Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests.

by:
1.

RULE MAKING POWER

OF THE

SC:

Art 8 Sec 5(5) of the Consti:

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in:
o
All courts
o
The admission to the practice of law
o
The Integrated Bar
o
And Legal assistance to the underprivileged
Guidelines on the rules:
o
They must provide a simplified and speedy disposition of cases
o
The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
o
The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights
These powers may not be reduced by Congress but Congress may add more

It is within the court's sound discretion to relax procedural rules in order to

fully adjudicate the merits of a case. This Court will not interfere with the
exercise of that discretion absent grave abuse or palpable error.
Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure even mandates a
liberal construction of the rules to promote their objectives of securing
a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
5.

PROCEDURAL RULES THAT PARTIES

6.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction: The right and power of an authority to interpret and apply the
law or to deal and make pronouncements on legal matters
o
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired by the
filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before the
court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
o
Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is acquired
by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or
respondent to the court or by coercive process issued by the court to
him, generally by the service of summons.
o
Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is conferred by law
and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred on
the court by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties.
o
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined and
conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by
their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by
their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided
in Sec. 5, Rule 10.
o
Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the
subject of the litigation). This is acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus
placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by
provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to
deal with the property or subject matter within its territorial
jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil
status or real property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant.
(de Joya v. Marquez G.R. 162416)
It may be true that the court by an erroneous ruling on such question may
enrcroach upon issues completely foreign to those defined in the
pleadings, but in such case the question of jurisdiction that may arise
would not be one of jurisdiction over the subject-matter but of
jurisdiction over the issue.
o
In order that a court may validly try and decide a case, it must have
jurisdiction over the subject-matter and jurisdiction over the
persons of the parties (Banco Espaol Filipino vs. Palanca)

Art 6 Sec 30 of the Consti:

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as

provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence

2.

PROCEDURAL

AND

SUBSTANTIVE

Procedural and Substantive Rules

3.

Procedural law is the body of legal rules that govern the process for
determining the rights of parties
Substantive law refers to the body of rules that determine the rights and
obligations of persons
FORCE AND EFFECT

OF

RULES

OF

COURT

Rules of Courts, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of
law; and rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done,
or certain proceedings taken are considered absolutely indispensable to the
prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of
judicial business. (Shioji vs. Harvey, 43 Phil., 333)
4.

POWER

OF THE

SC

TO SUSPEND

RULES

OF

COURT

Nonetheless, it is also true that procedural rules are mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application should be
relaxed when they hinder rather than promote substantial justice. Public policy
dictates that court cases should, as much as possible, be resolved on the
merits not on mere technicalities. Substantive justice trumps procedural rules

MAY

CHANGE

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

But in some instances it is said that the court should also have
jurisdiction over the issue (15 C. J., 734; Hutts vs. Martin, 134 Ind.,
587; 33 N. E., 676), meaning thereby that the issue being tried and
decided by the court be within the issues raised in the pleadings.
But this kind of jurisdiction should be distinguished from jurisdiction over
the subject matter, the latter being conferred by law and the former by
the pleadings.
Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subject-matter, may be
conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. (Rule 17,
sec. 4, Rules of Court.)
Although an issue is not duly pleaded it may validly be tried and decided if no
timely objection is made thereto by the parties.
o
This cannot be done when jurisdiction over the subject-matter is
involved.
In truth, jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle that is
involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties.
o
Where, for instance, an issue is not duly pleaded in the complaint, the
defendant cannot be said to have been served with process as to that
issue. (Cf. Atkins, Kroll & Co. vs. Domingo, 44 Phil., 680.)
o
At any rate, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over a
specific issue is a question that requires nothing except an
examination of the pleadings, and this function is without such
importance as to call for the intervention of this court.
o

o
This notwithstanding, the RTC reaffirmed the reinstatement
Thereafter, the heirs of Hinog filed a petition for certiorari alleging that the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the case to be reinstated

Issue: Is the petitioner estopped from questioning the RTCs jurisdiction? YES

First off, the SC said that the petitioners committed a procedural error in
directly filing the instant petition in the SC because adherence must be made to
the principle of hierarchy of courts. The petitioners should have first went to the
CA. Direct recourse to the SC will only be allowed when there is a special or
important circumstance
More importantly, when the petitioners motioned to serve a
supplemental pleading upon the respondents, they sought affirmative
relief from the courts
Consequently, petitioners are effectively barred by estoppel from
challenging the trial courts jurisdiction
If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter
challenge the courts jurisdiction in the same case.
Petition dismissed, RTC did not act with GADLEJ

8.

