories with the
public officers or employees, including those
employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, they shall be tried jointly with
said public officers and employees in the
proper courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over them.
It would not be amiss to point out that the instant
case involves a contract entered into by public officers
representing the government. In the provision stated
above, private individuals who are charged as coprincipals, accomplices or accessories with the said
public officers are included within the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan.
In the instant case, respondent is being charged for
violation of Sec. 3(g) of RA 3019, in conspiracy with
then Sec. Enrile. Ideally, under the law, both
respondent and Secretary Enrile should have been
charged before and tried jointly by the Sandiganbayn.
However, by reason of the death of the latter, this can
no longer be done.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Nonetheless, it does not follow that the Sandiganbayan
is divested of its jurisdiction over the person of and the
case involving herein respondent. To rule otherwise
would mean that the power of a court to decide a case
would no longer be based on the law defining
jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the death of
the alleged offenders.

Based on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, those


that fall within the original jurisdiction of the same
are:
(1) Officials of the executive branch with Salary
Grade 27 or higher, and
(2) Officials specifically enumerated in sec. 4(A)
(1) (a) to (g), regardless of their salary
grades.

DUNCANO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN


July 15, 2015

That phrase otherwise classified as Grade 27 and


higher qualifies regional director and higher is
apparent in the sponsorship speech of the bill.

Petitioner was the Regional Director of the BIR with


salary grade 26. He was charged with violation of Sec.
11 of RA 6713 (SALN).
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
respondent court has no jurisdiction to try his case as
he is an official of the executive branch occupying the
position of a Regional Director but below Salary Grade
27.
The Sandiganbayan denied his motion to dismiss.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not only regional directors with
Salary Grade 27 and higher fall within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
HELD: YES.

Yet, those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and


below may still fall within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions
enumerated by law. In this category, it is the position
held, not the salary grade, which determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
All other officers below SG 27 shall be under the
jurisdiction of the proper trial courts where none of
the principal accused are occupying positions
corresponding to SG 27 or higher.
HANNAH SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
January 22, 2008
Petitioner was appointed Student Regent of UP Diliman
and discussed with then President Estrada the
proposed renovation of Vinzons Hall.
She and her siblings registered with the SEC the Office
of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). The

22

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


OSRFI received from President Estrada 15 M pesos as
financial assistance for the proposed renovation which
failed to materialize.

public officials and employees mentioned in


subsection a of this section in relation to their
office;

The successor of the petitioner filed a complaint for


Malversation of Public Funds with the Office of the
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found probable cause
and charged the petitioner with estafa.

Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over


other felonies committed by public officials in relation
to their office.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that


the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over her person
as she was not a public officer.
The Sandiganbayan denied her motion. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the offense. (estafa)
HELD:
(1) YES.
Petitioner avers that estafa is not one of the crimes
enumerated under Sec. 4(1) of PD 1606, as amended.
Petitioner is mistaken. Sec. 4 must be read in
consonance with the other paragraphs of Sec. 4. It
must be isolated with the succeeding paragraphs.
Sec. 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended states b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed by the

23

Now the question is whether Serana (a student regent)


is considered as a public officer.
YES.
A public office is the right, authority, and duty created
and conferred by law, by which for a given period,
either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some
portion of the sovereign functions of the government,
to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The
individual so invested is a public officer.
Sec. 4(A)(1)(g) explicitly vests the Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this
category. The Board of Regents performs functions
similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
corporation. By express mandate of the law, petitioner
is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated in PD No.
1606, as amended.
Moreover, compensation is not an essential element of
public office.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Petitioner likewise aver that the offense was done in


her private capacity. This should also likewise be
answered in the negative. As long as the public office
is facilitated to commit the crime, the Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction over the offense.
ESCOBAL vs. GARCHITORENA
February 5, 2004
Petitioner was a member of the AFP, Philippine
Constabulary and the Intelligence Group of the PNP.
Petitioner was involved in a shootout and was charged
with murder before the RTC.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. He alleged that it was the court
martial, not the RTC which has jurisdiction over his
case.
Petitioner then filed a motion for the lifting of his
suspension and averred that since the offense was
committed in the performance of his duties, the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case.
Initially, the SB dismissed his motion, but upon MR,
the RTC reversed the same and issued an order
directing the prosecutor to transmit the case to the
SB.
The Sandiganbayn remanded the case to the RTC.

24

ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction


over the case at bar.
HELD: NO.
Under Sec. 4(b) of the
Sandiganbayan states to wit:
b. Other offenses
complexed with
public officials
subsection a of
office;

Jurisdiction

of

the

or felonies whether simple or


other crimes committed by the
and employees mentioned in
this section in relation to their

However, for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive


jurisdiction under the said law, it is essential that the
facts showing the intimate relation between the office
of the offender and the discharge of official duties
must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to
merely allege in the Information that the crime
charged was committed by the offender in relation to
his office, as it would be a conclusion of law.
Under the amendment of PD 1606
In cases where none of the accused are
occupying positions corresponding to salary
grade 27 or higher, or military or PNP officers
mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof shall be vested in the proper Regional
Trial Court or MTC as the case may be,
pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as
provided in BP 129, as amended.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Under the law, even if the offender committed a crime
charged in relation to his office but occupies a position
corresponding to a salary grade below 27, the proper
RTC or MTC shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the
same.
VI. COURT OF TAX APPEALS
VII. QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES
VIII. QUASI-COURTS
IX. SHARIAH COURTS

25

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6.

Title of the Rules


In what courts applicable
Cases governed
In what cases not applicable
Commencement of action
Construction

SEC. 1: Title of the Rules. These Rules shall be known and


cited as the Rules of Court.
SEC. 2: In what courts applicable. These Rules shall
apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the
Supreme Court.
SEC. 3: Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and
special proceedings.
a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another
for the enforcement or protection of a right or redress
of a wrong;
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both
are governed by the rules of ordinary civil actions,
subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
civil action.
b) A criminal action is one which the State prosecutes
a person for an act or omission publishable by law;

26

c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party


seeks to establish a status, right, or a particular fact.
SEC. 4: In what cases not applicable. These Rules shall
not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings and other cases not
herein provided for, except by analogy or in suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.
(NICOLE).
An action is commenced by filing the original complaint
in the court and TIMELY payment of the CORRECT and
COMPLETE docket fees. (Gipa vs. Southern Luzon
Institute)
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, which vests a trial court with jurisdiction
over the subject-matter. Where the filing of the
initiatory is not accompanied by payment of the docket
fee, the court may allow payment if the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive period or reglementary period. (Sun
SEC. 5: Commencement of action A civil action is
commenced by filing the original complaint in the court. If an
additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the
action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
WHEN ELSE DO YOU PAY DOCKET FEES?
1. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims,
third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


be considered filed until and unless the filing fee
prescribed thereof is paid. (Alday vs. FGU Insurance,
January 23, 2001).
2. Perfection of an appeal, Rule 41, Sec. 4
ALDAY vs. FGU INSURANCE
January 23, 2001
Respondent filed a suit to recover unliquidated advances
and unremitted costs of premiums incurred by petitioner
as an insurance agent for respondent.
Alday filed an answer with counterclaim asserting her right
of payment of direct commission, profit commissions and
contingent bonuses. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that her answer was filed out of time.
FGU Insurance also filed a motion to dismiss on the
counterclaim on the ground that the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the same because of non-payment
of docket fees.
Petitioner asked the trial court to declare her counterclaim
compulsory, and declare the respondent in default for
failure to file an answer on the counterclaim.
ISSUE: Whether or not the counterclaim of the petitioner is
permissive in nature thereby warranting the payment of
docket fees.
HELD: The counterclaim of the petitioner is permissive.
Tested against the standards in declaring whether the
petitioners counterclaim is permissive or compulsory, her

27

counterclaim for commissions, bonuses, and accumulated


premium reserves is merely permissive. The evidence
required to prove petitioners claims differs from that
needed to establish respondents demands for the recovery
of cash accountabilities from petitioner.
On the other hand, in order for the trial court to acquire
jurisdiction over her permissive counterclaim, petitioner is
bound to pay the prescribed docket fees.
This rule has been laid down in the case of Sun Insurance
vs. Asuncion:
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, which vests a trial court with jurisdiction over
the subject-matter. Where the filing of the initiatory is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may
allow payment if the fee within a reasonable time but in no
case beyond the applicable prescriptive period or
reglementary period.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, thirdparty claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
thereof is paid.
Non-payment of docket fees would not result to automatic
dismissal of the case provided that docket fees are paid
within the applicable prescriptive for reglementary period.
The respondent does not need to file an answer on the
permissive counterclaim of the petitioner until she pays her
docket fees. In addition, in compulsory counter claims,

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


there is no need to file an answer as it would merely result
in the former pleading the same facts raised in the
complaint.
KOREA TECHNOLOGIES vs. LERMA
January 7, 2008
ABANDONED. The doctrine in Mercado vs. CA, which
reiterated Alday vs. FGU Insurance is affirmed.
Petitioner is engaged in the business of supply and
installment of LPG manufacturing plants. It entered into a
contract with the respondent where it shall install LPG in
their plant in Cavite.
The initial operations cannot be conducted because of the
financial difficulties of the respondent. When petitioner
deposited the checks paid to it by the respondent, the same
were dishonored.
Respondent then wrote to the petitioner that it would be
cancelling their contract NOT YET COMPLETE

PROTON PILIPINAS
NATIONALE DE PARIS
June 15, 2005

CORPORATION

vs.

BANQUE

Proton Pilipinas availed of the credit facilities of the


respondent along with co-petitioners as corporate
guarantors.
In their agreement, Proton will receive imported passenger
motor vehicles, which will be held by it in trust for BNP,

28

selling the same and delivering the proceeds of the sale to


the latter.
Proton was unable to deliver and pay. Its guarantors also
refused to pay.
Respondent filed a case before the RTC of Makati praying
that petitioners be ordered to pay the sum of US
1,544,984.40 plus interest and other related charges.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
respondents failure to pay docket fees.
The RTC denied the motion on the ground that the docket
fees were in fact paid. Also, even assuming that the docket
fees were not correctly paid, dismissal of the case would be
premature as the respondent still has time to pay the same
within the balance of the reglementary period. The balance
between the appropriate docket fees and the amount
actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien or
any award he may obtain in his favor.
Petitioners appealed with the CA. The appellate court
denied the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the correct amount of docket fees
were paid.
HELD: No.
Under Rule 141, as amended by SC Circular No. 7, states
that where the action is purely for the recovery of sum of
money or damages, the docket fees are assessed on the

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive of
interests and costs.
When the clerk of court computed for the docket fees it
applied the exchange rate of US 1 = 43php. While it is true
that the clerk of court enjoys a presumption of regularity of
official function, the petitioners has successfully rebutted
this presumption. The exchange rate when the complaint
was filed was 43.21 PHP per US dollar. Hence, the
respondents made an underpayment of their docket fees,
Notwithstanding this, the trial court did not lose
jurisdiction over the case, even if there was insufficient
payment of docket fees.
A liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering
that the respondents manifested its willingness to pay such
additional docket fees as the court may order. The rule in
Manchester shall not apply because in the said case, there
was a pattern and the intention to defraud the government
of the docket fee due to it.
In the case of Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion, the court
enunciated the following
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, which vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject-matter. Where
the filing of the initiatory is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow
payment if the fee within a reasonable time but in
no case beyond the applicable prescriptive period
or reglementary period.

29

2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims,


third-party claims and similar pleadings, which
shall not be considered filed until and unless the
filing fee prescribed thereof is paid.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a
claim by the filing of appropriate pleading and
payment of the prescribed filing fee but,
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified the same
has been left for determination by the court, the
additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien
on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the
clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy to
enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.
GIPA vs. SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE
June 18, 2014
Alonzo, Imelda, Juanito, Virgilio and the other petitioners
were the defendants in a case filed by Southern Luzon
Institute for Recovery of Ownership and Possession with
Damages before the RTC of Sorsogon City. After trial, the
RTC rendered a decision in favor of SLI and against the
petitioners, they filed a Notice of Appeal which the RTC
approved.
The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed their appeal via a
Resolution for alleged failure to show proof of payment of
appellate fees. They promptly filed a Motion for
Reconsideration where they attached a Certification from
the RTC that they paid the appeal fee in the amount of

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


P3,000.00 under Official Receipt No. 18091130 dated
January 25, 2005.
The CA subsequently reinstated the appeal. However, in a
Minute Resolution, the CA again ordered them to remit the
amount of P30.00 as legal research fund, which apparently
was not included in the P3,000.00 they paid.
The petitioners received the resolution on March 13, 2006,
by their counsel, Atty. Golar from the Public Attorneys
Office. After nine months, petitioners had yet to comply
with the minute resolution, hence the CA dismissed their
appeal via a Resolution, for non-payment of the appellate
fees as provided in Section 1(c) of Rule 50. Their motion for
reconsideration denied, they filed a petition for review on
certiorari with the Supreme Court, invoking liberality in
the application of the rules, since they paid a substantial
amount in appellate fees and fell short by only P30.00. In
their Reply, petitioners also invoked Republic Act 9406[1]
which exempted PAO clients like themselves from payment
of docket fees. They further argue that though the law was
inexistent at the time they filed their appeal, still, the same
should be given retroactive effect in their favor.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
FOR FAILURE TO REMIT THE MEAGERAMOUNT OF
THIRTY PESOS (P30.00) AFTER HAVING ADVANCED A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DOCKET FEES.
HELD:

30

Payment of the full amount of appellate court docket and


lawful fees is mandatory and jurisdictional; Relaxation of
the rule on payment of appeal fee is unwarranted in this
case.
Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.
Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall
pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or
final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate
court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said
fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together
with the original record or the record on appeal. (Emphases
supplied)
The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an
indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In both
original and appellate cases, the court acquires jurisdiction
over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fees.
Here, petitioners concede that payment of the full amount
of docket fees within the prescribed period is not a mere
technicality of law or procedure but a jurisdictional
requirement. Nevertheless, they want this Court to relax
the application of the rule on the payment of the appeal fee
in the name of substantial justice and equity.
The Court is not persuaded.
The liberality which petitioners pray for has already been
granted to them by the CA at the outset. It may be recalled
that while petitioners paid a substantial part of the docket
fees, they still failed to pay the full amount thereof since

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


their payment was short of P30.00. Based on the premise
that the questioned Decision of the RTC has already
become final and executory due to non-perfection, the CA
could have dismissed the appeal outright. But owing to the
fact that only the meager amount of P30.00 was lacking
and considering that the CA may opt not to proceed with
the case until the docket fees are paid, it still required
petitioners, even if it was already beyond the reglementary
period, to complete their payment of the appeal fee within
10 days from notice. Clearly, the CA acted conformably with
the pronouncement made in Camposagrado, a case cited by
petitioners, that [a] partys failure to pay the appellate
docket fee within the reglementary period confers only a
discretionary and not a mandatory power to dismiss the
proposed appeal. Such discretionary power should be used
in the exercise of the courts sound judgment in accordance
with the tenets of justice and fair play with great deal of
circumspection, considering all attendant circumstances
and must be exercised wisely and prudently, never
capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.[4]

they focused on begging the CA for leniency, arguing that


the meager amount of the deficiency involved justifies
relaxation of the rules. What is worse is that even if the CA
already took note of the lack of such explanation in its
Resolution denying petitioners motion for reconsideration,
petitioners, up to now, have not attempted to tender one in
this Petition and instead continue to capitalize on
substantial justice, fair play and equity to secure a reversal
of the dismissal of their appeal. The Court cannot,
therefore, help but conclude that there is really no
plausible reason behind the said omission.

