INTRODUCTION

CASE DOCTRINE
City of Manila The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of certiorari involves the exercise
vs Judge of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and
Grecia cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction.
Cuerdo
( jurisdiction In the same manner, Section 5 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants power to the
of CTA vis a Supreme Court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, to issue writs of certiorari,
vis CA) prohibition and mandamus. With respect to the Court of Appeals, Section 9 (1) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) gives the appellate court, also in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction, the power to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari,whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction. As to Regional Trial Courts, the power to issue a writ of certiorari,
in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, is provided under Section 21 of BP 129.

The foregoing notwithstanding, while there is no express grant of such power, with
respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides,
nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of
the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

A grant of appellate jurisdiction implies that there is included in it the power necessary to
exercise it effectively, to make all orders that will preserve the subject of the action, and to
give effect to the final determination of the appeal. It carries with it the power to protect
that jurisdiction and to make the decisions of the court thereunder effective. The court, in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction, has authority to control all auxiliary and incidental matters
necessary to the efficient and proper exercise of that jurisdiction. For this purpose, it may,
when necessary, prohibit or restrain the performance of any act which might interfere with
the proper exercise of its rightful jurisdiction in cases pending before it.

"while a court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its
jurisdiction, a grant of jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation, implies the
necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate it, and, subject to existing
laws and constitutional provisions, every regularly constituted court has power to do all
things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of
its jurisdiction and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates." Hence, demands,
matters or questions ancillary or incidental to, or growing out of, the main action, and
coming within the above principles, may be taken cognizance of by the court and
determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal matter, even
though the court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as original
causes of action, would not be within its cognizance.
Medical Plaza Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
Makati conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a
Condominium concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The
vs Cullen nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined
(intra- based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether
corporate or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
controversy; The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be
RTC sitting as consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains
special vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
commercial some of the claims asserted therein.
court)
An intra-corporate controversy is one which pertains to any of the following relationships:
(1) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (2) between the
corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as its franchise, permit or
license to operate is concerned; (3) between the corporation, partnership or association
and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among the stockholders,
partners or associates themselves.22 Thus, under the relationship test, the existence of
any of the above intra-corporate relations makes the case intra-corporate.

Under the nature of the controversy test, "the controversy must not only be rooted in the
existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must as well pertain to the enforcement of
the parties’ correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal
and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation.”

These issues are clearly corporate and the demand for damages is just incidental. Being
corporate in nature, the issues should be threshed out before the RTC sitting as a
special commercial court. The issues on damages can still be resolved in the same
special commercial court just like a regular RTC which is still competent to tackle
civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed before it.

Sandoval vs Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 957 the National Housing Authority (NHA)
Caneba was given the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide certain cases particularly, the
second portion thereof, leaves no room for doubt that exclusive jurisdiction over the case
between the petitioner and private respondent is vested not on the RTC but on the NHA.
The NHA was re-named Human Settlements Regulatory Commission and thereafter it
was re-named as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
Magpale vs It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be
Civil Service exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. (Victorias
Commission Milling )

Section 37 paragraph (a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative
disciplinary cases involving the imposition of the penalty of suspension for more than thirty
days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty day's salary, demotion in rank or salary or
transfer, removal or dismissal from office
Must be read together with Section 39 paragraph (a) of P.D. 805 “Appeals, where
allowable, shall be made by the party adversely affected by the decision”

The phrase "party adversely affective by the decision" refers to the government
employees against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of
disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or
salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office.
 By inference or implication, the remedy of appeal may be availed of only in a case where
the respondent is found guilty of the charges filed against him. But the respondent is
exonerated of said charges, as in this case, there is no occasion on appeal.
De Murga vs The notice giving lessee the alternative either to pay the increased rental or otherwise to
Chan vacate the land is not the demand contemplated by the Rules of Court in unlawful
(demand in detainer cases.
action for
unlawful In Belmonte vs. without any subsequent definite demand to vacate the premises,
detainer) subject to no condition, the lessee did not incur in default which would give rise to a
right on the part of the lessor to bring an action of unlawful detainer.
Editha Padlan However, in order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action, an
vs Dinglasan examination of the complaint is essential. Basic as a hornbook principle is that
(jurisdiction jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by
of court is the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate
based on the facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as
nature of the which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations
action) contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested
by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

A complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the complaint
or the interest thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action.

Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be
filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject
thereof.

Quesada vs A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
DOJ amended, must be filed with the Court of Appeals whose decision may then be
(hierarchy of appealed to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
courts) the same Rules. A direct recourse to this Court is warranted only where there are special
and compelling reasons specifically alleged in the petition to justify such action. Such
ladder of appeals is in accordance with the rule on hierarchy of courts.

In Vergara, Sr. v. Suelto,The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so
remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the
fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened
with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue the
so-called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or
where serious and important reasons exist therefor.
 In People v. Cuaresma ,his Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as
well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not
exclusive. x It is also shared by this Court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court
of Appeals x This 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 therefor will be directed. There is, after all, a
hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and
should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions
for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly
indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts
should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of
Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these
writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor,
clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is
necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are
better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
over-crowding of the Court’s docket.

Lumbuan vs The primordial objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules, is to reduce the
Ronquillo number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice
(Barangay which has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. To
conciliation) attain this objective, Section 412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 requires the parties to
undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a
precondition to filing a complaint in court
People vs The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in force at the
Cawaling time of the institution of the action. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be
(Jurisdiction ousted from the case by any subsequent events, such as a new legislation placing
of such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another tribunal. The only recognized
Sandiganbay exceptions to the rule, which find no application in the case at bar, arise when: (1)
an vs RTC in there is an express provision in the statute, or (2) the statute is clearly intended to
crimes apply to actions pending before its enactment.
committed by
public Section 4-a-2 of PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861, quoted earlier, lists two requisites
officers) that must concur before the Sandiganbayan may exercise exclusive and original
jurisdiction over a case: (a) the offense was committed by the accused public officer in
relation to his office; and (b) the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision
correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or higher than a fine of six thousand pesos
(P6,000).

The relation between the crime and the office contemplated by the Constitution is,
in our opinion, direct and not accidental. To fall into the intent of the Constitution,
the relation has to be such that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist without
the office. In other words, the office must be a constituent element of the crime as
defined in the statute, such as, for instance, the crimes defined and punished in
Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven, of the Revised Penal Code.

Public office is not the essence of murder. The taking of human life is either murder
or homicide whether done by a private citizen or public servant, and the penalty is
the same except when the perpetrator, being a public functionary, took advantage
of his office, as alleged in this case, in which event the penalty is increased.
 In the absence of any allegation that the offense was committed in relation to the
office of appellants or was necessarily connected with the discharge of their
functions, the regional trial court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction to hear
and decide the case.
Zamora vs The primordial objective of Presidential Decree No. 1508 (the Katarungang Pambarangay
Heirs of Law), now included under R.A. No. 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991), is to
Carmen reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice
(Barangay which has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts.19 To
Conciliation) attain this objective, Section 412(a) of R.A. No. 7160 requires the parties to undergo a
conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a precondition to filing
a complaint in court

"SECTION 412. Conciliation. – (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court.– No

complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the
lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for
adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon
chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as
certified by the lupon or pangkat secretary and attested to by the lupon or pangkat
chairman
RULE1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Tamano vs Under The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Regional Trial Courts have
Ortiz jurisdiction over all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations.
(shariah court Personal actions, such as the instant complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage, may
vs regular be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
court) where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of the
plaintiff.