JURISDICTION

IS

DETERMINED AT

THE

TIME

OF

FILING ACTION

Hinog v. Melicor

Rule 1 Sec 5: A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in
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.

People v. Cawaling

7.

ESTOPPEL

TO

DENY JURISDICTION

The Balanes filed a complaint in the RTC for recovery of ownership and
possession, removal of construction and damages against Bertuldo
This is because the Balanes let Bertuldo use a portion of their land for 10 years,
and upon expiration of the period, Bertuldo refused to leave and instead
claimed ownership over all of the property by virtue of a deed of sale
In the trial, after the Balanes rested their case, Bertuldo died without
completing his presentation of evidence
Meanwhile, Bertuldos lawyer field a motion to expunge the complaint on the
ground that the Balanes failed to specify in the complaint the amount of
damages claimed and alleging further that the Balanes failed to even pay the
correct docket fee
The RTC ordered the complaint to be expunged because the proper payment of
docket fee was not made according to procedure (more specifically, the
respondents failed to specify in the complaint the amount of damages claimed
so as to pay the correct docket fees)
Thereafter, upon payment of a deficiency docket fee, the Balanes moved to
reinstate the case and on March 22, 1999, it was granted
o
On May 24, 1999 the petitioners-heirs of Hinog, filed a supplemental
pleading, appending the Deed of Sale which serves as proof
o
When this was denied, the petitioners questioned the courts
jurisdiction because it had already expunged the complaint previously

An information for murder was filed against Mayor Cawaling and Policemen
Tumbaghan, de los Santos, Cajilo and Hilario. The prosecutions version
narrated that the accused chased and shot the victim, a certain Ronnie Elisan.
The defense narrated that the accused were merely on patrol and heard the
victim, who was allegedly drunk, proclaim he was going to kill somebody that
night. They allege that they killed him in the lawful performance of their duties
They all pleaded not guilty but were convicted (conspiracy) by the RTC on
October 1994.
The accused, namely policeman Tumbaghan and Cajilo argue that the RTC did
not have jurisdiction as it was Sandiganbayan which had jurisdiction since they
were public officers at the time of their killing which was allegedly committed in
relation to their office.

Issue: Did the RTC have jurisdiction? Yes

The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the law in

force at the time of the institution of the action.
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by a
new law placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another tribunal
2

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

Exceptions:

An express provision in the statute

The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending

before its enactment
The SB may exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction over a case when:
o
The offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to
his office
o
The penalty prescribed is higher than pricion correccional or
imprisonment for 6 years or higher than a fine of 6k
In this case, however, the information filed against the accused contains no
allegations that they were public officers who committed the crime in relation to
their office.
o
It must be remembered that jurisdiction is determined by
allegations in the complaint or information. 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
duties, the RTC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
o

9.

RTC:
Regional

COURTS

Art 8 Sec 1:
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice t osettle 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

BP 129: Pertinent Provisions:

CA:

Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas

corpus, and quo warranto, and auxilliary writs or processes, whether or not in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of
Regional Trial Courts; and
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of the Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and
Exchange
Commission,
the
Social
Security
Commission,
the
Employees'Compensation
Commission
and
the
Civil
Service
Commission, except those falling within the appelate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of

this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4)
of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction,
including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be
completed within 3 months, unless extended by the CJ

Trial

Courts

shall

exercise

exclusive

original

jurisdiction:

In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation;
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
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where
such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);
In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of
the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00);
In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
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
In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand
exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00)

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:

Exclusive original jurisdiction 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
3

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does
not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be
included in the determination of the 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 the causes of action, irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions
Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
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
Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation 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.