The CAs leniency over petitioners cause did not end there.
Although they were given only 10 days to remit the P30.00
deficiency, the said court allowed an even longer period of
nine months to lapse, apparently in the hope that
petitioners compliance would be on its way. But as no
payment was remitted, it was constrained to finally dismiss
the appeal for non-perfection. Surprisingly, petitioners were
again heard of when they filed a Motion for Reconsideration
to which they attached a postal money order of P30.00.
Nevertheless, they did not offer any plausible explanation
either as to why they, at the start, failed to pay the correct
docket fees or why they failed to comply with the CAs
directive for them to remit the P30.00-deficiency. Instead,

Respondent filed an appeal with the CA. The appellate


court dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-payment
of docket fees and attach the same to the material records.

31

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY vs. COBARRUBIAS


August 3, 2010
Respondent was a professor in Petitioner University. She
was dismissed from service on the ground of 3 consecutive
failed evaluation, pursuant to the provisions of their CBA.
The Voluntary Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Respondent filed an MR and attached the receipts


evidencing the payment of the docket fees. She argued that
her subsequent payment of docket fees operated as
substantial compliance with the rules.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent payment of docket
fees cured her non-payment of docket fees during the filing
of the petition before the CA.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


HELD: NO.

While procedural rules are liberally construed, the


provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied,
indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless
delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy
discharge of judicial business.

they are required to be followed. However, there are


recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as:
(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;
(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure;
(3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
default;
(4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(5) the merits of the case;
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules;
(7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory;
(8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby;
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
without the appellant's fault;
(10) peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each case;
(11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge, guided by
all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should
be an effort, on the part of the party invoking
liberality, to advance a reasonable or meritorious
explanation for his/her failure to comply with the
rules.

Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be belittled


or dismissed simply because their non-observance may
have prejudiced a party's substantive rights; like all rules,

In Cobarrubias' case, no such explanation has been


advanced. Other than insisting that the ends of justice and
fair play are better served if the case is decided on its

Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege,


thus, appeal must be made strictly in accordance with the
provision set by law. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides
that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall be taken to
the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days
from the receipt of the notice of judgment. Furthermore,
upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to
the CA clerk of court the docketing and other lawful fees;
non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be
a sufficient ground for the petitions dismissal. Thus,
payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period
is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. It is an
essential requirement, without which, the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal has been filed.
In the present case, Cobarrubias paid her docket fees in
full only after seventy-two (72) days when she filed her
motion for reconsideration and attached the postal money
orders. Undeniably, the docket fees were paid late, and
without payment of the full docket fees, Cobarrubias
appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period.

32

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


merits, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for her failure to pay
the docket fees in full when she filed her petition for review.
NAVARRO vs.
COMPANY
May 27, 2004

METROPOLITAN

BANK

&

TRUST

Respondent filed with the RTC of Makati a foreclosure of


mortgage against petitioner. The RTC rendered a decision
in favor of the respondent.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, without
payment of docket fees. The RTC denied the notice of
appeal.
On appeal, petitioners averred that the liberal
interpretation of the rules should be applied as the
secretary of the counsel, without informing in advance the
same, decided to migrate to another country, leaving the
former literally disabled and in shambles. The appellate
court denied the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners notice of appeal
should be granted.
HELD: NO.
Payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such
payment, the appeal is not perfected. The appellate court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action and the decision sought to be appealed from
becomes final and executory.

33

Appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory privilege.


Corollary to this principle is that the appeal must be
exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions set by
law. The payment of docket fees within this period is a
condition sine qua non to the perfection of appeal. It is not
a mere technicality of law or procedure.
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement
of payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that
its strict application is qualified by the following: first,
failure to pay those fees within the relementary period
allows only discretionary, not automatic dismissal; second,
such power should be used by the court in conjunction
with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the
tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of
circumspection in consideration of all attendant
circumstances.
The appellate court may extend the time for the payment of
docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a
justifiable reason for the failure to pay the correct amount
of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud,
accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar
supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the
appellant.
In the present case, there is no satisfactory reason to
warrant the realization of the rules.
Section 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (2a)

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

34

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 2
Cause of Action
Section 1.
Ordinary civil actions, basis of. Every
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)
Section 2.
Cause of action, defined. A cause of action
is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. (n)
RELUCIO vs. LOPEZ
January 16, 2002

Lopez filed a petition for appointment as sole


administrator of conjugal properties against Alberto
Lopez and Relucio in RTC Makati. She alleged that she
was legally married to Alberto, but he abandoned her
and their 4 legitimate children, that he arrogated unto
himself full and exclusive control and administration
of the conjugal properties, that he spends such for his
sole benefit, and that after abandoning her, he
maintained an illicit relationship and cohabited with
Relucio. During their cohabitation, they amassed a
fortune, and Lopez alleges that such were acquired
principally through the actual contribution of money,
property and industry of Alberto, with minimal, if not
nil, actual contribution from Relucio. She alleges that
Alberto excluded her and their children from any fruits
or income derived from the conjugal properties. He
also allegedly sold, alienated, etc., properties belonging
to the conjugal partnership.

35

Relucio filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD); there was no


cause of action against her. MTD was denied; she is
impleaded as a necessary or indispensable party
because some of the properties are registered in her
name and Alberto, or solely in her name. Relucio filed
an MR, but was denied. She filed a petition for
certiorari with the CA, who likewise denied the
petition, as well as the subsequent MR.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether respondents petition for appointment as sole
administratrix of the conjugal property, accounting, etc.
against her husband Alberto J. Lopez established a cause of
action against petitioner.
2.) Whether petitioners inclusion as party defendant is
essential in the proceedings for a complete adjudication of the
controversy
HELD: 1.) The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. It is well
settled that a cause of action is an act or omission of one
party, the defendant in violation of the legal right of the other.
The elements of the cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of
the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; (3) an act or
omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the
right of the plaintiff as constituting a breach of the obligation
of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages. A perusal of the
Nature of the Complaint filed by the respondent reveals that
it is a complaint by an aggrieved party wife against her
husband. Nowhere in the allegations does it appear that relief
is sought against petitioner. The causes of action filed by

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


respondent showed that petitioner is a complete stranger to
the causes of action as regards judicial appointment,
accounting by respondent husband, forfeiture of share of
husband and support. Clearly, there is no right-duty relation
between petitioner and respondent that can possibly support
a cause of action.
2.) NO. Relucio is not an indispensable or necessary party.
The first cause of action is for judicial appointment as
administratrix. The administration of the property of the
marriage is entirely between the spouses, to the exclusion of
all other persons. There is no right-duty relation between
Lopez and Relucio that would support a cause of action. The
second cause of action is for an accounting, which is arises
from or is an incident of marriage. As Relucio has nothing to
do with the marriage, no cause of action can exist. The third
cause of action is for forfeiture of Alberto's share in the
property mentioned. It does not involve the issue of validity of
the co-ownership between Alberto and Relucio. The issue is
whether there is basis in law to forfeit Albertos share, if any
there be, in property coowned by him with Relucio. The
asserted right to forfeit extends to Alberto's share alone. Lopez
sought support, but a stranger cannot be compelled to give
support. As to the claim for moral damages, the claim is
against Alberto. To sustain a cause of action for moral
damages, the complaint must have the character of an action
for interference with marital or family relations under the Civil
Code. A real party in interest is one who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit. Relucio
would not be affected by any judgment. If Relucio is not a real
party in interest, she cannot be an indispensable party. An
indispensable party is one without whom there can be no
final determination of an action. Nor can Relucio be a
necessary party in the Special Proceedings. A necessary party

36

is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as


party if complete relief is to be accorded those already parties,
or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim
subject of the action.
Section 3.
One suit for a single cause of action. A
party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause
of action. (3a)
Section 4.
Splitting a single cause of action; effect of.
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of
the others. (4a)
Example here!!
Section 5.
Joinder of causes of action. A party may in
one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party,
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
(c)Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions,
the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court
provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein;
and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Section 6.
Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinder
of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on
the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with
separately. (n)

37

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 3
Parties to Civil Actions
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may
refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the crossclaimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff. The term
"defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the
third (fourth, etc.) party defendant. (1a)
Section 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is
the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest. (2a)
Section 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action
is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed
to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a
trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An
agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging
to the principal. (3a)
Section 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall
sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)

38

Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. A minor or a


person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the
assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a
guardian ad litem. (5a)
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. All persons in
whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or
arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is
alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative,
may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as
plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where
any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to
all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court
may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff
or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which he may have no
interest. (6n)
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can
be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
Solidarity does not make a solidary obligor an
indispensable party in a suit filed by the creditor.
Thus, the Court has ruled in Operators Incorporated
vs. American Biscuit Co., Inc. thatx x x solidarity
does not make a solidary obligor an indispensable party
in a suit filed by the creditor. Article 1216 of the Civil
Code says that the creditor may proceed against anyone
of the solidary debtors or some or all of them
defendants. (7)
DE CASTRO vs. CA
July 18, 2002

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


De Catross were co- owners of four lots with their
other siblings. Private respondent Artigo sued
petitioners Constante De Castro and Corazon De
Castro to collect the unpaid balance of his broker;s
commission from the petitioners. Artigo was
authorized by De Castros act as real estate broker in
the sale of these properties for the amount of
P23,000,000.00, five percent (5%) of which will be
given to the agent as commission.The sale of two lots
were consummated and Artigo received from the De
Castros a sum of P 48,893 as commission but Artigo
felt short changed because according to him , his total
commission should be P352,500.00. Hence Artigo
sued De Castros.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals explained that it is
not necessary to implead the other co-owners since the
action is exclusively based on a contract of agency
between Artigo and Constante. Hence, the instant
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the complaint merits dismissal for failure to
implead other co-owners as indispensable parties
HELD: NO.
An indispensable party is one whose interest will be
affected by the courts action in the litigation, and
without whom no final determination of the case can
be had. The joinder of indispensable parties is
mandatory and courts cannot proceed without their
presence. Whenever it appears to the court in the
course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has

39

not been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the


trial and order the inclusion of such party.
However, the rule on mandatory joinder of
indispensable parties is not applicable to the instant
case.
Constante signed the note as owner and as
representative of the other co-owners. Under this note,
a contract of agency was clearly constituted between
Constante and Artigo. Whether Constante appointed
Artigo as agent, in Constantes individual or
representative capacity, or both, the De Castros cannot
seek the dismissal of the case for failure to implead the
other co-owners as indispensable parties. The De
Castros admit that the other co-owners are solidarily
liable under the contract of agency.
Solidarity does not make a solidary obligor an
indispensable party in a suit filed by the creditor.
Thus, the Court has ruled in Operators Incorporated
vs. American Biscuit Co., Inc. thatx x x solidarity
No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he
is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by
any judgment rendered by the court; Only real parties
in interest are bound by the judgment therein and by
writs of execution and demolition issued pursuant
thereto.As builders in good faith and innocent
purchasers for value, petitioners have rights over the
subject property and hence they are proper parties in
does not make a solidary obligor an indispensable
party in a suit filed by the creditor. Article 1216 of the
Civil Code says that the creditor may proceed against

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them
simultaneously.
Section 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one who
is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if
complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or
for a complete determination or settlement of the claim
subject of the action. (8a)
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the
court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without
justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim
against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the
court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party. (8a, 9a)
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. If the consent of any
party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained,
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be
stated in the complaint. (10)
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by

40

order of the court on motion of any party or on its own


initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are
just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and
proceeded with separately. (11a)
Section 12. Class suit. When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons so numerous that it is 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. (12a)
Section 13. Alternative defendants. Where the plaintiff
is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to
relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the
alternative, although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. (13a)
Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he
may be sued as the unknown owner heir devisee, or by such
other designation as the case may require, when his identity
or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended
accordingly. (14)
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as
defendant. When two or more persons not organized as an
entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they
may be sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of
the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. (15a)
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever
a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply
with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for
the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period
of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear
within the specified period, the court may order the opposing
party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of
an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased
and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)
Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a
public officer. When a public officer is a party in an action
in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns,
or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be

41

continued and maintained by or against his successor if,


within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such
time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown
to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for
continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or
continues or threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or
continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is
made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly
assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the
application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
(18a)
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. If a party
becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon
motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or
against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by
his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)
Section 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer
of interest, the action may be continued by or against the
original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in
the action or joined with the original party. (20)
Section 20. Action and contractual money claims.
When the action is for recovery of money arising from
contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before
entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was
pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed
but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in
these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person. (21a)

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Section 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized


to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the
court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient
and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of
docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished
him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which
the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent,
unless the court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at
any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the
court should determine after hearing that the party declared
as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or
property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be
assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not
made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue
or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other
sanctions as the court may impose. (22a)
Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. In any
action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance,
executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the
court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the
Solicitor General who may be heard in person or a
representative duly designated by him. (23a)

42

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 14: SUMMONS
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.

SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.

43

1: Clerk to Issue Summons


2: Contents
3: By Whom Severed
4: Return
5: Issuance of Alias Summons
6. Service in person of the
defendant
7. Substituted Service
8. Service upon entity without
juridical personality
9. Service upon prisoners
10. Service upon minors and
incompetents
11. Service upon Domestic
Private Juridical Entity
12. Service upon Foreign
Private Juridical Entity
13. Service upon Public
Corporations
14. Service upon Defendant
Whose
Identity
or
Whereabouts
are
Unknown
15. Extraterritorial Service
16. Residents Temporarily Out
of the Philippines
17. Leave of Court
18. Proof of Service
19. Proof of Service by
Publication
20. Voluntary Appearance

Summons is the means by which the defendant in a case is


notified of the existence of an action against him and, thereby,
the court is conferred jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. (Millennium Industrial Commercial Corporation vs.
Tan, February 28, 2000)
Whether it is an action in personam, in rem or quasi in rem,
the rules on service of summons embodied in Rule 14, apply.
(Valmonte vs. CA, January 22, 1996)
SOLEDAD RAMOS vs. TERESITA RAMOS
March 11, 2003
Paulino, Narcisa, Mario and Antonio Chanliongco were
co-owners of a certain parcel of land.
The daughter of Narcisa, sold the said land to
respondents. The heirs of Paulino filed a complaint for
interpleader, in view of the conflict between the heirs
as to the validity of the sale.
The RTC rendered a decision holding that the sale was
invalid. The CA reversed the decision.
Petitioners filed a motion to set aside the decision.
They contended that they had not been served with
the complaint of summons.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are still entitled to
the service of summons.
HELD: NO.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


A decision that has acquired finality become
immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is to correct erroneous conclusions of fact
or law; and whether it will be made by a court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The
only exceptions are: (1) clerical errors; (2)nunc pro
tunc entries which causes no prejudice to the party;
and (3) void judgments.
In this case, to determine if the judgment is void, it is
important to know if the summons was properly
served.
An interpleader is an action in rem which determines
the ownership of the real property in question.
Specifically, it forces persons claiming an interest in
the land to settle the dispute among themselves as to
which of them owned the property.
The heirs had no standing in the suit as they only had
inchoate interest over the property. Hence, summons
is not required to be served to them as the estate was
represented by an executor.
DOMAGAS vs. JENSEN
January 17, 2005
Petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry against
the respondent before the MTC alleging, among others,
that petitioner is the owner of the subject property and
respondent gained entry on the same through
excavating a portion thereof.