Article 13 of PD No. 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married
both in civil and Muslim rites. Consequently, the shari'a courts are not vested with original
and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages celebrated under both civil and
Muslim laws. Consequently, the Regional Trial Courts are not divested of their general
original jurisdiction under Sec. 19, par. (6) of BP Blg. 129

Domagas vs A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations

Jensen brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may
(service of involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel
summons) him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of
a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of 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 one which has for its object a judgment against the
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 is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief
are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam.
 In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for
the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident
defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal
service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If
he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time,
substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is
temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to:
(a) substituted service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service outside the country, with
leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any other manner
the court may deem sufficient.

A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the
property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed.

An action quasi in rem, an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interests 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 the rights or interests of
all possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding only upon the parties who joined
in the action.

Yu vs Pacleb We have held in an unbroken string of cases that an action for specific performance is an
(action in action in personam.
personam)
Being a judgment in personam, it is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded
therein and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard

Cabutihan vs Sections 1 and 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provide an answer to the issue of venue.
Landcenter Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein (real
(venue) actions), shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial jurisdiction
over the area where the real property is situated.

On the other hand, all other actions, (personal actions) shall be commenced and tried in
the proper courts where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides.

"an action in which petitioner seeks the execution of a deed of sale of a parcel of land in
his favor has been held to be for the recovery of the real property and not for specific
performance since his primary objective is to regain the ownership and possession
of the parcel of land."
Citizen It is a well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in personam,
Surety vs personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of
Melencio- jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not voluntary submit himself to the
Herrera authority of the court.
(acquisition
of jurisdiction In other words, summons by publication cannot consistently with the due process
through clause in the Bill of Rights confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendants.
summons in
personal 'Due process of law requires personal service to support a personal judgment, and,
actions) when the proceeding is strictly in personam brought to determine the personal rights and
obligations of the parties, personal service within the state or a voluntary appearance
in the case is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute
compliance with the constitutional requirement of due process.

Although a state legislature has more control over the form of service on its own residents
than nonresidents, it has been held that in actions in personam. service by publication
on resident defendants who are personally within the state and can be found
therein is not "due process of law," and statute allowing it is unconstitutional.

Go vs UCPB In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or as provided for in
(cancellation Section 1, Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to or possession of real property,
of real estate or interest therein. These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage
mortgage is a on, real property. The venue for real actions is the same for regional trial courts and
real action) municipal trial courts. The court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where
the real property or any part thereof lies.

Personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property, for the
enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of
damages for the commission of an injury to the person or property. The venue for
personal actions is likewise the same for the regional and municipal trial courts -- the
court of the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, at the election of
the plaintiff, as indicated in Section 2 of Rule 4.

The controlling factor in determining venue for cases of the above nature is the primary
objective for which said cases are filed.

In sum, the cancellation of the real estate mortgage, subject of the instant petition, is a
real action, considering that a real estate mortgage is a real right and a real property by
itself. An action for cancellation of real estate mortgage is necessarily an action affecting
the title to the property.t is, therefore, a real action which should be commenced and tried
in the place where the subject property lies.
Gochan vs It is necessary to determine the true nature of the complaint in order to resolve the
Gochan issue of whether or not respondents paid the correct amount of docket fees
(nature of therefor. In this jurisdiction, the dictum adhered to is that the nature of an action is
action in determined by the allegations in the body of the pleading or complaint itself, rather
determination than by its title or heading. The caption of the complaint below was denominated as one
of correct for "specific performance and damages." The relief sought, however, is the conveyance or
docket fees) transfer of real property, or ultimately, the execution of deeds of conveyance in their favor
of the real properties enumerated in the provisional memorandum of agreement. Under
these circumstances, the case below was actually a real action, affecting as it does title to
or possession of real property.

In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated
value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the
fees.

The complaint filed with the trial court was in the nature of a real action, although
ostensibly denominated as one for specific performance. Consequently, the basis
for determining the correct docket fees shall be the assessed value of the property,
or the estimated value thereof as alleged by the claimant.

Manchester The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the
Devt. vs CA prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not
(non payment thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on
of correct the amounts sought in the amended pleading.
docket fees to
defraud govt.) The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due it is obvious
not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the second amended
complaint.

To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and
other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not
only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be
considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to
comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise
be expunged from the record.