Family Courts:
The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the
following
cases:

Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years
of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years
of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court
shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused
may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of
application pursuant to Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the
"Child and Youth Welfare Code";
Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the
latter;
Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and
those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or
those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for
dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order
No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";

Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o

neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of
children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and
other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No.
56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;
Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection
of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as
amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and
Cases of domestic violence against:
o
Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are
likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to
women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats
and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and
freedom movement; and
o
Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other
conditions prejudicial to their development.

Sandiganbayan:
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act 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 (Republic Act No.
6758), 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
panlungsod, 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
4

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior
superintendent or higher;
"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their 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 Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up

under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
B. Other offenses orfelonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subSec. a of this Sec.
in relation to their office.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to

salary grade '27' or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or
military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof
shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court ' as the case may be,
pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as amended.
"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise
of their own original jurisdiction orof their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided.
"The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for
the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising
or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order
Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the

implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may
hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of
Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through
its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in
cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in
govemment-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.
Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil
liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate
courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it
the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action
separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however,
That where the civil action had therefore been filed separately but judgment
therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with
the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be
transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be,
for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the
separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned."

Quasi Judicial Bodies

SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission
Section 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission.
5.1. The commission shall act with transparency and shall have the powers and
functions provided by this code, Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the Corporation
Code, the Investment Houses law, the Financing Company Act and other existing
laws. Pursuant thereto the Commission shall have, among others, the following
powers and functions:
(a) Have jurisdiction and supervision over all corporations, partnership or
associations who are the grantees of primary franchises and/or a license or
a permit issued by the Government;
(l) Issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witnesses to appear in any
proceedings of the Commission and in appropriate cases, order the
examination, search and seizure of all documents, papers, files and
records, tax returns and books of accounts of any entity or person under
investigation as may be necessary for the proper disposition of the cases
before it, subject to the provisions of existing laws;
5

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

(n) Exercise such other powers as may be provided by law as well as those
which may be implied from, or which are necessary or incidental to the
carrying out of, the express powers granted the Commission to achieve the
objectives and purposes of these laws.

5.2. The Commissions jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under section 5 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general
jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court:Provided, That the
Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial
Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The
Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intracorporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved
within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall
retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payment/rehabilitation
cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

CSC:

HLURB: House and Land Use Regulatory Board

Sandoval vs. Caeba

Magpale, Jr vs. Civil Service Commission

Petitioner Magpale, Jr. worked for the Philippine Port Authority (PPA) as Port
Manager. He was first assigned in PPA-Tacloban, but was subsequently
assigned to PPA-Manila.
In a report made by the PPA-Tacloban Inventory Committee and COA, they
found that Magpale, Jr. failed to account for equipment valued at P65,542 and
to liquidate cash advances amounting to P130,069.
Charges were filed against him and the Sec. of DOTC found Magpale, Jr. guilty
of gross negligence, frequent and unauthorized absences, and was thereafter
dismissed from service.
Magpale, Jr. appealed to the Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB) of
respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC). MSPB reversed the DOTC decision
and ordered for his immediate reinstatement.
Respondent Dayan (General Manager of PPA) then appealed with the Civil
Service Field Office-PPA, which was indorsed to the CSC. CSC then granted said
appeal.
Magpale, Jr now assails the CSC decision.

No. The extent of the authority of CSC to review decision of the MSPB is now a
settled manner. Under Sec 47, EO 292, CSC shall decide on appeal all
administrative cases involving the imposition of:
o
A penalty of suspension for more than 30 days
o
Fine in an amount exceeding 30 days salary
o
Demotion in rank or salary or transfer
o
Removal or dismissal from office

Private respondent Estate Developers & Investors Corporation filed a complaint

in the RTC of Manila against petitioner Sandoval for the collection of unpaid
installments regarding a subdivision lot, pursuant to a promissory note.
RTC of Manila ordered Sandoval to pay the respondent.
Sandoval filed a motion to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the lower court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter, making its decision null and void.

Issue: W/n the ordinary courts have jurisdiction over the collection of unpaid
installments regarding a subdivision lot.