44

Summons and the complaint were not served on the


respondent because he was out of the country. Hence,
the summons was received by the respondents
brother, who was in the respondents house.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner.
The same became final and executory.
Respondent filed a complaint for annulment of
judgment of the MTC decision on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over his person. The MTC annulled the
decision.
Petitioner appealed to the CA. The appellate court
dismissed the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether an action for forcible entry in an
action quasi in rem.
HELD: NO.
This settled rule is that the aim and object of an action
determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in
rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is
determined by its nature and purpose, and these only.
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. The purpose of the proceeding
in in personam is to impose, through the judgment of

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon
the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits
to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act
or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An
action in personam is said to be on which has for its
object a judgment against a person, as distinguished
from a judgment against the propriety to determine its
state. It has been held that an action in personam is a
proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations;
such action s brought against the person. Actions to
recovery real property are in personam.
On the other hand, 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. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is
named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the
obligation or loan burdening the property. Actions
quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or
liability of a particular property but which are
intended to operate on these questions only as
between the particular parties to the proceedings and
not to ascertain or cut off rights or interest of all
possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding
only upon the parties who joined in the action.
Rule 70 of the ROC (see sec. 1, 15, and 17) provides
that the very nature and purpose of an action for
unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and
in personam because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a
personal obligation or liability on the defendant under
Art. 539 of the CC, for the latter to vacate the property
subject of the action, restore physical possession

45

thereof to the plaintiff, and pay actual damages by way


or reasonable compensation for his use or occupation
of the property.
MODES OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS:
1. Service in the Person of the Defendant (Sec. 6);
2. Substituted Service (Sec. 7);
3. Extraterritorial Service (Sec. 15)
a. Service on the Person of the Defendant;
b. Substituted Service;
c. Publication;
d. Any other modes authorized by Court.
4. Publication (Sec. 14; Sec. 16)
Substituted Service of
Pleadings
Made to the clerk of court

Substituted Service of
Summons
Made by leaving copies of
the complaint and summons
to the residence or the
place of business of the
defendant

Judgments and final orders


cannot be served through
substituted service. Only
through publication.
Note: If summons was done by summons by publication,
judgment should also be done by publication.
SEC. 1: Clerk to Issue Summons Upon the filing of the
complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the
clerk of court shall forthwith issue the corresponding
summons to the defendant.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


SEC. 2: Contents The summons shall be directed to the
defendant, signed by the clerk of court under seal, and
contain: (a) the name of the court and the names of the
parties to the action; a direction that the defendant answer
within the time fixed by these Rules; (c) a notice that unless
the defendant so answers, plaintiff will take judgment by
default and may be granted the relief applied for.
A copy of the complaint and order for appointment of
guardian ad litem, if any, shall be attached to the original and
each copy of the summons.
SEC. 3: By whom served The summons may be served by
the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for
justifiable reasons by any suitable person authorized by the
court issuing the summons.
SEC. 4: Return When the service has been completed, the
server shall, within five (5) days therefrom, serve a copy of the
return, personally or by registered mail, to the plaintiffs
counsel, and shall return the summons to the clerk who
issued it, accompanied by proof of service.
SEC. 5: Issuance of Alias Summons If a summons is
returned without being served on any or all of the defendants,
the server shall also serve a copy of the return on the
plaintiffs counsel, stating the reasons for failure of service,
within five (5) days therefrom. In such a case, or if the
summons has been lost, the clerk, on demand of the plaintiff,
may issue an alias summons.
BPI vs. SPOUSES SANTIAGO
March 11, 2003

46

Centrogen is a domestic company represented by the


respondent spouses. The latter then acquired a loan
from Far East Bank and Trust Company (which later
on merged with BPI). In order to secure the loan,
respondents secured a Real Estate Mortgage over a
land in Laguna.
Respondents defaulted in their payment of the loan,
hence, FEBTC (now BPI) filed an action for foreclosure
of mortgage.
Respondents then filed a TRO and preliminary and
final injunction and in alternative, for the annulment
of the Real Estate Mortgage with BPI.

Only the sheriff and the deputy sheriff can serve


summons without the authority of the court.
Other persons can serve summons (i.e, police
officers, and plaintiff) provided that the court
authorizes it.
Summons was received by the branch manager of BPI
in Laguna. BPI then filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that summons was improperly served to them.
The same was denied by the Trial Court.
The RTC then issued a TRO enjoining the sheriff from
proceeding with the extrajudicial sale. Furthermore, it
issued an order directed to the clerk of court to issue
new summons.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


The new summons was then received by the corporate
secretary of BPI.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent service of
summons is binding to BPI.
HELD: YES.
While the first service of summons was invalid for noncompliance with Sec. 11, Rule 14, This defect was
cured by the issuance of the subsequent summons
which was received by the corporate secretary of the
petitioner.
A case should not be dismissed simply because an
original summons was wrongfully served. An alias
summons can be actually served on the said
defendant.
In the case of Philippine American Life and General
Insurance Company vs. Brevea, the court held that
It is not pertinent whether the summons is designated
an original or an alias summons as long as it has
adequately served its purpose. What is essential is
that the summons complies with the requirements
under the Rules of Court and it has been duly served
on the defendant together with the prevailing
complaint. Moreover, the second summons was
technically not an alias summons but more of a new
summons on the amended complaint.
TEH vs. CA
April 24, 2003

47

Respondent filed a complaint for collection of sum of


money with prayer for issuance of preliminary
attachment against Wood Base Panels, Manfred Luig
and petitioner, who was the president of Wood Base
Panels.
Summons to the petitioner failed because he could not
be located based on the address in the complaint. The
said address was obtained from the general
information sheets filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by the corporation.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that
no summons was served to him. The RTC denied his
motion and ordered that an alias summons be issued
and served against the petitioner.
Again, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, which was
again denied by the court.
Hence, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 to the CA. The appellate court dismissed the
petition. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of alias summons
against the petitioner is proper.
HELD: YES.
There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the
trial court when it resorted to the issuance of an alias
summons. Although the respondent should have
resorted to other means to determine the correct
address of the petitioner when it was informed by the

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


sheriff that he failed to serve the summons on the
petitioner, the respondent is not entirely to blame for
such failure because the petitioners address as
indicated by Wood Based Panels, Inc., on their
respective information sheets were incorrect.
*Moreover, the trial court was merely exercising its
discretion under Rule 16, Sec. 3 when it denied the
petitioners motion to dismiss. Under the said rule,
after hearing the motion, a judge may dismiss the
action, deny the motion to dismiss or order the
amendment of the pleading,
SEC. 6: Service in the person of the defendant Whenever
practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive
or sign for it, by tendering it to him.

Rules on a Resident Defendant:


1. In an action in personam:
There should be personal service of summons.
If this is not possible and he cannot be
personally served, substituted service, as
provided for in Sec. 7, Rule 14 is essential for
the court to acquire jurisdiction. A resident
defendant cannot be served with summons
through publication. Only personal and
substituted service.

If temporarily out of the country, summons


may, by leave of court, be served through the
following modes:
a. substituted service set forth in sec. 8
b. extraterritorial service through
1. personal service outside the
country, with leave of court;
2. service by publication, with
leave of court;
3. any other manner the court
may deem sufficient.
(Domagas vs. Jensen, January
17, 2005)
2. In an action in rem or quasi in rem:
Jurisdiction over the defendant is not essential
as jurisdiction as long as the jurisdiction over
2 Modes in Service of Summons in the Person of
the Defendant:
1. Personally handing a copy to the
defendant;
2. tendering it to him, if he refuses to
receive
the res is acquired.
Rules on a Non-Resident Defendant and is not
found in the country:
1. If in personam:
a. personal service;

48

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


b. by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time
as the court may order, in which case a copy
of the summons and other order of the court
should be sent by registered mail to the last
known address of the defendant;
c. in any other manner the court may deem
sufficient. (Sec. 15, Rule 14)
2. If an action is in rem or quasi in rem:
Jurisdiction over the defendant is not essential
as jurisdiction as long as the jurisdiction over
the res is acquired.
However, you still have to serve summons
based on Sec. 15, Rule 14 (Extraterritorial
Service). The purpose of which is not for vesting
the court with jurisdiction but to comply with
the requirement of fair play or due process, so
that he will be informed of the pendency of the
action against him and the possibility that
property in the Philippines belonging to him or
in which he has interest may be subjected to a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff and he can
thereby take steps to protect his interest if he
so minded. (Valmonte vs. CA, January 22, 1996)
SEC. 7: Substituted Service If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as
provided for in the preceding section, service may be effected
(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion
then residing therein, or, (b) by leaving the copies at

49

defendants office or regular place of business with some


competent person in charge thereof.
JOSE vs. BOYON
October 23, 2003
Petitioners filed an action for specific performance to
compel the respondents to facilitate the ownership of a
parcel of land subject of a controverted sale.
Per return of the summons, substituted service was
resorted to by the process server because of the failure
of the same to serve the summons personally. The
return states
That efforts to serve the said Summons
personally upon the defendants were made but
the same were ineffectual and unavailing for
the reason that defendant Helen is somewhere
in the United States of America and defendant
Romeo is in Bicol. Thus, substituted service
was made in accordance with Sec. 7, Rule 14 of
the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioners then filed an ex-parte motion for leave of
court to effect summons by publication. The
petitioners were later on declared default by the RTC.
Later on, respondent Helen learned from her sister
about the said resolution. They then filed an Ad
Cautelam motion questioning, among others, the
validity of the service of summons. The RTC denied
the same.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


On petition for review with the CA, the appellate court
stated that the trial court erred when it declared the
respondents in default when there was no valid service
of summons to them. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction
over the persons of the respondents through
substituted service.
HELD: NO.
In general, trial courts acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant by the service of summons,
Where the action is in personam and the defendant is
in the Philippines, such service may be done by
personal or substituted service.
As can be gleaned from Sec. 6 and Sec. 7, personal
service of summons is preferred to substituted service.
On if the former cannot be made promptly can the
process server resort to the latter.
Moreover, the proof of service of summons must:
(a) Indicate the impossibility of service of
summons within a reasonable time;
(b) Specify the efforts exerted to locate the
defendant; and
(c) State that the summons was served upon a
person of sufficient age and discretion who
is residing in the address, or who is in
charge of the office or regular place of
business of the defendant. It is likewise
required that the pertinent facts proving

50

these circumstances be stated in the proof


of service or in the officers return.
Failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully with all
the foregoing requirements of substituted service
renders the service of summons ineffective.
In the instant case, the service of summons to the
respondent is defective for the following reasons:
1. There was no mention exactly what efforts
if any were undertaken to find the
respondents;
2. It did not specify where or from whom the
process server obtained the information on
their whereabouts.
The return shows that no effort was actually exerted
and no positive step taken by either the process server
or petitioners to locate and serve the summons
personally on respondents. At best the return merely
states the alleged whereabouts of respondents without
indicating that such information was verified from a
person who had knowledge thereof.
A general statement that such efforts were made will
not suffice for purpose of complying with the rules of
substituted service of summons.
The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to
the service of summons must be stated in the proof of
service or Officers Return; otherwise, any substituted
service made in lieu of personal service is in
derogation of the usual method of service. It is a
method extraordinary in character and hence may be
used only as prescribed and in the circumstances

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


authorized by statute. Failure to faithfully, strictly, and
fully comply with the requirements of substituted
service renders said service ineffective.
In Madrigal vs. CA, the Court stated that the
impossibility of personal service justifying availment
of substituted service must be explained in the proof of
service; why efforts exerted towards personal service
failed. The pertinent facts and circumstances
attendant to the service of summons must be stated in
the proof of service or Sheriffs return; otherwise, the
substituted service cannot be upheld. It bears
stressing that since service of summons, especially for
actions in personam, is essential for the acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the
resort to substituted service must be duly justified.
Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent
proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
MANOTOC vs. CA
August 16, 2006
In the case entitled Trajano vs. Marcos-Manotoc,
Trajano sought to enforce a foreign judgment by the
United States District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii,
United States of America for the wrongful death of
deceased Archimedes Trajano committed by military
intelligence officers under the direct command of the
defendant, Manotoc.
The RTC issued a summons to petitioner at Alexandra
Condominium Corporation or Alexandra Homes, E2
Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco Avenue, Pasig City. The
summons and copy of the complaint were allegedly

51

served upon Mr. Macky de la Cruz, an alleged


caretaker of the petitioners condominium.
Petitioner failed to answer and was declared in default.
She then filed by special appearance a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over her
person due to an invalid substituted service of
summons.
The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. On petition for
Certiorari with the CA, the appellate court dismissed
the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the requirements of a valid
substituted service were complied with.
HELD: NO
Requirements for a valid substituted service:
1. Impossibility of Prompt Service:
The party relying on substituted service
or the sheriff must show that defendant
cannot be served promptly or there is
impossibility of prompt service.
The sheriff should serve the summons
in a reasonable time
Reasonable time so much time as is
necessary under the circumstances for
a reasonably prudent and diligent man
to do, conveniently, what the contract or
duty requires that should be done,
having a regard for the rights and

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


possibility of loss, if any, to the other
party.
The Rules of Court sets no period for
summons. However, when the court,
clerk of court, or the plaintiff asks the
sheriff to make the return of the
summons, then the validity of the
summons lapses. The plaintiff may then
ask for an alias summons if the service
of summons has failed.
To the plaintiff, reasonable time
means no more than seven days (7)
days, since an expeditious processing of
a complaint is what a plaintiff wants.
To the sheriff, reasonable time means
15 to 30 days because at the end of the
month, it is a practice for the branch
clerk of court to require the sheriff to
submit a return of the summons
assigned to the sheriff for service.
The sheriff must discharge his duties
with due care, utmost diligence and
reasonable promptness and speed so as
not to prejudice the expeditious
disposition of justice. Thus, they are
enjoined to try their best efforts to
accomplish personal service on the
defendant. On the other hand, since the
defendant is expected to try to avoid
and evade service of summons, the

52

sheriff must be resourceful, preserving,


canny and diligent in serving the
process
on
the
defendant.
For
substituted service of summons to be
available, there must be several
attempts by the sheriff to personally
serve the summons within a reasonable
period (of one month).
Several attempts means at least
three (3) tries, 2 of which must be of
the same day. In addition, the sheriff
must cite why such efforts were
unsuccessful.
2. Specific Details in the Return
The sheriff must describe in the Return
of
Summons
the
facts
and
circumstances
surrounding
the
attempted personal service. The efforts
made and the reasons behind the
failure to find the defendant must be
clearly narrated in detail in the return.
The date and time of the attempts on
personal service, inquiries made to
locate the defendant, name/s of the
occupants of the alleged residence or
house of defendant and all other acts
done, though futile, to serve the
summons on defendant must be
specified in the Return to justify
substituted service.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

This must be in compliance with the


Handbook for Sheriffs and Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 5,
series of 1989.

take appropriate action. Thus, the


person must have a relation of
confidence to the defendant, ensuring
that the latter would receive or at least
be notified of the receipt of the
summons.