Due to the fraud committed on the government, this Court held that the court a quo did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint could not have been
admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null and void.
Sun It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
Insurance vs payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over
Asuncion the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is
(non payment not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the
of docket fees fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
may be reglementary period.
allowed
payment The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar
within pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee
reasonable prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a
time) reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period.

Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the 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.

In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering that,
unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules
by paying the additional docket fees as required.

Tacay vs RTC Now, under the Rules of Court, docket or filing fees are assessed on the basis of the
of Tagum "sum claimed," on the one hand, or the "value of the property in litigation or the
(claim for value of the estate," on the other. There are, in other words, as already above
money or intimated, actions or proceedings involving real property, in which the value of the
damages property is immaterial to the court's jurisdiction, account thereof being taken merely for
must be assessment of the legal fees; and there are actions or proceedings, involving personal
specified) property or the recovery of money and/or damages, in which the value of the property or
the amount of the demand is decisive of the trial court's competence (aside from being the
basis for fixing the corresponding docket fees).
 "awards of claims not specified in the pleading" refers only to "damages arising
after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading . . . as to which the additional filing
fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment." The amount of any claim for
damages, therefore, arising on or before the filing of the complaint or any pleading,
should be specified. While it is true that the determination of certain damages as
exemplary or corrective damages is left to the sound discretion of the court, it is the duty
of the parties claiming such damages to specify the amount sought on the basis of
which the court may make a proper determination, and for the proper assessment of
the appropriate docket fees. The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to
claims although specified are left for determination of the court is limited only to any
damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for then it will
not be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof.

Two situations may arise.

1. Where the complaint or similar pleading sets out a claim purely for money or
damages and there is no precise statement of the amounts being claimed. In this
event the rule is that the pleading will "not be accepted nor admitted, or shall
otherwise be expunged from the record." In other words, the complaint or pleading
may be dismissed, or the claims as to which the amounts are unspecified may be
expunged, although as aforestated the Court may, on motion, permit amendment of
the complaint and payment of the fees provided the claim has not in the meantime
become time-barred

2. The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of every claim, but the
fees paid are insufficient; and here again, the rule now is that the court may allow a
reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof,
and upon such payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly take
cognizance of the action, unless in the meantime prescription has set in and
consequently barred the right of action.

Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as well, the
legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the property and (b)
the total amount of related damages sought. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the
action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite
fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full
payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of
course, prescription has set in the meantime.

Ayala Corp. "awards of claims not specified in the pleading" refers only to "damages arising
vs Madayag after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading. As to which the additional filing fee
(claims therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment." The amount of any claim for damages,
specified therefore, arising on or before the filing of the complaint or any pleading, should be
specified.

trial court may either order said claim to be expunged from the record as it did not acquire
jurisdiction over the same or on motion, it may allow, within a reasonable time, the
amendment of the amended and supplemental complaint so as to state the precise
amount of the exemplary damages sought and require the payment of the requisite fees
therefor within the relevant prescriptive period.
Negros A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
Oriental allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on
Planters vs authentic records.
Judge of
Negros
(Verification) Clearly, the amendment was introduced in order to make the verification requirement
stricter, such that the party cannot now merely state under oath that he believes the
statements made in the pleading. He cannot even merely state under oath that he has
knowledge that such statements are true and correct. His knowledge must be
specifically alleged under oath to be either personal knowledge or at least based on
authentic records.

The requirement for a Certification against Forum Shopping in Section 5, wherein failure
to comply with the requirements is not curable by amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading.

Section 4 of Rule 7, as amended, states that the effect of the failure to properly verify a
pleading
“A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information
and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification,
shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its
discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was
due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files
an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous
or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address,
shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

A pleading, therefore, wherein the Verification is merely based on the party’s knowledge
and belief produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the
deficiency to be remedied

Heirs of Although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have
Bertuldo concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
Hinog vs habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted
Melicor freedom of choice of court forum.
(Hierarchy of
Courts) The rationale for this rule is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the precious
time of this Court; and (b) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or
otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had to be remanded or
referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better
equipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts.

