Held: Yes.
There was failure to comply with Section 3,
Rule 16 Section 3
Antero Luistro vs. Court Of Appeals
G.R. No. 158819; April 16, 2009
Facts: First Gas entered into an agreement with
Meralco and NAPOCOR, and said agreement required
First Gas to design and energize a 230-kilovolt electric
power transmission line, approximately 25 km. in length
from its power plant site in Sta. Rita, Batangas City to
Calaca, Batangas.
First Gass obligation under the agreement entailed the
acquisition of easements of right-of-way over affected
lands located along the designated route of the
transmission line.
First Gas entered into a Contract of Easement of Right-
of-Way (Contract) with Antero Luistro (petitioner),
owner of a parcel of land located in Batangas.
Under the Contract, petitioner granted First Gas
perpetual easement over a 100-sq. m. portion of his
property for the erection of the transmission line tower.
However, petitioner subsequently filed a complaint 4 for
"Rescission/Amendment And Or Modification of
Contract Of Easement With Damages," against First Gas
and alleged that while his house was supposed to be 20
to 25 meters away from the transmission wire/line, it
turned out that his house was only 7.23 meters directly
underneath the transmission wire/line.
Petitioner alleged that the powerful 230 kilovolts passing
the transmission wire/line continuously endanger the
lives, limbs, and properties of petitioner and his family.
First Gas filed a Motion to Dismiss5 on the ground that
petitioner failed to state a cause of action in his
complaint.
RTC: denied the Motion to Dismiss of First Gas
CA: set aside the ruling of the Trial court and ordered
the dismissal of complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 16, Section 3
Issue: Whether or not there is failure to comply with
Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:
Sec. 3. Resolution of motion. - After the
hearing, the court may dismiss the action
or claim, deny the motion, or order the
amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of
the motion for the reason that the ground
relied upon is not indubitable.
In every case, the resolution shall state
clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor.
The Rules prescribe that the resolution of the motion
to dismiss shall clearly and distinctly declare the
reasons therefor. The directive proscribes the common
practice of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for lack
of merit which can often pose difficulty and
misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in
taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher
court called upon to resolve the same, usually on
certiorari.9
In this case, the trial court merely stated:
Examining the allegations in the complaint the
Court finds that a cause of action sufficiently
exist[s] against defendants.
The trial court did not explain why a sufficient cause of
action existed in this case. The trial court merely cited
Article 19 of the Civil Code which provides that "[e]very
person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone
his due, and observe honesty and good faith." The
disposition of the trial court clearly fell short of the
requirement set forth under Section 3, Rule 16 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 19 Section 1 allows a third person to vindicate his/her claim
to the attached property in a "separate action."
In the case at bar, the filing by Manila Mission of the
Rural Bank Of Sta. Barbara vs.The Manila Mission
Motion to Release Property from Attachment was made
G.R. No. 130223; August 19, 2009
on the advice of the Sheriff upon whom respondent
Spouses Soliven were the registered owners of a parcel served its Affidavit of Title and Ownership. Therefore,
of land located in Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan. On 18 May the filing of the Motion in question can be deemed as a
1992, the spouses Soliven sold the subject property to mere continuation of the third-party claim of respondent,
respondent Manila Mission. However, it was only on 28 meaning it falls under paragraph 1 (highlighted above)
April 1994 when the TCT in the name of the spouses
As to 2nd issue, YES, Manila Mission has personality to
Soliven was cancelled, and a new TCT was issued in the
intervene.
name of respondent.
Alternatively, the court also considered the Motion to
In the meantime, on 15 April 1993, petitioner Rural
Release Property from Attachment, filed by respondent
Bank filed with the RTC a Complaint against the
before the RTC, as a Motion for Intervention, in relation
spouses Soliven for a sum of money including a prayer
to Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. Respondent, to
for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment,
vindicate its claim to the subject property, may intervene
which the court granted.
in the same case, i.e., Civil Case No. D-10583, instituted
While the civil case for the collection of sum of money by petitioner against the spouses Soliven, in which the
was still pending before the RTC, Manila Mission said property was attached.
executed an Affidavit claiming title and ownership over
Respondent has the personality to intervene, as it "is
the subject property, and requested the Sheriff to release
so situated as to be adversely affected by a
the said property from attachment. The Sheriff, however,
distribution or other disposition of property in the
advised respondent to file a motion directly with the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof."