3. A person of Suitable Age and Discretion


If the substituted service will be effected
at the residence of the defendant, it
should be left with a person of suitable
age and discretion then residing
therein
A person of suitable age and discretion
is one who has attained the age of full
legal capacity (18 years old) and is
considered to have enough discernment
to understand the importance of a
summons.
Discretion is defined as the ability to
make decisions which represent a
responsible choice and for which an
understanding of what is lawful, right or
wise may be presupposed.
To have sufficient discretion, such
person must know how to read and
understand English to comprehend the
import of the summons, and fully
realize the need to deliver the summons
and complaint to the defendant at the
earliest possible time for the person to

53

Hence the sheriff must determine the


(1) if the person found in the residence
is
of
legal
age;
(2)
recipients
relationship with the defendant; and (3)
whether the said person comprehends
the significance of the receipt of the
summons and his duty to immediately
deliver it to the defendant or at least
notify the defendant of said receipt of
summons. These matters must be
clearly and specifically described in
the Return of Summons.
4. A Competent Person in Charge
If the summons is to be done at
defendants office or regular place of
business, then it should be served on a
competent person in charge of the place.
This person must be the one managing
the office or business of the defendant,
such as the president or manager; and
such individual must have sufficient
knowledge to understand the obligation
of the defendant in the summons, its
importance, and the prejudicial effects
arising from inaction on the summons.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

In the case given, the Return reveals the absence of


material data on the serious efforts to serve the
Summons on Petitioner.
Also, even assuming that a general description is
considered adequate, there is still a serious nonconformity with the requirement that summons must
be left with a person of suitable age and discretion
residing in the defendants house or residence
Macky dela Cruz, the resident caretaker of the
petitioner, is not considered a resident of the same as
it is doubtful that the same was residing with Mrs.
Manotoc in the said condominium.
On final note, while the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official functions by the sheriff is
not applicable in a case where it is patent that the
sheriffs return is defective.

The RTC rendered a judgment nullifying the marriage


between the petitioner and the respondent.
Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for annulment
of judgment under Rule 47, claiming that she was
never notified of the cases filed against her. The
appellate court dismissed the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the substituted service of
summons made to the petitioner is valid.
HELD: NO.

ONG vs. CO
February 25, 2015

The Court relied in the ruling on Manotoc vs. CA,


August 16, 2006 (see boldface in Manotoc)

Petitioner and respondent were married. Petitioner was


a British-Hongkong national, while the respondent
was Filipino.

The stricter rule in substituted service of summons


was meant to address the numerous claims of
irregularities in substituted service which have
spawned the filing of a great number of unnecessary
special civil actions of certiorari and appeals to higher
courts, resulting in prolonged litigation and wasteful
legal expenses.

The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation issued a


subpoena directing her to appear before the said
agency as her permanent residence visa was being
subjected to cancellation proceedings. Reportedly, her
marriage with respondent was nullified by the court.

54

Respondent the filed a petition for declaration of


nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Summons was issued to the respondent. However, in
the servers return, substituted service of summons
was effected after several futile attempts to serve the
same personably on the petitioner. The said
documents said that they were received by Roly
Espinosa, a security officer.

CHU vs. MACH ASIA TRADING CORPORATION


April 1, 2013

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Petitioner purchased from respondent on installment,


one Hitachi Excavator worth 900,000php.
Petitioner was able to initially pay for the same, the
balance of which shall be paid for through postdated
checks.
Petitioner issued 12 postdated checks, all of which
were dishonored by the bank.
Despite demand, petitioner was unable to pay for the
balance of the equipment. Hence, respondent filed a
complaint against the petitioner for sum of sum of
money, replevin, attorneys fees and damages.
The RTC issued a writ of replevin. Summons was
issued to the petitioner. The sheriff however failed to
serve the summons to the petitioner personally. Hence
the sheriff resorting to substituted service. The
summons and the copy of the complaint was received
by a certain Rolando Bonayon, a security guard of the
petitioner.
Petitioner failed to file an answer and was declared in
default. The RTC granted ruled in favor of the
respondent.
Petitioner appealed with the CA. However, the
appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not substituted service made by
the sheriff is proper.

55

HELD: NO.
It is to be noted that in case of substituted service,
there should be a report indicating that the person
who received the summons in the defendants behalf
was one with whom the defendant had a relation of
confidence, ensuring that the latter would actually
receive the summons.
Clearly, it was not shown that the security guard who
received the summons in behalf of the petitioner was
authorized and possessed a relation of confidence that
petitioner would definitely receive the summons.
MACASAET vs. CO
June 5, 2013
Respondent, a retired police officer, sued Abante Tonite
and some of its employees, claiming damages because
of an allegedly libelous article imputed against him.
One morning, the sheriff proceeded with the stated
address to personally serve the summons to the
defendants. However, the defendants were said to be
out of the office and unavailable.
The sheriff returned in the afternoon to serve to
defendants the summons, but still to no avail Hence,
the same resorted to substituted service.
Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging
that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their
person. The RTC denied the Motion.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Petitioners filed a petition for Certiorari before the CA.


The appellate court dismissed the same. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not substituted service was
properly resorted to.
HELD: YES.
Reasonable time depends on the circumstances.
While we are strict in insisting on personal service on
the defendant, we do not cling to such strictness
should the circumstances already justify substituted
service instead.
DOMAGAS vs. JENSEN
January 17, 2005
dwelling house or residence are generally held to
refer to the time of service, hence, it is not sufficient to
leave the summons at the formers dwelling house,
residence or place of abode, as the case may be.
Dwelling house or residence refers to the place where
the person named in the summons is living at the time
when the service is made, even though he may be
temporarily out of the country at the time. It is, thus,
the service of summons intended for the defendant
that must be left with a person of suitable age and
discretion residing in the house of the defendant.
Compliance with the rules regarding the service of
summons is as much important as the issue of due
process as of jurisdiction.

56

The service of the summons on a person at a place


where he was a visitor is not considered to have been
left at the residence or place or abode, where he has
another place at which he ordinary stays and to which
he intends to return. (see facts under introduction)
SEC. 8: Service upon entity without juridical personality
When persons associated in an entity without juridical
personality are sued under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon
all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon
the person in charge of the office or place of business
maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind
individually any person whose connection with the entity has,
upon due notice, been severed before the action was brought.
SEC. 9: Service upon prisoners When the defendant is a
prisoner confined in a jail or institution, the service shall be
effected upon him by the officer having the management of
such jail or institution who is deemed deputized as a special
sheriff for that purpose.
SEC. 10: Service upon minor and incompetents When
the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent,
service shall be made upon him personally and on his
guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem
whose appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff. In the
case of a minor, service may also be made on his father or
mother.
SEC. 11: Service upon domestic private juridical entity
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or
association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president,

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel.
EB VILLAROSA & PARTNER CO. vs. HON. BENITO
August 6, 1999
Petitioner and private respondent entered into a
contract whereby the former agreed to develop a low
cost housing subdivision in Cagayan De Oro City.
Petitioner failed to provide substantial improvement on
the housing hence, respondent filed an action for
Breach of Contract and damages with the RTC.
Summons was served to a certain Engr. Wendell
Sabulbero, an employee of the defendant corporation
at its branch office at Cagayan De Oro City.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is substantial compliance
on the service of summons with the corporation.
HELD: NO.
The Rule on Summons must be strictly observed.
Service must be made to the one named in the statute.
The liberal construction rule cannot be invoked and
utilized as a substitute for the plain legal requirements
as to the manner in which summons should be served
on a domestic corporation.
The strict compliance with the mode if service is
necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over a
corporation. The purpose is to render it reasonably
certain that the corporation will receive prompt and
proper notice in an action against it or to insure that

57

the summons be server on a representative so


integrated with the corporation that such person will
know what to do with the legal papers served to him.
Accordingly, the service of summons upon the branch
manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan
de Oro City, instead of upon the general manager at its
principal office at Davao City is improper.
Consequently, the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
MILLENIUM
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
CORPORATION vs. TAN
February 28, 2000
Case is decided prior to the 1997 Rules of Court
Petitioner executed a real estate mortgage against the
respondent which was subsequently foreclosed by the
latter by filing a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage.
Summons was then served to the petitioner and was
received (according to the return) by a draftsman, a
person of sufficient age and discretion working therein,
is the highest ranking officer or Officer-in-charge of
defendants corporation, to received processes of the
Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid service of
summons on the defendant corporation.
HELD: NO.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


General Rule: In order to confer jurisdiction on a
corporation, the service of summons must be made to
those exclusively mentioned under Sec. 11, Rule 14.

When the corporation learns that summons


has been served to them other from the person
who actually received it, requisite c will not lie.

Exception: Doctrine of Substantial Compliance


Although the service of summons was made on
a person not enumerated in the Rule, if it
appears that the summons and complaint were
in fact received by the corporation, there is
substantial compliance with the rule as its
purpose has been attained.

Receipt by the petitioner of the summons and


complaint cannot be inferred from the fact that
the corporation filed a motion to dismiss.

Requisites:
a. there must be actual receipt of the
summons by the person served, i.e,
transferring possession of the copy of
the summons from the Sheriff to the
person served.
b. the person served must sign a receipt
or the sheriffs return;
c. there must be actual receipt of the
summons by the corporation through
the person on whom the summons
was actually served.
On REQUISITE (C): there must be direct
evidence of the actual receipt of summons by
the corporation through the person on whom it
was actually served.
Direct evidence on the same may be made
through an admission of the corporate officers,

MASON vs. CA
October 13, 2003
Petitioners owned 2 parcels of land along EDSA in
Pasay City. They entered into a contract with private
respondent to construct a building worth 10 million
pesos.
Private respondent was unable to comply with the
stipulation in the contract.
Summons was served upon the private respondent
through a certain Ayreen Rejalde. The receiving copy of
the summons described Rejalde as a secretary of
Columbus, while the sheriffs return described Rejalde
as a secretary to the corporate president.
Respondent failed to file an answer and was declared
in default. A decision was then rendered in favor of the
petitioner. The same became final and executory.
Respondent filed a motion to lift order of default. The
RTC denied the same.
On appeal with the CA, the appellate court reversed
the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition.

58

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

ISSUE:
Whether or not the doctrine of substantial compliance
is applicable in the case at bar.
HELD: NO.
Sec. 11, Rule 14 has already been settled in E.B.
Villarosa which applies squarely in the instant case.
There is no valid service of summons in Villarosa as
service was made through a person not included in the
enumeration in Sec. 11, Rule 14.
We discarded the trial courts basis for denying the
motion to dismiss, namely, petitioners substantial
compliance with the rule on service of summons, and
fully agreed with petitioners assertions that the
enumeration under the new rule is restricted, limited
and exclusive, following the rule in statutory
construction expression unlos est exclusion alterious.
Had the Rules of Court Revision Committee intended
to liberalize the rule on summons, we said, it could
have hastily done so by clear and concise language.
Absent a manifest intent to liberalize the rule, we
stress strict compliance with Sec. 11, Rule 14.
Neither can herein petitioners invoke our ruling in
Millennium to support their position for the said case
is not on all fours with the instant case. We must
stress that Millennium was decided when the 1964
Rules of Court were still in force and effect, unlike the
instant case which falls under the new rule. Hence,
the cases cited by petitioners where we upheld the

59

doctrine of substantial compliance must be deemed


overturned by Villarosa, which is the latter case.
At this juncture, it is worth emphasizing that notice to
enable the other party to be heard and to present
evidence is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter
in any administrative or judicial proceedings. The
service of summons is a vital and indispensable
ingredient of due process. We will deprive private
respondent of its right to present its defense in this
multi-million peso suit, if we disregard compliance
with the rules on service of summons.
SEC. 12: Service upon foreign private juridical entity
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which
has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be
made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law
for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or on any
of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the
Philippines or has no resident agent, service may, with leave of
court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the
following means:
a. By personal service coursed through the
appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the DFA;
b. By publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation the country where the defendant may be
found and by serving a copy of the summons and
the court order by registered mail at his last known
address of the defendant;

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


c. By facsimile or any recognized means that could
generate proof of service; or
d. By such other means as the court may in its
discretion direct. (As amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6
SC, March 15, 2011)
SEC. 13: Service upon public corporations When the
defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be
effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province,
municipality, or like public corporation, service may be
effected on its executive head, or on such other officer or
officers as the law or the court may direct.
SEC. 14: Service upon defendant whose identity or
whereabouts are unknown In any action where the
defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court,
be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation and in such places and for such time as the court
may order.
SANTOS vs. PNOC
September 23, 2008
Respondent filed an action for sum of money against
the petitioner seeking to collect a certain amount of
unpaid balance of a car loan which the latter acquired
while he was still a board member.
Personal service of summons was made to the
petitioner. However, the return stated that he could not
be located despite the earnest efforts to do so.

60

Respondent filed a motion to the court to allow


summons by publication. The trial court granted the
same. The summons was made in Remante, a
newspaper of general circulation.
Still, the petitioner failed to file an answer. Hence,
respondent filed an action to declare the respondent in
default.
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration
and to Admit Attached Answer, wherein he alleged that
the affidavit of service submitted by the respondent
failed to comply with Sec. 19, Rule 14 as it was not
executed by the clerk of court.
The RTC denied the Motion and admit the answer.
Hence, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 to the CA. The CA denied the same. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the service of summons by publication
may apply in actions in personam, such as in this case
for sum of money.
HELD: YES.
The applicable provision in this case is Sec. 14, Rule
14. Since petitioner could not be personally served
with summons despite diligent efforts to locate his
whereabouts, respondent sought and was granted
leave of court to effect service of summons upon him
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Thus, the petitioner was
summons by publication.

properly

served

with

Under the old rule relating to service to summons


when the defendant is unknown or his whereabouts
are unknown, it is important to distinguish action in
rem from an action in personam because the said old
rule was silent as to the kind of action to which the
rule was applicable.
The present rule expressly states that it applies to any
action where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever the
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained
by diligent inquiry. Thus, it now applies to any action,
whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
SEC. 15: Extraterritorial Service When the defendant
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the
action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to,
or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in
which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached
within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be
effected out of the Philippines by personal service under
Section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time as the court may
order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known
address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court
may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall
specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty

61

days (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must
answer.

Extraterritorial
service
of
summons
or
summons
by
publication
applies
only
when
the
action is in rem
or
quasi
in
rem. (Jose vs.
Boyon, October
23, 2003; see
facts
under
Sec. 7)

MODES of Extraterritorial Service:


a. Service on the Person of the
Defendant;
b. Substituted Service;
c. Publication;
d. Any other modes authorized by Court.
*substituted service is allowed in extraterritorial
service, it falls under letter (d)
*service by registered mail, is allowed under
letter (d).
But summons by registered mail per se is not
allowed.