No. Under, Sec 1 PD 957, the National Housing Authority (NHA), now
known as House and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), it has
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide a complaint for collection of
unpaid installments against a subdivision lot buyer, not the regular
courts.
Also, where the RTC jurisdiction was timely questioned, its decision over a case
which is has no jurisdiction, is null and void.

10. KINDS

OF

ACTION

Real Action: (Go v. United Coconut Planters Bank G.R. No. 15618)

Issue: Was the appeal made to the CSC proper?

The MSPB decision did not involve dismissal or separation from office, but
rather exonerated Magpale, Jr and ordered him reinstated to his former
position.
Therefore, the MSPB decision was not a proper subject of appeal to the
CSC.
Settled is the rule that a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions
acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred by law to hear and
decide the case.

In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or as provided
for in Section 1, Rule 4 a real action is an action affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein.
o
These include partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage
on, real property.
The venue for real actions is the court which has territorial jurisdiction over
the area where the real property or any part thereof lies

Personal Action

Personal action is one brought for the

o
recovery of personal property
6

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

for the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its
breach
o
or for the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the
person or property
The venue for personal actions is
o
The court of the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides
o
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

Action in Rem: An action against the thing itself, instead of against a person.
Hence, a real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not
necessarily an action in rem. In rem rights are property rights and are enforceable
against the whole world.

Action in Personam: An action in personam is an action against a person on the

basis of his personal liability. It is a personal right attached to a specific persons.
Action quasi in rem:

The action quasi in rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstances
that in the former an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of
the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property. All proceedings having for their sole object the sale
or other disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by attachment,
foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The
judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.
A legal term referring to a legal action based on property rights of a person
absent from the jurisdiction of the court.
A quasi in rem action is commonly used when jurisdiction over the defendant is
unobtainable due to his/her absence from the state. Any judgment will affect
only the property seized, as in personam jurisdiction is unobtainable.

In Rem v. In Personam: In Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, the Court

underscored the necessity of determining first whether the action is in personam, in
rem or quasi in rem because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of
the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply according to the nature of the
action.
Thus:

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.
o
If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of
service may be resorted to:

Substituted service set forth in Section 8

Personal service outside the country, with leave of court

Service by publication, also with leave of court; (

o
Any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident
who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal
service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction
over her person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is
physically present in the country.
If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person
and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him.
o
An exception was laid down in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a nonresident was served with summons through his wife, who was a
resident of the Philippines and who was his representative and
attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him; moreover, the second
case was a mere offshoot of the first case.
On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on
the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
o
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying
the due process requirements.

Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident who is not found

in the Philippines and
1. the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff;
2. the action relates to, or the subject matter of which
is property in the Philippines in which the defendant
has or claims a lien or interest
3. the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from
any interest in the property located in the
Philippines; or
4. the property of the defendant has been attached in
the Philippines
o
service of summons may be effected by
a) personal service out of the country,
with leave of court;
b) publication, also with leave of
court; or
c) any other manner the court may
deem sufficient
o

11. COMMENCEMENT

OF

ACTION: CONDITION PRECEDENT

Lumbuan v. Ronquillo
7

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

Lumbuan is the registered owner of a certain lot in Tondo. She leased it to

Ronquillo for 3 years with an agreed yearly rent increase and with the
agreement that the premises will be used solely for Ronquillos fastfood
business
Ronquillo, however, used the premises as his residence without Lumbuans
prior consent and he failed to pay the 10% annual increase in rent. He refused
to pay the rent in arrears despite demands so Lumbuan asked him to vacate
Thereafter, Lumbuan referred the matter to the Barangay Chairmans office but
the parties failed to arrive at a settlement and then, the chairman issued a
certificate to file action
Lumbuan then filed an action for unlawful detainer against Ronqullo in the
MeTC of Manila
o
Before the MeTC received Ronquillos answer, Lumbuan filed a motion
for summary judgment so the MeTC rendered a decision ordering the
respondent to vacate the premises and to pay rents in arrears
o
Respondent filed a manifestation stating that he filed his answer on
time and prayed that the decision be set aside. This was however
denied by the MeTC
Upon appeal to the RTC, the RTC directed the parties to go back to the Lupon
Chairman for futher proceedings and to comply strictly with the condition that
should the parties fail to reach a settlement, the case will be remanded to the
MeTC yet again
o
The CA, upon petition for review by respondent, ordered the dismissal
of the ejectment case, ruling that when a complaint is prematurely
instituted, the court should dismiss the case