RTC.
So Manila Mission followed the advice of the Sheriff
and filed with the RTC a Motion to Release Property
from Attachment. After hearing, the RTC issued an
Order on 9 October 1995 discharging the subject
property from attachment.
Petitioner argued that the Motion filed by Manila
Mission is not the proper remedy.
Issue: Whether or not Manila Mission filed the proper
remedy, and WON it has personality to intervene in
accordance with Rule 19 Section 1 of the Rules of Court
Held:
As to 1st issue, yes. Proper remedy sya.
First of all, the Supreme Court said that there are
actually 3 remedies of a third person claiming to be the
owner of an attached property are limited to the
following:
(1) filing with the Sheriff a third-party
claim, in the form of an affidavit, per the
first paragraph of Section 14;
(2) intervening in the main action, with prior
leave of court, per the second paragraph of
Section 14, which allows a third person to
vindicate his/her claim to the attached property
in the "same x x x action"; and
(3) filing a separate and independent action,
per the second paragraph of Section 14, which
Rule 30, Section 5 nder the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure,
the requirement to file memoranda is optional upon
the trial court. Rule 30 on trials states:
Douglas Anama vs Court of Appeals
SEC 5. Order of trial. - Subject to the
Anama and PSBank entered into an agreement provisions of section 2 of Rule 31, and unless
denominated as a Contract to Buy whereby the latter the court, for special reasons otherwise directs,
agreed to sell to the former a parcel of land, together the trial shall proceed as follows:
with the improvements thereon. The property was
....
previously owned by petitioners parents, who mortgaged
it to respondent Bank. Upon their failure to pay the loan (g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case
extended to them by PSBank, the latter foreclosed on the shall be deemed submitted for decision, unless
property. the court directs the parties to argue or to
submit their respective memoranda or any
Initially, Anama was able to pay off the first few
further pleadings.
installments, but he then started to default on the
subsequent payments, so this led the Bank to execute ....
an Affidavit of Cancellation rescinding the contract.
The rationale for the foregoing rules is that a
Petitioner was then advised to vacate the premises. In
memorandum is merely a device to help the court in
addition, respondent Bank forfeited the payments made
rendering its decision, the primary basis of which should
by petitioner, which were applied as rentals for the use
be the evidence presented.
of the property.
Non-submission of memoranda is not part of the trial nor
PSBank also sold the property to Souses Co in
is the memorandum itself essential, much less
whose favor a new TCT was issued.
indispensable pleading before a case may be submitted
Anama filed a complaint before the RTC of Pasig for decision. As it is merely intended to aid the court in
against PSBank and spouses Co for Declaration of the rendition of the decision in accordance with law and
Nullity of Deed of Sale, Cancellation of Transfer evidence - which even in its absence the court can do on
Certificate of Title, and Specific Performance with the basis of the judges personal notes and the records of
Damages. the case - non-submission thereof has invariably been
considered a waiver of the privilege.
After trial, the RTC issued an Order requiring the
parties to file their respective memoranda. The parties It is true that Judge Flores himself asked the parties
were given 30 days FROM THE COMPLETION OF to submit their respective memoranda. Nevertheless, the
ALL TRANSCRIPTS of stenographic notes taken in the rendition of judgment despite the absence thereof does
proceedings to file their simultaneous memoranda, not constitute a denial of due process. Since, whether
THEREAFTER, the case shall be deemed submitted for under the old or new Rules on Civil Procedure, it is in
decision. the courts discretion to order the parties to submit
memoranda, it is also within its discretion to revoke such
However, the stenographic notes could not be
order. Thus, there is nothing unusual in the action of the
completed because the court stenographer had
trial court. Perhaps, Judge Flores realized that he had a
apparently already migrated to Australia.
sufficient grasp of the evidence and the issues to enable
PSB now filed a Motion for Early Resolution. him to resolve the case, rendering the memoranda
The incomplete TSN notwithstanding, the RTC rendered unnecessary.
a Decision in favor of respondent Bank. It held that the
Banks rescission of the contract was justified since
petitioner failed to meet the terms of the Contract to
Buy.
Anama contends that there was a denial of due process
in his part since the judge decided the case even though
it was earlier ordered by the same judge that the case
would not be decided without the missing stenographic
notes.
Issue: Whether or not submission of memoranda is
required under Rule 30 Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
Held: No, its not required.