VALMONTE vs. CA
January 22, 1996
An action for petition and accounting under Rule 69
was filed against the petitioner spouses.
Petitioners are residents of the United States. The
husband was a practicing lawyer in the Philippines.
However, the wife stayed in the United States.
Summons were served on the husband, whom he
personally received. Summons was also served upon
his wife. However, the husband refused to receive the

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


same on the ground that he was not authorized by his
wife to receive the summons.
ISSUE: Whether or not the summons on the wife is
valid.
HELD: NO.
An action for partition and accounting under Rule 69,
is in the nature of an action quasi in rem.
The wife is a non-resident and not is not found in the
Philippines. Hence, the proper mode of service is
under Sec. 15 (then 17) of the ROC.
Hence, under said Rule, service of summons may be
effected by either:
1. personal service;
(may be made through the Philippine
Embassy in the foreign country where
the defendant resides).
2. by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time
as the court may order, in which case a copy
of the summons and other order of the court
should be sent by registered mail to the last
known address of the defendant;
3. in any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.
Service was made to the husband. The same
may fit into the category in any other manner
the court may deem sufficient. HOWEVER,

62

there was no compliance with the requisites


stated under Sec. 15, Rule 14 that:
a. the attempted summons to the must
be done with leave of court;
b. To effect summons by publication copy of summons should be sent to the
last known correct address in the
Philippines.
Note: An appointed attorney-in-fact, who
received summons when there is a specification
that he is authorized to receive summons OR if
such authorization can be inferred from the SPA,
is valid.
SEC. 16: Residents temporarily out of the Philippines
When any action is commenced against a defendant who
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is
temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also
effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section.
SEC. 17: Leave of Court Any application to the court under
this Rule for leave to effect service in any manner for which
leave of court is necessary shall be made in writing,
supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his
behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application.
SEC. 18: Proof of service The proof of service of summons
shall be made in writing by the server and shall set forth the
manner, place, and date of service; shall specify any papers
which have been served with the process and the name of the
person who received the same; and shall be sworn to when
made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


SEC. 19: Proof of service by publication If the service has
been made by publication, service may be proved by the
affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the
editor, business or advertising manager, to which affidavit a
copy of the publication shall be attached, and by an affidavit
showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for
publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the
defendant by registered mail to his last known address.
Service of summons by publication is proved by the
affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk
of clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising
manager of the newspaper which published the
summons. The service of summons by publication is
contemplated by service of summons by registered
mail to the defendants last known address. This
complementary service is evidenced by an affidavit
showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and
order for publication in the post office, postage
prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to
his last known address.
The rules, however, do not require that the affidavit of
complementary service be executed by the clerk of
court. While the trial court ordinarily does the mailing
of copies of its orders and processes, the duty to make
the complementary service by registered mail is
imposed on the party who resorts to the service by
publication. (Santos vs. PNOC, September 23, 2008;
see facts under Sec. 14)
SEC. 20: Voluntary appearance The defendants voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other

63

grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the


defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
LA NAVAL DRUG CORPORATION vs. CA, ET. AL.
the basis of Rule 14, Sec. 20.
The emplacement of this rule clearly underscores the
purpose to enforce strict enforcement of the rules on
summons. Accordingly, the filing of a Motion to
dismiss, whether or not belatedly filed by the
defendant, his authorized agent or attorney, precisely
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the defendant can by no means be deemed a
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. (EB
Villarosa & Partner Co. vs. Hon. Benito, August 6, 1999)
Even assuming that the service of summons was
defective, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner by his own voluntary
appearance in the action against him.
Petitioner voluntary appeared in the action when he
filed the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to
Admit Attached Answer. This was equivalent to service
of summons and vested the trial court with
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. (Santos
vs. PNOC, September 23, 2008; see facts under Sec. 14)
There must be an unequivocal submission of himself
to the jurisdiction of the court. (Millennium Industrial
vs. Tan, February 20, 2000; see facts under sec. 11)
DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. HON. QUILALA
July 9, 2008

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Respondent All Season filed a complaint for recovery of


sum of money, accounting and damages against
petitioner.
According to DOLE, an alias summons was served
upon it through a Marifa Dela Cruz, a legal assistant
employed by DOLE Pacific General Services, Ltd.,
which is an entity separate from DOLE.
DOLE filed a motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person
of DOLE. The RTC denied the same.
DOLE filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
contending the improper service of summons. The
appellate court denied the petition. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction
over DOLE.

However, under Sec. 20 of the same Rule, a


defendants voluntary appearance in the action is
equivalent to service of summons. As previously held
by this Court, the filing of motions seeking affirmative
relief, such as:
a. motion to admit answer;
b. motion to extend time to file an answer;
c. For reconsideration of a default judgment;
d. lift an order of default with motion for
reconsideration.
It must be noted that petitioner filed an Entry of
Appearance with Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Responsive Pleading. It was not a conditional
appearance entered into to question the regularity of
the service of summons, but an appearance
submitting to the jurisdiction of the court by
acknowledging the receipt of alias summons and
praying for additional time to file a responsive
pleading.

HELD: YES.
While it is true that there was an invalid service of
summons, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant corporation through its
voluntary appearance.
Summons must be served only to the corporate
officers enumerated in Sec. 11, Rule 14. Marifa Dela
Cruz, a legal assistant is not one of those mentioned
under Sec. 11, Rule 14.

64

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 15: MOTIONS
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6.
7.
8.
9.

Motion defined
Motions must be in writing
Contents
Hearing of motion
Notice of hearing
Proof of service necessary
Motion day
Omnibus Motion
Motion for leave

SEC. 1: Motion defined A motion is an application for relief


other than by a pleading.
A motion is different from a pleading. It is not a
pleading technically speaking.
2 Kinds of Motions:
1. Litigated Motions one which requires
hearing.
2. Non-litigated motions one which do not
require hearing as it is not prejudicial to
the other party.
e.g. oral motions, motion to move for pretrial, motion for continuance, motion for
postponement
(although
under
SC
Circular, motion for postponement is a
litigated motion)
SEC. 2: Motions must be in writing All motions shall be in
writing except those made in open court or in the course of a
hearing or trial.

65

SEC. 3: Contents A motion shall state the relief sought to


be obtained
andrule
the states
grounds
upon
which
it is based,
and if
While the
that
notice
of hearing
should
required
by
these
Rules
or
necessary
to
prove
facts
alleged
be
addressed
to
the
parties
concerned,
therein,
shall be accompanied
by supporting
affidavits and
jurisprudence
dictates that
there is substantial
other compliance
papers.
on the rule is the notice of hearing is
addressed to the clerk of court, copy furnished to
SEC. the
4: Hearing
ofthe
motion
Except
counsel of
adverse
party. for motions which the
court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by
the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of
the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to
ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days
before the date of hearing, unless the court for a good cause
sets the hearing on shorter notice.
Sec. 4(2) is known as the 3 DAY NOTICE RULE:
SEC. 5: Notice of
hearing

The
The notice of hearing must be received by the party
notice of hearing
at least 3 days before the scheduled date of hearing,
shall be addressed
unless the court for a good cause sets the hearing
to
all
parties
on shorter notice.
concerned,
and
shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not
be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
Sec. 5 is known as the 10 DAY SETTING RULE:
A party must set the date of the hearing not later
than 10 days after filing of the motion.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

SEC. 7: Motion day Except for motions requiring immediate


action, all motions shall be scheduled for hearing on Friday
afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working day, in the afternoon
of the next working day.

The 3-day notice rule will prevail over the 10 day


setting rule.
The 3 day notice rule affects the rights of the parties
while the 10 day setting rule only affects the
calendar of cases.
Non-compliance with the 3-day notice rule can be a
ground for a Motion to Dismiss.
SEC. 6: Proof of service necessary No written motion set
for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of
service thereof.
What is the proof of service in motions?
Same in Rule 13.
1. If served personally, then in actual receipt,
the signature of the recipient;
2. If served by registered mail, the registry
receipt;
3. If served by ordinary mail in the absence
of registered mail, then 10 days from the
deposit to the post office

Sec. 4, 5 and 6 are mandatory. Lack of any shall


reduce the motion into a mere scrap of paper. Of
course, in sec. 2, the motion should also be in
writing.

66

SEC. 8: Omnibus motion Subject to the provisions of


Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order,
judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then
available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed
waived.
DE GUZMAN vs. OCHOA
April 13, 2011
Respondents, through their attorney-in-fact, filed an
action seeking the annulment of contract of mortgage,
foreclosure sale, certificate of sale and damages
against petitioners.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
failure to state cause of action. The same was denied
by the trial court.
Petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss on the
ground that the certification against forum shopping
was fatally defective. That it was signed by the
attorney-in-fact instead of the respondents. The trial
court denied the second motion to dismiss.
Petitioners the filed with the CA a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65. The appellate court dismissed the

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


petition basing its decision on the omnibus motion
rule.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or nor the matter raised in the second
Motion to Dismiss is deemed waived following the
Omnibus Motion Rule.
HELD: NO.
Sec. 8 of Rule 15 defines an Omnibus Motion. A
motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it
attacks a pleading, which is the complaint. For this
reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus
motion, must raise and include all objections available
at the time of the filing of the motion because under
Sec. 8, all objections not so included shall be deemed
waived.

SEC. 9: Motion for leave A motion for leave to file a


pleading or motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or
motion sought to be admitted.
Rule is important in cases of demurrer to evidence!
*palagi sinasabi ni sir*
Motions that require leave of court:
1. Pleadings in intervention;
2. 3rd, 4th party claim;
3. Cross claim, among others;
4. Modes of Discovery

SEC. 10: Form The Rules applicable to pleadings shall


apply to written motions so far as concerns caption,
designation, signature, and other matters of form.

In the case at bench, the petitioners raised the ground


of defective verification and certification only when
they filed the second motion to dismiss, despite the
fact that the same is available and existent during the
time of the filing of their first motion. Absent any
justifiable reason to explain this fatal omission, the
ground of defective verification and certification of
forum shopping was deemed waived and could no
longer be questioned by the petitioners in their second
motion to dismiss.
The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is
formal and not jurisdictional. Hence, it is already
deemed waived.

67

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 18: PRE-TRIAL
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6.

When conducted
Nature and purpose
Notice of pre-trial
Appearance of parties
Effect of failure to appear
Pre-trial brief

RULE 18 (PRE-TRIAL CIVIL


CASES)
The plaintiff moves ex parte
to set the case for pre-trial

RULE 118 (PRE-TRIAL


CRIMINAL CASES)
Ordered by the court. No
motion needed from the
prosecution nor the defense.
The motion for pre-trial is The pre-trial is ordered by
made after the last pleading the court after arraignment
has been served and filed.
and within 30 days from the
date acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the
accused.
Considers the possibility of No
amicable
settlement.
amicable settlement
Only plea bargaining.
Must be signed by both the parties and their counsel.
Both are mandatory.
Failure to appear by both Failure of the accused to
parties have corresponding appear is of no consequence.
sanctions, pursuant to Sec. All he needs is to sign the
5 and 6 of Rule 18
written agreement entered
into
at
the
pre-trial
conference. (In relation to
the right of the accused to
waive his presence at all

68

stages of the criminal action,


except
at
arraignment,
promulgation of judgment or
when required to appear for
identification.

A pre-trial brief is required.


Failure to file pre-trial brief
is sanctioned under Sec. 6,
Rule 18.

Failure of the complainant to


appear, is also of no
consequence. Complainant
is only required to be
present at arraignment.
No requirement to file a pretrial brief. The parties only
need to be present during
the pre-trial conference.

AM No. 03-1-9: Guidelines to be observed by trial courts


judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and use
of deposition-discovery measures.
HOW CONDUCTED?
Plaintiff moves for pre-trial Court does not
immediately set for pre-trial proper but instead refer
the case in the Philippine Conciliation and Mediation
Officer (AM No. 03-1-9) Parties are referred to the
PCMO and are given 30 days to settle their dispute.
This 30 days is extendible for another 30 days (1) if
settled: their settlement will be stated in a compromise
agreement. Such agreement shall be given to the court
Judgment on Compromise (in relation to Rule 36)
such judgment shall be immediately FINAL and
EXECUTORY.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


(2) if not settled within the 30 / 60 day period, as the
case may be return to the court and they shall
proceed with preliminary conference, which shall be
conducted by the branch clerk court. the branch
clerk of court will still try to settle the dispute if not,
then sec. 2, Rule 18 (marking of evidence,
simplification of issues, stipulation of issues,
stipulations and admissions, naming of witnesses,
agreement on judicial affidavits) PRE-TRIAL
PROPER the Judge shall still try to settle the
dispute pre-trial order trial.
SEC. 1: When conducted. After the last pleading has been
served and filed, it shall be they duty of the plaintiff to move
ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
The last pleading to be served and filed is the
answer. However, in cases where a reply is needed to
be filed, the last pleading to be served and filed shall
be the reply.

If the plaintiff does not file a motion for pre-trial, it is


incumbent upon the court to set it for pre-trial.
SEC. 2: Nature and purpose The pre-trial is mandatory.
The court shall consider:
(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a
submission to alternative modes of dispute
resolution;
(b) The simplification of the issues;
(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the
pleadings;

69

(d)

The possibility of obtaining stipulations or


admissions of facts and of documents to avoid
unnecessary proof;
(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues
to a commissioner;
(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the
pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing
the action should a valid ground thereof be found to
exist;
(h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the
proceedings; and
(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt
disposition of the action.
SEC. 3: Notice of pre-trial The notice of pre-trial shall be
served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel. The
counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of
notifying the party represented by him.
SEC. 4: Appearance of parties It shall be the duty of the
parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The nonappearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is
shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf
fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute
resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of
facts and of documents.
SEC. 5: Effect of failure to appear The failure of the
plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next
preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action.
The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise
ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the
basis thereof.

explicitly define and limit the issues to be tried. The contents


of the order shall control the subsequent course of the action,
unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice.

SEC. 6: Pre-trial brief The parties shall with the court and
serve on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure
their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of
the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall
contain, among others:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into
amicable settlement or alternative modes of
dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms
thereof;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed
stipulation of facts;
(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented stating
the purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their
intention to avail themselves of discovery
procedures or referral to commissioners; and
(f) The number and names of witnesses, and the
substance of their respective testimonies

Pre-trial ORDER is mandatory. If the court


proceeded without a pre-trial order, it can be a
ground for NEW TRIAL (Rule 37) on the basis of
irregularity.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as
failure to appear at the pre-trial.
SEC. 7: Record of pre-trial The proceedings in the pre-trial
shall be recorded. Upon the termination thereof, the court
shall issue an order which shall recite in detail the matters
taken up in the conference, the action taken thereon, the
amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements of
admissions made by the parties as to any of the matters
considered. Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall,

70

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 19: INTERVENTION
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.
SEC.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

Who may intervene


Time to intervene
Pleadings-in-intervention
Answer to complaint-in-intervention
Effect of failure to appear

INTERVENTION
Ancillary action
Intervention is proper in any
of
the
four
situations
mentioned in this Rule

The defendants are already


original
parties
to
the
pending suit.

INTERPLEADER
(Rule 62)
Original action
Presupposes
that
the
plaintiff has no interest in
the subject matter of the
action
or
has
interest
therein, which in whole or in
part, is not disputed by the
other parties to the action.
The defendants are being
sued precisely to implead
them.

Intervention is a procedure by which third persons,


not originally parties to the suit but claiming an
interest in the subject matter, come into the case in
order to protect their right or interpose their claim.
Its main purpose is to settle in one action and by a
single judgment all conflicting claims of, the whole
controversy, among, the persons involved. (Office of
the Ombudsman vs. Sison, February 16, 2010)

71

SEC. 1: Who may intervene A person who has legal


interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either
of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as
to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition
of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof
may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties, and whether or not the intervenors rights
may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
To warrant intervention, two requisites must concur:
(1) The movant has a legal interest in the matter
in litigation;
Interest must involve the matter in
litigation and of such direct and
immediate
character
that
the
intervenor will either gain or lose by
direct operation and effect of
judgment.
(2) Intervention must not unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor
be capable of being properly decided in a
separate
proceeding.
(Office
of
the

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. SISON


February 16, 2010

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Isog Han Samar Movement, represented by Fr. Noel


Labendia filed a letter-complaint addressed to the
Ombudsman accusing the respondent, the provincial
budget officer and other public officers of Samar of
anomalous transactions.
Petitioner found basis to proceed with the
administrative case against the said officers. The
Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of the
charges.
Respondent appealed to the CA under Rule 43. The CA
reversed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman
on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
Petitioner then filed with the CA an Omnibus Motion
for Intervention and to Admit Attached Motion for
Reconsideration.
The appellate court denied the motion. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman may be
allowed to intervene.
HELD: NO.
To warrant intervention, the two requisites must be
present. In the first requisite, interest must involve the
matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by
direct operation and effect of judgment.