Petitioner appealed this and this is the one for resolution in

the case at bar
Meanwhile, the parties went through barangay conciliation proceedings as
directed by the RTC and they failed to arrive at a settlement. The case was
remanded to the MeTC and the MeTC ordered Ronquillo to vacate and pay

Issue: Was the CA correct in dismissing the unlawful detainer case for the alleged
failure of the parties to comply with the mandatory and conciliation proceedings in
the barangay level? No

Lumbuan alleges that the parties have already complied with the conciliation
proceedings as shown by the Certificate to File Action issued by the Lupon
Secretary.
The prime objective of the Katarungnang Pambarangay Rules is to reduce the
number of court litigations
In this case, the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman and Lupon/Pangkat Secretary signed
the Certificate to File Action stating that no settlement was reached by the
parties.
While admittedly no pangkat was constituted, it was not denied that the parties
met at the office of the Barangay Chairman for possible settlement.
o
The efforts of the Barangay Chairman, however, proved futile as no
agreement was reached. Although no pangkat was formed
o
There was substantial compliance with the law.

It is noteworthy that under the aforequoted provision, the

confrontation before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient
compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court

12. COMMENCEMENT

OF

ACTION: PAYMENT

OF

FILING FEE

Hinog v. Melicor (reiterating Sun Insurance)

Same facts, but the issue delves on the payment of docket fees
o

Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional

requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically
cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the
applicable reglementary period, moreso when the party involved
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules
o
In this case, the reinstatement of the complaint was just considering
that the cause of action of the respondents, being a real action,
prescribes in 30 years and they did not really intend to evade the
payment of the prescribed fees.
o
Sun Insurance: Filing fees for damages and awards that cannot be
estimated constitute liens on the awards finally granted by the court
o
Thus, while the docket fees were based only on the real
property valuation, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the
action.

Sun Insurance Office, Ltd (SIOL) vs. Asuncion

Petitioner Sun Insurance filed a complaint with the RTC for consignation of a
premium refund on a fire insurance policy with a prayer for judicial declaration
of its nullity, against respondent Manuel Uy Po Tiong.
But Tiong also filed a complaint with the RTC for refund of premiums against
Sun Insurance. The complaint sought for payment of damages in the amount of
about P50M, as inferred from the body of the complaint. But only a docket fee
of PP210 was paid by Tiong.
SC then ordered the records of said case and 22 others to be investigated for
under-assessment of docket fees. SC then issued a Resolution directing judges
to reassess the docket fees and in case of deficiency, order its payment. Clerks
of court were ordered to issue certificates of re-assessment and litigant were
ordered to specify in their pleadings the amount sought to be recovered in their
complaints.
However, the Clerk of Court assigned in Tiongs case had difficulty following the
SC resolution because the Tiong didnt indicate the exact amount he wanted to
recover. Tiong then filed a Re-Amended Complaint stating a claim of not less
than P10M as actual compensatory damages. In the body of the 2nd complaint,
the total damages asked for was P44M. Clerk of Court then reassessed the
docket fee to amount to P38,786 which was paid by Tiong.
Tiong then filed a supplemental complaint for an additional P20M. Tiong then
paid an additional docket fee of P80,396.
8

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

Sun Insurance filed a petition with CA claiming the docket fees were
insufficient, which was denied.

Issue: W/n the court acquired jurisdiction over a case when the correct and proper
docket fee has not been paid.

No. It is not only the filing of the complaint, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of action.
Courts may allow payment of said fees within a reasonable time, but not
beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
o
Also, permissive counter-claims, third-party claims and the like shall
not be considered filed until and unless the prescribed filing fee is paid.
When the judgment of the courts awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the
judgment.
In the case at bar, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for
considering Tiong demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules
and pay the additional docket fees ad required. Petition dismissed. Clerk
of Court ordered to reassess and determine the additional filing fee, and ask
Tiong to pay if ever there is any deficiency.