Thus, this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such
as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the
extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.
RULE 2: CAUSE OF ACTION
Juana Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as an act or omission by
Complex which a party violates the right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it
Homeowners contains three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
Association (1) the legal right of the plaintiff,
vs Fil Estate (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and
Land (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
(Cause of
action;
defined; test)
The question of whether the complaint states a cause of action is determined by its
averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Thus, it must contain a
concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of
action. To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint;
extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters aliunde are not considered.

The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of

action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid
verdict in accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Stated differently, if the
allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be
maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be
asserted by the defendant

Del Rosario This Court finds well-taken then the pronouncement of the court a quo that to allow the re-
vs Far East litigation of an issue that was finally settled as between petitioners and FEBTC in the prior
Bank and case is to allow the splitting of a cause of action, a ground for dismissal under Section 4 of
Trust Rule 2.
Company
(effect of SEC. 4. Splitting of a single cause of action; effect of. – If two or more suits are instituted
splitting of a on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits
single cause in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
of action)
This rule proscribes a party from dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several
parts or claims and instituting two or more actions based on it. Because the plaintiff cannot
divide the grounds for recovery, he is mandated to set forth in his first action every
ground for relief which he claims to exist and upon which he relies; he cannot be
permitted to rely upon them by piecemeal in successive actions to recover for the same
wrong or injury.

Progressive It is likewise basic under Sec. 3 of Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended,
Devt. Corp. vs that a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. Under
CA Sec. 4 of the same Rule, if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause
(single suit of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
for a single ground for the dismissal of the other or others. "Cause of action" is defined by Sec. 2
cause of of Rule 2 as the act of omission by which a party violates a right of another.
action)
These premises obtaining, there is no question at all that private respondent's cause of
action in the forcible entry case and in the suit for damages is the alleged illegal retaking
of possession of the leased premises by the lessor, petitioner herein, from which all legal
reliefs arise. Simply stated, the restoration of possession and demand for actual damages
in the case before the MeTC and the demand for damages with the RTC both arise from
the same cause of action, i.e., the forcible entry by petitioner into the least premises.
Joseph vs A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by
Bautista the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or
(cause of omission can be violative of various rights at the same time, as when the act
action in constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations.
quasi delict However where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of
and breach of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to
contract of one person.
carriage)
The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict or wrong violating
the rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted from several
wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises.In the case at bar, there is no question
that the petitioner sustained a single injury on his person. That vested in him a single
cause of action, albeit with the correlative rights of action against the different respondents
through the appropriate remedies allowed by law.

The trial court was, therefore, correct in holding that there was only one cause of action
involved although the bases of recovery invoked by petitioner against the defendants
therein were not necessarily Identical since the respondents were not identically
circumstanced. However, a recovery by the petitioner under one remedy necessarily
bars recovery under the other. This, in essence, is the rationale for the proscription in
our law against double recovery for the same act or omission which, obviously, stems
from the fundamental rule against unjust enrichment.

Flores vs Totality Rule- That where there are several claims or causes of action between the
Mallare- same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
Philips demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of
(joinder of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions.
causes of
actions) There is no difference between the former and present rules in cases where a plaintiff
sues a defendant on two or more separate causes of action. In such cases, the amount of
the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. If the total
demand exceeds twenty thousand pesos, then the regional trial court has jurisdiction.
Needless to state, if the causes of action are separate and independent, their joinder
in one complaint is permissive and not mandatory, and any cause of action where the
amount of the demand is twenty thousand pesos or less may be the subject of a separate
complaint filed with a metropolitan or municipal trial court.

Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or more
plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single
complaint, as well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against
two or more defendants joined in a single complaint.

However, the causes of action in favor of the two or more plaintiffs or against the two or
more defendants should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions
and there should be a common question of law or fact, as provided in Section 6 of
Rule 3.