72

The court or the quasi-judicial agency must be


detached and impartial, not only when hearing and
resolving the case before it, but even when its
judgment is brought on appeal before a higher court.
When the court judge or the quasi-judicial officer
intervenes as a party in the appealed case, he
inevitably forsakes his detachment and impartiality,
and his interest in the case becomes personal since his
objective now is no longer only to settle the controversy
between the original parties, but more significantly, to
refute the appellants assignment of errors, defend his
judgment, and prevent it from being overturned on
appeal.

A courts power to allow or deny intervention, albeit


discretionary in nature is circumscribed by the basic
demand of sound judicial procedure that only a
person with interest in an action or proceeding may
be allowed to intervene. (Anonuevo vs. Heirs of
Jalandoni, December 1, 2010)

When a court commits a mistake and allows an


uninterested person to intervene in a case the
mistake is an error of jurisdiction and may be
reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari. (Id.)

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


ANONUEVO vs. HEIRS OF JALANDONI
December 1, 2010
The brother of Rodolfo, deceased, filed a petition for
the issuance of Letters of Administration.
Rodolfo, was allegedly married to Isabel. Rodolfo and
Isabel allegedly had a child named Sylvia.
Sylvias children filed a motion to intervene in the
intestate proceedings of Rodolfo. They allege that they
are the legitimate grandchildren of Rodolfo. That Isabel
and Rodolfo were legally married, until the former
died.
The intestate court allowed the intervention.
Respondent estate filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied by the court.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
before the CA. The CA nullified the probate courts
decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners should be allowed
to intervene.
HELD: NO.
A courts power to allow or deny intervention, albeit
discretionary in nature is circumscribed by the basic
demand of sound judicial procedure that only a person
with interest in an action or proceeding may be allowed
to intervene.

73

The sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence determines


if the petitioners have established their interest in the
estate of the deceased.
In the case given, petitioners failed to offer sufficient to
establish that Isabel was the legal spouse of Rodolfo.
The very evidence of the petitioners negates their claim
that Isabel has interest in Rodolfos estate.
FERNANDEZ vs. CA
February 19, 2013
Petitioner Fernandez and Henson were elected Board
Members in August 2010 of the Nationwide
Development Corporation (NADECOR). Petitioner Ong
was elected as member of the Board in June 13, 2012.
On August 15, 2011, NADECOR conducted its regular
annual stockholders meeting.
On October 20, 2011, some stockholders (Ricafort, et.
al) filed an action to annul the August 2011 meeting.
They questioned the same on the ground that they
were not given notices, in violation of the by-laws of the
corporation.
The trial court ruled in favor of the said stockholders
(Ricafort, et. al). Hence, NADECOR, the corporate
secretary and 2 Directors of the corporation filed 4
separate petitions for certiorari with prohibition and
injunction against the stockholders.
Upon consolidation of the 4 petitions, the 14 th division
of the CA granted the injunction.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Petitioners then filed before the Supreme Court a


petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, seeking to
annul the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
14th Division of the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners may question the
issuance of the writ of Preliminary Injunction issued
by the SC.
HELD: NO.
A person who is not a party in the main suit cannot be
bound by an ancillary writ such as a preliminary
injunction. Indeed, he cannot be affected by any
proceeding to which he is a stranger.
In the case at bar, petitioners did not file a motion for
intervention in the original action. Hence, they cannot
be bound by the preliminary injunction.
RODRIGUEZ vs. CA
June 13, 2013
Landicho is the owner of a parcel of land in Rizal. He
filed an application for Registration of the piece of land
with the CFI of Rizal. CFI Rizal granted the
application.
He then sold the land to other people, including
private respondent, Philippine Chinese Charitable
Association (PCCA).

74

Sometime after, Landicho executed another deed of


sale in favor of petitioner.
Seven years after the sale, petitioner filed an Omnibus
motion for execution of the decision in the application
for registration of Landicho.
Private respondent filed a motion for leave to intervene
in the said case.
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and
denied the motion to intervene of the respondent. In
its decision, the trial court stated that intervention
would not be allowed after the Decision of the Land
Reg. case has become final and executory.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The appellate court granted the petition.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not PCCAI may intervene.
HELD: YES.
As registered owner of the subject property, PCCAI has
a legal interest in the subject property, in compliance
with sec. 1, Rule 19. The issuance of another
certificate of title to the petitioner will adversely affect
PCCAI, constituting a clout on its title.
Although Rule 19 is explicit on the period when a
motion to intervene may be filed, the Court allowed
exceptions in several cases, viz:

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


The
rule,
however,
is
not
inflexible.
Interventions have been allowed even beyond
the period prescribed in the Rules, when
demanded by the higher interest of justice.
Indispensable parties, who have not been
impleaded, the right to be heard even after a
decision has been rendered by the trial court,
when the petition for review of the judgment
has already been submitted for decision before
the Supreme Court, and even where the
assailed order has already become final and
executory.
In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for
intervention rests on the sound discretion of the trial
court after consideration of the appropriate
circumstances. We stress again that Rule 19 is a rule
of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the
court fully and completely available for justice. Its
purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and
promote the administration of justice.
In the case given, petitioners had the opportunity to
intervene in the petitions for certiorari but did not do
so. Hence, they cannot be allowed to intervene in an
ancillary writ where they are not parties to the original
action.
YAO vs. PERELLO
October 24, 2003
Petitioner filed a complaint for rescission of a contract
to sell before the HLURB against PR Builders and its

75

managers, one of which was private respondent


Villarin.
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It
rescinded the contract to sell and ordering PR Builders
to refund the payment made by the petitioner, as well
as pay the same for damages.
The trial court then issued a writ of execution against
PR Builders. The deputy sheriff levied on a property
owned by Villarin spouses.
Respondent wife filed a petition for prohibition with
prayer for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin the sheriff from proceeding with the
public auction. She alleged that she co-owned the
subject property.
The trial court granted the TRO and the petition for
prohibition.
More than a month after the issuance of the said
resolution, petitioner filed a motion for intervention.
The same was denied by the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner had the right to
intervene.
HELD: NO.
Sec. 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides
When the proceeding of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


functions, are without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to or lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying
that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings
in the action or matter specified therein, or
otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as
law and justice may provide.
There is nothing under sec. 2, Rule 65 that requires
the inclusion of a private party as respondent in
petitions for prohibition.
Also, to warrant intervention, the requisites of the
same must be present (see requisites above).
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners
right as a judgment creditor was adversely affected by
the lifting of the levy on the subject real property.
Records reveal that husband-respondent has other
several properties that can be levied upon.
In addition, even if we are to grant the motion for
intervention, it should still comply with the Rules of
Court.
Sec. 2 of Rule 19 provides for the time when a motion
for intervention may be filed. In this case, the said
motion was filed way beyond the period set by the
rules.

76

SEC. 2: Time to intervene The motion to intervene may be


filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial
court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached
to the motion and served on the original parties.
The rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions
have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed
in the Rules, when demanded by the higher interest
of justice.
Indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded,
the right to be heard even after a decision has been
rendered by the trial court, when the petition for
review of the judgment has already been submitted
for decision before the Supreme Court, and even
where the assailed order has already become final
and executory. (Rodriguez vs. CA, June 13, 2013)

PINLAC vs. CA
September 10, 2003

SEC. 3: Pleadings-in-intervention The intervenor shall file


a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim either or all
of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he
unites with the defending party in resisting a claim against
the latter.
SEC. 4: Answer to complain-in-intervention The answer
to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within fifteen

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


(15) days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless
a different period is fixed by the court.

77

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


MODES OF DISCOVERY
(RULES 23 29)
Modes of Discovery:
1. Deposition pending appeal;
2. Deposition before action;
3. Deposition pending appeal;
4. Interrogatories to parties;
5.
RULE 23
Depositions Pending Action
Section 1.
Depositions pending action, when may be
taken. By leave of court after jurisdiction has been
obtained over any defendant or over property which is the
subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer
has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party
or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by
deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories.
The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a
subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken
only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a
person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court
on such terms as the court prescribes. (1a, R24)
Section 2.
Scope of examination. Unless otherwise
ordered by the court as provided by section 16 or 18 of this
Rule, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter,
not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of the pending
action, whether relating to the claim or defense of any other
party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any books, documents, or other
tangible things and the identity and location of persons
having knowledge of relevant facts. (2, R24)

78

Section 3.
Examination and cross-examination.
Examination and cross-examination of deponents may
proceed as permitted at the trial under sections 3 to 18 of
Rule 132. (3a, R24)
Section 4.
Use of depositions. At the trial or upon the
hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part
or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of
evidence, may be used against any party who was present or
represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due
notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following
provisions;
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose
of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent
as a witness;
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of
taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or
association which is a party may be used by an adverse
party for any purpose;
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be
used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (1)
that the witness is dead, or (2) that the witness resides at
a distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from
the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines,
unless it appears that his absence was procured by the
party offering the deposition, or (3) that the witness is
unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness,
infirmity, or imprisonment, or (4) that the party offering
the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance
of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application and
notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due
regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of
witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to
be used; and
(d)If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party,
the adverse party may require him to introduce all of it
which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party
may introduce any other parts. (4a, R24)
Section 5.
Effect of substitution of parties.
Substitution of parties does not affect the right to use
depositions previously taken; and, when an action has been
dismissed and another action involving the same subject is
afterward brought between the same parties or their
representatives or successors in interest, all depositions
lawfully taken and duly filed in the former action may be used
in the latter as if originally taken therefor. (5, R24)
Section 6.
Objections to admissibility. Subject to the
provisions of section 29 of this Rule, objection may be made at
the trial or hearing, to receiving in evidence any deposition or
part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion
of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying
(6, R24)
Section 7.
Effect of taking depositions. A party shall
not be deemed to make a person his own witness for any
purpose by taking his deposition. (7, R24)
Section 8.
Effect of using depositions. The introduction
in evidence of the deposition or any part thereof for any
purpose other than that of contradicting or impeaching the
deponent makes the deponent the witness of the party
introducing the deposition, but this shall not apply to the use

79

by an adverse party of a deposition as described in paragraph


(b) of section 4 of this Rule. (8, R24)
Section 9.
Rebutting deposition. At the trial or hearing
any party may rebut any relevant evidence contained in a
deposition whether introduced by him or by any other party.
(9, R24)
Section 10.
Persons before whom depositions may be taken
within the Philippines. Within the Philippines depositions
may be taken before any judge, notary public, or the person
referred to in section 14 hereof. (10a, R24)
Section 11.
Persons before whom depositions may be taken
in foreign countries. In a foreign state or country,
depositions may be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or
consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, (b) before
such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or
under letters rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in section
14 hereof. (11a, R24)
Section 12.
Commission or letters rogatory. A
commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only when
necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on
such terms, and with such direction as are just and
appropriate. Officers may be designated in notices or
commissions either by name or descriptive title and letters
rogatory may be addressed to the appropriate judicial
authority in the foreign country. (12a, R24)
Section 13.
Disqualification by interest. No deposition
shall be taken before a person who is a relative within the
sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or employee or

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


counsel of any of the parties, or who is a relative within the
same degree, or employee of such counsel; or who is
financially interested in the action. (13a, R24)
Section 14.
Stipulations regarding taking of depositions.
If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions may be taken
before any person authorized to administer oaths, at any time
or place, in accordance with these Rules and when so taken
may be used like other depositions. (14a, R24)
Section 15.
Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time
and place. A party desiring to take the deposition of any
person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in
writing, to every other party to the action. The notice shall
state the time and place for taking the deposition and the
name and address of each person to be examined, if known,
and if the name is not known, a general description sufficient
to identify him or the particular class or group to which he
belongs. On motion of any party upon whom the notice is
served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the
time. (15, R24)
Section 16.
Orders for the protection of parties and
deponents. After notice is served for taking a deposition by
oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party
or by the person to be examined and for good cause shown,
the court in which the action is pending may make an order
that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken
only at some designated place other than that stated in the
notice, or that it may be taken only on written interrogatories,
or that certain matters shall not be inquired into, or that the
scope of the examination shall be held with no one present
except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel,
or that after being sealed the deposition shall be opened only

80

by order of the court, or that secret processes, developments,


or research need not be disclosed, or that the parties shall
simultaneously file specified documents or information
enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the
court or the court may make any other order which justice
requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance,
embarrassment, or oppression. (16a, R24)
Section 17.
Record of examination, oath; objections. The
officer before whom the deposition is to be taken shall put the
witness on oath and shall personally, or by some one acting
under his direction and in his presence, record the testimony
of the witness. The testimony shall be taken stenographically
unless the parties agree otherwise. All objections made at the
time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer
taking the deposition, or to the manner of talking it, or to the
evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any
other objection to the proceedings, shall be noted by the
officer upon the deposition. Evidence objected to shall be
taken subject to the objections. In lieu of participating in the
oral examination, parties served with notice of taking a
deposition may transmit written interrogatories to the officers,
who shall propound them to the witness and record the
answers verbatim. (17, R24)
Section 18.
Motion to terminate or limit examination. At
any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion or
petition of any party or of the deponent, and upon a showing
that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in
such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or
oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action
is pending or the Regional Trial Court of the place where the
deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting the
examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the
deposition, as provided in section 16 of this Rule. If the order
made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed
thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action
is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent,
the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time
necessary to make a notice for an order. In granting or
refusing such order, the court may impose upon either party
or upon the witness the requirement to pay such costs or
expenses as the court may deem reasonable. (18a, R24)

testimony given by the witness. He shall then securely seal


the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title of the
action and marked "Deposition of (here insert the name of
witness)" and shall promptly file it with the court in which the
action is pending or send it by registered mail to the clerk
thereof for filing. (20, R24)

Section 19.
Submission to witness; changes; signing.
When the testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition shall
be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read
to or by him, unless such examination and reading are waived
by the witness and by the parties. Any changes in form or
substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered
upon the deposition by the officer with a statement of the
reasons given by the witness for making them. The deposition
shall then be signed by the witness, unless the parties by
stipulation waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot be
found or refuses to sign. If the deposition is not signed by the
witness, the officer shall sign it and state on the record the
fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence of the witness or
the fact of the refusal to sign together with the reason be given
therefor, if any, and the deposition may then be used as fully
as though signed, unless on a motion to suppress under
section 29 (f) of this Rule, the court holds that the reasons
given for the refusal to sign require rejection of the deposition
in whole or in part. (19a, R24)

Section 22.
Furnishing copies. Upon payment of
reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a copy of
the deposition to any party or to the deponent. (22, R24)

Section 20.
Certification, and filing by officer. The officer
shall certify on the deposition that the witness was duly
sworn to by him and that the deposition is a true record of the

81

Section 21.
Notice of filing. The officer taking the
deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing to all the
parties. (21, R24)

Section 23.
Failure to attend of party giving notice. If the
party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to
attend and proceed therewith and another attends in person
or by counsel pursuant to the notice, the court may order the
party giving the notice to pay such other party the amount of
the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his counsel in
so attending, including reasonable attorney's fees. (23a, R24)
Section 24.
Failure of party giving notice to serve
subpoena. If the party giving the notice of the taking of a
deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon him
and the witness because of such failure does not attend, and
if another party attends in person or by counsel because he
expects the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court
may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other
party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him
and his counsel in so attending, including reasonable
attorney's fees. (24a, R24)

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Section 25.
Deposition upon written interrogatories; service
of notice and of interrogatories. A party desiring to take the
deposition of any person upon written interrogatories shall
serve them upon every other party with a notice stating the
name and address of the person who is to answer them and
the name or descriptive title and address of the officer before
whom the deposition is to be taken. Within ten (10) days
thereafter, a party so served may serve cross-interrogatories
upon the party proposing to take the deposition. Within five
(5) days thereafter, the latter may serve re-direct
interrogatories upon a party who has served crossinterrogatories. Within three (3) days after being served with
re-direct interrogatories, a party may serve recrossinterrogatories upon the party proposing to take the
deposition. (25, R24)

to the taking of the testimony of the deponent, the court in


which the action is pending, on motion promptly made by a
party or a deponent, and for good cause shown, may make
any order specified in sections 15, 16 and 18 of this Rule
which is appropriate and just or an order that the deposition
shall not be taken before the officer designated in the notice
or that it shall not be taken except upon oral examination.
(28a, R24)

Section 26.
Officers to take responses and prepare record.
A copy of the notice and copies of all interrogatories served
shall be delivered by the party taking the deposition to the
officer designated in the notice, who shall proceed promptly,
in the manner provided by sections 17, 19 and 20 of this
Rule, to take the testimony of the witness in response to the
interrogatories and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the
deposition, attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the
interrogatories received by him. (26, R24)

(b)
As to disqualification of officer. Objection to taking a
deposition because of disqualification of the officer before
whom it is to be taken is waived unless made before the
taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the
disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with
reasonable diligence.