13. CAUSE

OF

Section 1: Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action

The elements of a 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; and
3. an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

ACTION: RULE 2

Rule 2

Joseph v. Bautista

A cause of action is sufficient if a valid judgment may be rendered thereon if

the alleged facts were admitted or proved.
In order to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint
must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has
been merely defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain

Section 2: A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right
of another

Perez is the owner of a truck conveying cargoes for passenger (driven by Villa)
and the truck veered out of the road which resulted to injury to Joseph, a
passenger
o
The truck veered out of the road because of a faulty overtake by a pick
up truck owned by Sioson and Pagarigan, then driven by Villanueva
Joseph filed a complaint for damages against Perez, as owner of the truck
based on a breach of contract of carriage
He also filed a complaint against Sioson and Villanueva, based on quasi-delict
o
Joseph then filed an amended complaint impleading Paragiran and a
certain Vargas as additional defendants because he could not ascertain
who the real owner of the pick up truck was.

Perez, filed a cross-claim against her co-defendants (pick up)

in the event she is ordered to pay
Thereafter, Villanueva, Sioson and Pagarigan (pick up) paid Joseph (by reason
of this, Joseph executed a release of claim releasing Villanueva, Sioson and
Paragiran from liability) and Perez through their insurance provider
o
Because of this, the defendants (pick up) asked the court for
exoneration
o
Thereafter, Perez filed a motion to dismiss and this was granted by the
court. This was premised on the fact that the release of claim executed
by Joseph in favor of the pick up party inured to her favor considering
that all of them are solidarily liable to Joseph
Joseph now contends that the release of claim he executed did not inure to
Perezs benefit (Joseph still wants to go after Perez)

Issue: Did the RTC judge err in dismissing the case? No.

It is true that a single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the
same time. However, when there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a
single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been
violated belonging to one person
o
The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict
or wrong vilating the rights of one person.
o
In the case at bar, there is no question that Joseph sustained a single
injury on his person AND that vested him a single cause of action,
even with the correlative rights of action against the different
respondents
Further, a recovery by Joseph under one remedy necessarily bars recovery
under the other
o
The respondents having been found solidarily liable to petitioner, the
full payment by some of the solidary debtors and their subsequent
release resulted in Perezs release also.

Section 3: A party mat not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action
9

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

Section 4: If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others
Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company

Petitioner DATICOR and Respondent PDCP entered into an agreement whereby

PDCP extended to DATICOR a foreign loan of 4.4M (dollar loan and peso loan)
with various rates of interest on both
Petitioners paid a total of 3M but was still left with an outstanding balance of
more than 10M. Petitioners contested this loan for being usurious and this was
pending in a CA case.
o
Meanwhile PDCP assigned its receivables to co-respondent FBTC
o
FBTC and DATICOR agreed that DATICOR would pay, and they did,
6.4M as full settlement

Meanwhile, the CA case held that the only remaining balance

that Petitioners had to pay was only 1.4M
In response, DATICOR filed a case against PDCP and FBTC to get back the
excess payment they made (CIVIL CASE 1) and the RTC ordered PDCP to give
back the excess payment
o
PDCP appealed this order (CIVIL CASE 2) and the CA ruled that
indeed, the petitioners outstanding obligation was 1.4M and it cannot
be increased or decreased. However, the CA ruled that it was FBTC
that should return the amount of (only) 965k, the amount that
DATICOR prayed for.
Thereafter, DATICOR filed a complaint against FEBTC to recover the excess
payment (CIVIL CASE 3). FBTC denied responsibility and only wanted to pay
the 965k
o
FBTC then filed a complaint against PDCP, alleging that it should pay
the 965k and the complete overpayment
o
In this case, the most important one, the RTC dismissed DATICORs
complaint against FBTC, because it amounted to a splitting of a cause
of action