Section 27.
Notice of filing and furnishing copies. When
a deposition upon interrogatories is filed, the officer taking it
shall promptly give notice thereof to all the parties, and may
furnish copies to them or to the deponent upon payment of
reasonable charges therefor. (27, R24)
Section 28.
Order for the protection of parties and
deponents. After the service of the interrogatories and prior

82

Section 29.
Effect
depositions.

of

errors

and

irregularities

in

(a)
As to notice. All errors and irregularities in the
notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written
objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice.

(c)
As to competency or relevancy of evidence.
Objections to the competency of witness or the competency,
relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure
to make them before or during the taking of the deposition,
unless the ground, of the objection is one which might have
been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
(d)
As to oral examination and other particulars. Errors
and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the
manner of taking the deposition in the form of the questions
or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


the parties and errors of any kind which might be obviated,
removed, or cured if promptly prosecuted, are waived unless
reasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the
deposition.
(e)
As to form of written interrogatories. Objections to
the form of written interrogatories submitted under sections
25 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless served in writing
upon the party propounding them within the time allowed for
serving succeeding cross or other interrogatories and within
three (3) days after service of the last interrogatories
authorized.
(f)
As to manner of preparation. Errors and
irregularities in the manner in which the testimony is
transcribed or the deposition is prepared, signed, certified,
sealed, indorsed, transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by
the officer under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this Rule are
waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some
part thereof is made with reasonable promptness after such
defect is, or with due diligence might have been, ascertained.
(29a, R24)

RULE 24

83

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal
Section 1.
Depositions before action; petition. A person
who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of
another person regarding any matter that may be cognizable
in any court of the Philippines may file a verified petition in
the court of the place of the residence of any expected adverse
party. (1a R134)
Section 2.
Contents of petition. The petition shall be
entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show: (a) that
the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of
the Philippines but is presently unable to bring it or cause it
to be brought; (b) the subject matter of the expected action
and his interest therein; (c) the facts which he desires to
establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for
desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the names or a description of the
persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses
so far as known; and (e) the names and addresses of the
persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony
which he expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for an
order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the
persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose
of perpetuating their testimony. (2, R134)
Section 3.
Notice and service. The petitioner shall serve
a notice upon each person named in the petition as an
expected adverse party, together with a copy of the petition,
stating that the petitioner will apply to the court, at a time
and place named therein, for the order described in the
petition. At least twenty (20) days before the date of the
hearing, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on
the parties and prospective deponents in the manner provided
for service of summons. (3a, R134)

84

Section 4.
Order and examination. If the court is
satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a
failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order designating
or describing the persons whose deposition may be taken and
specifying the subject matter of the examination and whether
the depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or
written interrogatories. The depositions may be taken in
accordance with Rule 23 before the hearing. (4a, R134)
Section 5.
Reference to court. For the purpose of
applying Rule 23 to depositions for perpetuating testimony,
each reference therein to the court in which the action is
pending shall be deemed to refer to the court in which the
petition for such deposition was filed. (5a, R134)
Section 6.
Use of deposition. If a deposition to
perpetuate testimony is taken under this Rule, or if, although
not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be
used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of
sections 4 and 5 of Rule 23. (6a, R134)
Section 7.
Depositions pending appeal. If an appeal has
been taken from a judgment of a court, including the Court of
Appeals in proper cases, or before the taking of an appeal if
the time therefor has not expired, the court in which the
judgment was rendered may allow the taking of depositions of
witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for in the event of
further proceedings in the said court. In such case the party
who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion
in the said court for leave to take the depositions, upon the
same notice and service thereof as if the action was pending
therein. The motion shall state (a) the names and addresses of

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


the persons to be examined and the substance of the
testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and (b) the
reason for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that
the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure
or delay of justice, it may make an order allowing the
deposition to be taken, and thereupon the depositions may be
taken and used in the same manner and under the same
conditions as are prescribed in these Rules for depositions
taken in pending actions. (7a, R134)

RULE 25
Interrogatories to Parties
Section 1.
Interrogatories to parties; service thereof.
Under the same conditions specified in section 1 of Rule 23,
any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from
any adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written
interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the
party served is a public or private corporation or a
partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to
testify in its behalf. (1a)
Section 2.
Answer
to
interrogatories.

The
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall be
signed and sworn to by the person making them. The party
upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall file and
serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the
interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after service thereof
unless the court on motion and for good cause shown,
extends or shortens the time. (2a)

85

Section 3.
Objections to interrogatories. Objections to
any interrogatories may be presented to the court within ten
(10) days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a
motion; and answers shall be deferred until the objections are
resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is practicable.
(3a)
Section 4.
Number of interrogatories. No party may,
without leave of court, serve more than one set of
interrogatories to be answered by the same party. (4)
Section 5.
Scope
and
use
of
interrogatories.

Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired


into under section 2 of Rule 23, and the answers may be used
for the same purposes provided in section 4 of the same Rule.
(5a)
Section 6.
Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories.
Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served
with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
deposition pending appeal. (n)

RULE 26
Admission by Adverse Party
Section 1.
Request for admission. At any time after
issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any
other party may file and serve upon any other party a written
request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the
documents shall be delivered with the request unless copy
have already been furnished. (1a)
Section 2.
Implied admission. Each of the matters of
which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall
not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or
within such further time as the court may allow on motion,
the party to whom the request is directed files and serves
upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement
either denying specifically the matters of which an admission
is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he
cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to
the court by the party requested within the period for and
prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in
the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall
be deferred until such objections are resolved, which
resolution shall be made as early as practicable. (2a)
Section 3.
Effect of admission. Any admission made by
a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the
pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by
him for any other purpose nor may the same be used against
him in any other proceeding. (3)
Section 4.
Withdrawal. The court may allow the party
making an admission under the Rule, whether express or
implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may be
just. (4)

86

Section 5.
Effect of failure to file and serve request for
admission. Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good
cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a party who
fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse
party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or
ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall
not be permitted to present evidence on such facts. (n)

RULE 27
Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
Section 1.
Motion for production or inspection; order.
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the
court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved
in the action and which are in his possession, custody or
control, or (b) order any party to permit entry upon designated
land or other property in his possession or control for the
purpose
of
inspecting,
measuring,
surveying,
or
photographing the property or any designated relevant object
or operation thereon. The order shall specify the time, place
and manner of making the inspection and taking copies and
photographs, and may prescribe such terms and conditions
as are just. (1a)

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

RULE 28
Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
Section 1.
When examination may be ordered. In an
action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is
in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may
in its discretion order him to submit to a physical or mental
examination by a physician. (1)

the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any


privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the
same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other
person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in
respect of the same mental or physical examination. (4)

RULE 29
Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery

Section 2.
Order for examination. The order for
examination may be made only on motion for good cause
shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all
other parties, and shall specify the time, place, manner,
conditions and scope of the examination and the person or
persons by whom it is to be made. (2)
Section 3.
Report of findings. If requested by the party
examined, the party causing the examination to be made shall
deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the
examining physician setting out his findings and conclusions.
After such request and delivery, the party causing the
examination to be made shall be entitled upon request to
receive from the party examined a like report of any
examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same
mental or physical condition. If the party examined refuses to
deliver such report, the court on motion and notice may make
an order requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a
physician fails or refuses to make such a report the court may
exclude his testimony if offered at the trial. (3a)
Section 4.
Waiver of privilege. By requesting and
obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking

87

Section 1.
Refusal to answer. If a party or other
deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral
examination, the examination may be completed on other
matters or adjourned as the proponent of the question may
prefer. The proponent may thereafter apply to the proper court
of the place where the deposition is being taken, for an order
to compel an answer. The same procedure may be availed of
when a party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory
submitted under Rules 23 or 25.
If the application is granted, the court shall require the
refusing party or deponent to answer the question or
interrogatory and if it also finds that the refusal to answer
was without substantial justification, it may require the
refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising the
refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent the amount of
the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order,
including attorney's fees.
If the application is denied and the court finds that it was
filed without substantial justification, the court may require
the proponent or the counsel advising the filing of the

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


application, or both of them, to pay to the refusing party or
deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in
opposing the application, including attorney's fees. (1a)
Section 2.
Contempt of court. If a party or other
witness refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer any question
after being directed to do so by the court of the place in which
the deposition is being taken, the refusal may be considered a
contempt of that court. (2a)
Section 3.
Other consequences. If any party or an
officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order
made under section 1 of this Rule requiring him to answer
designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce
any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or
photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry
upon land or other property or an order made under Rule 28
requiring him to submit to a physical or mental examination,
the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as
are just, and among others the following:
(a)
An order that the matters regarding which the
questions were asked, or the character or description of the
thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or
mental condition of the party, or any other designated facts
shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action
in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
(b)
An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to
support or oppose designated claims or defenses or
prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated
documents or things or items of testimony, or from
introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;

88

(c)
An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or
staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or
dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or
rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient
party; and
(d)
In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition
thereto, an order directing the arrest of any party or agent of a
party for disobeying any of such orders except an order to
submit to a physical or mental examination. (3a)
Section 4.
Expenses on refusal to admit. If a party after
being served with a request under Rule 26 to admit the
genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter of
fact serves a sworn denial thereof and if the party requesting
the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of such
document or the truth of any such matter of fact, he may
apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay
him the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof,
including attorney's fees. Unless the court finds that there
were good reasons for the denial or that admissions sought
were of no substantial importance, such order shall be issued.
(4a)
Section 5.
Failure of party to attend or serve answers. If
a party or an officer or managing agent of a party wilfully fails
to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after
being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve answers to
interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service
of such interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may
strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or
dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter
a judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion,

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other,
including attorney's fees. (5)
Section 6.
Expenses against the Republic of the
Philippines. Expenses and attorney's fees are not to be
imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines under this Rule.
(6)

89

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

RULE 31: CONSOLIDATION AND SEVERANCE


SEC. 1: Consolidation
SEC. 2: Separate Trials
SEC. 1: Consolidation. When actions involving a common
question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may
order a joint hearing or trial of any or all of the matters in
issue in the actions; it may order all actions consolidated; and
it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as
may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Consolidation is a procedural device to aid the
court in deciding how cases in its docket are to
be tried so that the business of the court may be
dispatched expeditiously and with economy while
providing justice to the parties.

To promote this end, the rule allows the


consolidation and a single trial of several cases in
the courts docket, or the consolidation of issues
within those cases. (Republic vs. Oribello, Jr.,
Requisites:
1. There must be more than one case;
2. The cases must be between the same parties;
3. There must be a common question of fact OR
law.
Kinds of Consolidation:
1. Quasi-consolidation where all except one of several
actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case
the judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to the

90

others. This is not actually consolidation but is


referred to such.
2. Actual Consolidation Where several actions are
combined into one, they lose their separate identity,
and become a single action in which a single
judgment is rendered. This is illustrated by a
situation where several actions are pending between
the same parties stating claims which might have
been set out originally in one complaint.
3. Consolidation for trial where several actions are
ordered to be tried together but each retains its
separate character and requires the entry of a
separate judgment. This type of consolidation does
not merge the suits into a single action, or cause
the parties to one action to be parties to the other.
(Republic vs. Oribello, Jr., March 6, 2013)
e.g. a case for collection of sum of money; vehicular
accidents
1. A vs. B (RTC, Makati)
2. A vs. B (RTC, Legaspi)
3. B vs. A (RTC, Bohol)
4. B vs. A + C (RTC, Caloocan)
5. A vs. B (MTC, Makati)
Can 1, 2, 3, 4 be consolidated? YES.
Can 1-4 and 5 be consolidated? NO. Because of
jurisdictional requirements.
Where do you file the consolidated case?
You file it in the lowest numbered case, a.k.a.
the first case filed.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

How do you consolidate? By motion, copy furnished


the other courts.

REPUBLIC vs. ORIBELLO, JR.


March 6, 2013
The parcel of land subject of this suit was a
reclassified forest land which was owned by Velentin
Fernandez. Upon Velentins death, the said land was
occupied by his son, Odillon, together with spouses
Ruperto and Matilde Apog.
Odillon sold the said land to other persons, including
the respondent, Oribello. Oribello then filed a
Miscellaneous Sales Application with the DENR. The
DENR denied his application on the ground that the
said land was never converted into an alienable.
When the land was finally declared alienable, Oribello
applied for another application. This time, the Director
of Lands issued a patent in favor of Oribello.
Matilde Apog claiming to be occupants of the subject
land protested with the DENR and filed an action to
annul the sales patent on the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation. The director of lands found that
there was indeed fraud and misrepresentation on the
part of Oriblello.
Oribello filed an action for recovery of possession while
the OSG filed an action for reversion and cancellation

91

of title before the RTC. The two cases were


consolidated.
During the trial, the OSG or any of its attorneys failed
to appear. The court warned the OSG that failure to
appear on the next hearing would result in the
termination of their presentation of evidence. The OSG
failed to appear. The RTC issued an order stating that
the Republic has deemed to have abandoned the case.
The trial court dismissed the consolidated cases,
without prejudice, on the ground that the plaintiff,
being dead, was not substituted by his heirs.
The Republic filed an MR which was at first granted,
but because of the manifestation filed by the heirs of
Oribello, the court still, dismissed the case.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial
court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the consolidated cases are
subject to multiple appeals.
HELD: YES.
In the present case, the complaint for reversion was
consolidated with the complaint for recovery of
possession filed by Oribello. While these two cases
involve common questions of law and fact, each action
retains its separate and distinct character. The
reversion suit settles whether the subject land will be
reverted to the State, while the recovery of possession
case determines which property which private party
has the better right of possession over the subject

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


property. These cases, involving different issues and
seeking different remedies, require the rendition and
entry of separate judgments. The consolidation is
merely for joint trial of the cases. Notably, the
complaint for recovery of possession is proceeded
independently of the reversion case, and was disposed
accordingly by the trial court.
Since each action does not lose its distinct character,
severance of one action from the other is not necessary
to appeal a judgment already rendered in one action.
There is no rule or law prohibiting the appeal of a
judgment or part of a judgment in one case which is
consolidated with other cases. Further, severance is
within the sound discretion of the court for
convenience or to avoid prejudice. It is not mandatory
under the Rules of Court that the court sever one case
from the other cases before a party can appeal an
adverse ruling on such cases.

Pursuant to EOs 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, the Republic


instituted an action against Andres Genito, Ferdinand
Marcos, Imelda Marcos and other defendants seeking
for reversion, reconveyance, accounting, restitution
and damages, seeking to recover allegedly ill-gotten
wealth of the Marcoses.

SEC. 2: Separate trials. (Severance) The court, in


furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a
separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or
third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of any
number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party
complaints or issues.

In their reply, the Republic alleged that the cause of


action against Asian Bank is entirely distinct and
independent from its cause of action against the
original defendants.

What do you severe? Cause of action, complaint,


counter-claim, etc. Those found under Rule 6 can be
severed.
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs.
SANDOVAL
February 18, 2013

92

Republic amended its complaint and impleaded Asian


Bank (now Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company). It
then moved to hold a separate trial against Asian
Bank.
Asian Bank opposed the motion on the ground that
they would be denied of due process and be deprived
of its day in court if a separate trial were to be held
against it without having been sufficiently apprised
about the evidence the Republic had adduced before it
was brought in as an addition defendant.

On a rejoinder, Asian Bank alleged that the properties


in the said civil case was intimately related to the issue
delving on the character of the properties as the illgotten wealth of the original defendants.
The Sandiganbayan granted Republics motion on the
ground that Asian Bank did not really oppose the
conduct of a separate trial. What it wanted was to be
given an opportunity to confront the witnesses and
whatever documentary evidence that the plaintiff may

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


have against the defendants. Also, the Republics claim
against Asian Bank is entirely separate and distinct,
although dealing with the same subject matter.
Metrobank, Asian Banks successor-in-interest filed a
petition for Certiorari before the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in
holding that a separate trial is proper.
HELD: NO.
The rule on separate trials in civil actions is found on
Sec. 2, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court.
The text of the rule grants to the trial court the
discretion to determine if a separate trial of any claim,
cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaints or
issues should be held, provided that the exercise of
such discretion is in the furtherance of convenience or
to avoid prejudice to any party.
The rule is identical with Rule 42(b) of the United
States Federal Rules of Procedure. Under American
Jurisprudence, the objectives of separate trials is
intended to further convenience, avoid delay and
prejudice, serve the ends of justice, or when separate
trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.
Thus, the two primary factors must be considered in
determining whether to order separate trials are
efficient
judicial
administration
and
potential
prejudice. Separation of issues for separate trials is
not the usual course that should be followed, and the

93

burden is on the party seeking separate trials to prove


that separation is necessary.
Courts order separate trials only when clearly
necessary. This is because a single trial will generally
lessen the delay, expense, and inconvenience to the
parties and the courts.
A Colorado District Court found three factors to weigh
in determining whether to order separate trials for
separate defendants. These are 1) whether separate
trials would further convenience of the parties; 2)
whether separate trials would promote judicial
economy; and 3) whether separate trials would avoid
substantial prejudice to the parties.
Bearing in mind the foregoing principles and
parameters defined by the relevant case law, we
conclude that the Sandiganbayan committed grave
abuse of its discretion in ordering a separate trial to
Asian Bank on the ground that the issue against Asian
Bank was distinct and separate from that against the
original defendants. Thereby, the Sandiganbayan
veered away from the general rule of having all the
issued in every case tried at one time, unreasonably
shunting aside the dictum in Corrigan, and
inconvenience to the parties and the courts.
Exceptions to the general rule are permitted only when
there are extraordinary grounds for conducting
separate trials on different issues raised in the same
case, or when separate trials of the issues will avoid
prejudice, or when separate trials of the issues will
promote justice, or when separate trials of the issues

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


will give a fair trial to all parties. Otherwise, the
general rule must apply.
As we see it, the justification of the Sandiganbayan for
allowing the separate trial did not constitute a special
or compelling reason like any of the exceptions. To
begin with, the issue relevant to Asian Bank was not
complicated. In that context, the separate trial would
not be in furtherance of convenience. And, secondly,
the cause of action against Asian Bank was
necessarily connected with the cause of action against
the original defendants. Should the Sandiganbayan
resolve the issue against them in a separate trial, then
Metrobank would not be given an opportunity to rebut
or explain its side. This would result to MetroBank
suffer deprivation of its properties without due process
of law.

94

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


RULE 33: DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
SEC. 1: Demurrer to Evidence

can present his evidence;


The complaint may no longer
be refiled and the remedy of
the plaintiff is to APPEAL
the order of dismissal.

If the motion to dismiss is


granted, the complaint may
be refiled, depending on the
ground of dismissal.

SEC. 1: Demurrer to Evidence. After the plaintiff has


completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant may
move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the
law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is
denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the
motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is
reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence.
A demurrer is the remedy of the defendant,
wherein he can assail the plaintiffs insufficiency
of evidence.

A demurrer is, in effect a motion to dismiss but it


is not the motion to dismiss described under
Rule 16.
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Made after the plaintiff rests
his case, i.e., after the
completion
of
the
presentation of his evidence;
There is only one ground for
demurrer to evidence;
If the demurrer to evidence
is
denied,
then
the
defendant, if he filed the
same with leave of court,

95

MOTION TO DISMISS
Made before the filing of an
answer;

There are several grounds


for a motion to dismiss;
If the motion to dismiss is
denied, then the defendant
may
file
a
responsive
pleading;

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

REMEMBER: If you file a demurrer, you should


always attach the demurrer with the motion for
leave of court in compliance with Sec. 9, Rule
15.
A demurrer is only available to the defendant /
accused.
HOWEVER,
in
permissive
counterclaims, the plaintiff (who now becomes
the defendant) can file a demurrer.
A plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence
when he has already rested his case. He has already rested
his case when the court has formally offered evidence, it can
rest its case.
When the Court of Appeals reverses the trial
court and denies the demurrer to evidence, it is
the duty of the CA to proceed with trial and
render judgment. The CA cannot remand the
case to the trial court for further proceedings. In
this case, the defendant loses the right to present
evidence. (Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Del

RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY vs. SPOUSES DEL


ROSARIO
July 6, 2000
Spouses Del Rosario solidarily executed in favor of and
delivered to Radiowealth a promissory note in evidence of the
loan they acquired with Radiowealth.

96

RULE 33
Sec. 23, Rule 119.
(Civil Cases)
(Criminal Cases)
Both have the same ground: INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE
Both are only available after the plaintiff has completed his
presentation of evidence.
Since it is a motion, it is in the discretion of the court on
whether or not it will grant or deny the demurrer.
Only available to the defendant or accused.
Quantum
of
evidence Quantum
of
evidence
needed is preponderance of needed is proof beyond
evidence. Hence, it is more reasonable doubt. Hence, it
difficult to file.
is easier to file.
No need for leave of court
There is a need to file a leave
of court. The effect of the
denial
would
depend
whether the accused filed it
with leave or not
If the demurrer is DENIED, If demurrer is DENIED, but
with leave of court plaintiff filed with leave of court
presents evidence;
accused
may
present
evidence;

If GRANTED the case shall


be dismissed. The dismissal
is a final order, hence,
APPEALABLE

If plaintiff appeals, and the


appellate court REVERSES
the decision of the trial
court defendant is no
longer allowed to present
evidence.

If demurrer is DENIED,
without filing for leave of
court accused can no
longer present evidence
If GRANTED accused is
acquired. The order of
acquittal
is
NONAPPEALABLE. Otherwise, it
will be a violation of the
accuseds
right
against
double jeopardy
NOT applicable to criminal
cases.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

Respondent spouses defaulted on their obligation despite


several demands.
Petitioner instituted an action before the RTC of Manila.
Respondents then filed a demurrer to evidence for alleged lack
of cause of action. The RTC granted the demurrer on the
ground that the evidence petitioner presented were merely
hearsay.
Radiowealth appealed to CA. The appellate court reversed the
decision and remanded the case to the RTC.
ISSUE: Was the remand to the RTC proper.
HELD: NO.
When a demurrer to evidence granted by the trial court is
reversed on appeal, the reviewing court cannot remand the
case for further proceedings. Rather, it should render
judgment on the basis of the evidence proffered by the
plaintiff.
The rationale behind the rule and doctrine is simple and
logical. The defendant is permitted, without waiving his right
to offer evidence in the event that his motion is not granted, to
move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts as
thus established and the applicable law, the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief. If the trial court denies the dismissal
motion, i.e., finds that plaintiffs evidence is sufficient for an
award of judgment in the absence of contrary evidence, the
case still remains before the trial court which should then
proceed to hear and receive the defendants evidence so that
all the facts and evidence of the contending parties may be

97

properly placed before it for adjudication as well as before the


appellate courts, in established procedural precepts in the
conduct of trials that the trial court liberally receive all
proffered evidence at the trial to enable it to render its
decision with all possibly relevant proofs in the record, thus
assuring that the appellate courts upon appeal have all the
material before them necessary to make a correct judgment,
and avoiding the need of remanding the case for retrial or
reception of improperly excluded evidence, with the possibility
thereafter of still another appeal, with all the concomitant
delays. The rule, however, imposes the condition by the same
token that if his demurrer is granted by the trial court, and
the order of dismissal is reversed on appeal, the movant loses
his right to present evidence in his behalf and shall have been
deemed to have elected to stand on the insufficiency of
plaintiffs case and evidence. In such event, the appellate
court which reverses the order of dismissal shall proceed to
render judgment on the merits on the basis of plaintiffs
evidence.
In other words, defendants who present a demurrer to the
plaintiffs evidence retain the right to present their own
evidence, if the trial court disagrees with them; if the trial
court agrees with them, but on appeal, the appellate court
disagrees with the both of them and reverses the dismissal
order, the defendants lose the right to present their own
evidence. The appellate court shall, in addition, resolve the
case and render judgment on the merits, inasmuch as a
demurrer
aims togranted
discourage
A demurrer
by prolonged
the court litigations.
in a criminal
action does not carry with it the extinction of the
civil liability.
If the court grants the demurrer, proceedings on
the civil aspect of the case generally proceeds.
The only recognized instance when an acquittal
on demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the
civil aspect is when there is a finding that the act
or omission from which the civil liability may
arise did not exist. Absent such determination,
trial as to the civil aspect must continue. (Hun

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


Hence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
The appellate court sustained the RTC and dismissed the
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Park can still appeal the civil aspect of
the case, notwithstanding the rule that a grant of a demurrer
is equivalent to an acquittal, a final order which is not
appealable.
HELD: YES.

HUN HYUNG PARK vs. EUNG WON CHOI


February 12, 2007
Choi was charged with violation of BP 22. During trial, after
the prosecution has rested its case, Choi filed a demurrer on
the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that he
received the notice of dishonor, hence, the presumption of the
element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise.
MTC Makati granted the demurrer and dismissed the case.
Petitioner appealed with the RTC contending that the
dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil
aspect. The RTC granted the appeal on the ground that the
dismissal of the criminal case did not altogether extinguish
his civil liability.
Choi filed an MR. It was granted and the RTC remanded the
case to the MTC for further proceedings.

98

When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court,


and was denied, the whole case is submitted for judgment on
the basis of the evidence of the prosecution. This includes the
civil liability, unless the enforcement of the civil aspect was
instituted in a separate action, waived, or reserved.
In case of acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civilly
liable. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
the extinction of the civil action where (a) acquittal is based
on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the
accused is only civil; (3) the civil liability of the accused does
not arise from or is not based upon the crime which the
accused was acquitted.
The civil action based on delict may, however, be extinguished
if there is a finding on the final judgment in the criminal
action that the act or omission from which the civil liability
may arise did not exist.
If the demurrer was filed with leave of court, and was denied,
the accused may still adduce countervailing evidence. Such
denial bears no distinction as to the two aspects of the case
because there is a disparity of evidentiary value between the

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1


quanta of evidence in such aspects of the case. In other
words, the court may not deny the demurrer as to the
criminal aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer to
the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not
insufficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then
the same evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil
liability by mere preponderance of evidence.
On the other hand, if the evidence so far present is
insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not
follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a
preponderance of evidence. For if the court grants the
demurrer, proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally
proceeds. The only recognized instance when an acquittal on
demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is
when there is a finding that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist. Absent such
determination, trial as to the civil aspect must continue.
In the instant case, the MTC granted the demurrer and
dismissed the case without finding the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise.

The counsel then orally moved that hed be granted leave of


court to file a demurrer. The RTC orally denied the oral
motion for leave.
Counsel then orally move that hed be allowed to present
evidence. The RTC orally denied the same. It ruled that since
his demurrer without leave of court is denied, he has waived
his right to present evidence.
Petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari with the CA. The
appellate court partly granting the petition and allowed the
petitioner to present evidence.
Petitioner appealed with the SC. She contended that when her
counsel moved for leave to file a demurrer, this meant that she
intended to make a written demurrer after extensive research.
When the trial court denied her demurrer, it was in effect a
denial only of the motion for leave to file a demurrer.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is allowed to present
evidence.
HELD: NO.

BERNARDO vs. CA
September 5, 1997
Petitioner was charged with 4 counts of violation of BP 22.
After the prosecution has rested its case, the counsel for the
petitioner orally moved that he would file a Demurrer. The
trial court advised him that he would not do so without leave
of court.

99

Sec. 3, Rule 119 lays down the procedure where the


prosecution and the defense present their evidence. Sec. 15 of
the same Rule, after the prosecution has rested its case, the
court may dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence either on its own initiative, after giving the
prosecution an opportunity to be heard, or on motion of the
accused filed with proper leave of court. When the accused
files such motion without express leave of court, he waives his
right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment
on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

As correctly observed by the trial court, her move, expressed


through counsel, was merely dilatory. But neither can we
affirm the ruling of the CA directing the trial court to receive
evidence of the defense after its motion for leave to file a
demurrer to evidence was denied. This is contrary to the spirit
of sec. 15, Rule 119.
It is only when the accused files such a motion to dismiss
without express leave of court that he waives the right to
present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the
basis of the evidence of the prosecution.
In fine, under the new rule on demurrer to evidence, the
accused has the right to file a demurrer after the prosecution
has rested its case. If the accused obtained prior leave of
court before filing his demurrer, he can still present evidence
if his demurrer is denied. However, if he demurs without prior
leave of court, or after his motion for leave is denied, he waives
his right to present evidence and submits the case for
decision on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution.
Judicial action to grant prior leave to file demurrer to evidence
is discretionary upon the trial court. But to allow the accused
to present evidence after he was denied prior leave to file a
demurrer is not discretionary. Once prior leave is denied and
the accused still files his demurrer to evidence or motion to
dismiss, the court no longer has discretion to allow the
accused to present his evidence. The only recourse left for the
court is to decide the case on the basis of the evidence
presented by the prosecution. And, unless, there is grave
abuse thereof amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
which is not present in the instant case, the trial courts
denial of prior leave to file demurrer to evidence or motion to

10
0

dismiss may not be disturbed. However, any judgment of


conviction by a trial court may still be elevated by the accused
to the appellate court.

CABADOR vs. PEOPLE


October 2, 2009
(BAR ALERT)
Cabador was charged with the murder of Atty. Jun Valerio.
After five years of trial, the RTC declared an end to the
prosecutions presentation of evidence and required the
prosecution to make a written or formal offer of its
documentary evidence within 15 days form notice.
The prosecution filed a motion for extension of time, instead of
filing a formal offer.
Cabador, without knowing that the motion for extension of
time was filed, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
violation of speedy trial act.
The RTC treated the motion to dismiss as a demurrer and
since it was filed without prior leave of court, the accused has
deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. The case
was declared to be submitted for decision.
Cabador filed an MR, the RTC denied the same. Cabador

DOMINGO

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

10
1

DOMINGO

Оценить