Issue: Is DATICOR entitled to collect the full overpayment from FBTC? No

First off, the SC ruled that Civil Case 2 had the effect of res judicata. The
judgment in Civil Case 2 was a final judgment: it ruled that DATICOR overpaid
by 5.3M, FBTC must only pay 965k and that PDCP had no more claim against
DATICOR
To allow re-litigation of the issue in that was settled in CIVIL CASE 2 that was
finally settled would allow the splitting of a cause of action, which a ground for
dismissal under the RoC.
o
This rule prevents a party from dividing a single or indivisible cause of
action it into several parts or claims and instituting two or more
actions based on it
o
Clearly then, the judgment in CIVIL CASE 2 bars further recovery

Basically, DATICOR cant ask FBTC to overpay because their rights were already
litigated. Its cause of action was based on the same facts because the same
alleged wrongful act (refusing to return the overpayment) is the one put at
issue.

Progressive v. CA

Progressive Development Corp (petitioner) leased to respondent Westin

seafood market a parcel of land with a building thereon located in Araneta
Center Cubao for 9 years
o
The lease contained clauses whereby violations of conditions would
cause the lease to be terminated
Westin failed to pay rentals and it resulted into a breach of contract/violation of
the conditions and thus, petitioner repossessed the leased premises
Westin then filed a complaint against Progressive for forcible entry in the MeTC
o
In this case, the parties compromised and agreed that Westin would
deposit 8M to guarantee payment of its back rentals to terminate the
courts TRO against Progressive

It was further agreed upon that if a settlement is not reached

by a certain date, the forcible entry case would proceed
o
Westin however failed to comply with the deposit and instead, while
the case was pending, filed an action for damages (MORAL and
EXEMPLARY) in the RTC against Progressive
Progressive filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendencia and forum
shopping
o
The RTC judge however, issued an order archiving the damages case
pending the outcome of the MeTC case. He also issued an order
denying Progressives motion to dismiss, issued a TRO against
Progressive and allowed Westin to amend its complaint
Progressive went to the CA, alleging GADLEJ but it was dismissed because
Progressive failed to file an MR as regards the RTC judges decision. This is a
pre-requisite to filing a petition for certiorari

Issue: Should an action for damages filed with the RTC by the lessee against the
lessor be dismissed on the ground of the pendency of another action of forcible
entry with damages with the MeTC? No

The RoC clearly provides that no claim for damages arising out of forcible entry
or unlawful detainer may be filed separately and independently of the claim for
restoration of possession
o
This is consistent with Sec 1 of Rule 16 which states that the pendency
of another action between the same parties for the same cause is a
ground for dismissal of an action.
Elements of res judicata:
1. Identity of rights asserted and prayed for, founded on the same facts
2. Identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in
both actions

10

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

3.

The identity in the two preceding numbers should be such that any
judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless
of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicate
More importantly, the restoration of possession and demand for actual
damages in the MeTC and the demand from the RTC both arise from the
same cause of action namely: the forcible entry of Progressive into the
leased premises
o
Applying Sec 4, there is a ground to dismiss the RTC action
Further, a claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of
damages may be recovered in one case, and the rest in, another.

through check and secured the balance by mortgaging the bought parcels of
land and on another piece of property
Upon failure of Ramos to pay, the vendors instituted an action for foreclosure
on April 1959 in RTC QC
o
Ramos however, argues in her motion to dismiss that on Feb 1959,
the vendors already filed an action in the RTC Manila for recovery of
the 2.5k paid by check and that this constituted the splitting of a cause
of action
o
This motion was denied by the RTC and after trial, Ramos was ordered
to pay and further decreed the foreclosure if payment is not made
within 90 days
Ramos appealed, insisting that the vendors split their cause of action

CGR Corporation v. Treyes

Issue: Did the vendors split their cause of action? NO

Petitioners CGR Corporation, Benedicto claimed to have occupied 37ha of public

land in Sagay City even before (2000) their fishpond lease agreement were
approved by the Sec of Agri for 25 years
Thereafter, Treyes allegedly forcibly entered the leased properties and
barricaded the fishponds
Petitioners then filed with the MTC separate complaints for Forcible Entry with
TRO and/or preliminary injunction with damages
In a separate move, they also filed a complaint for damages in the Bacolod RTC
alleging that Treyes intrusion caused them damage: Treyes is alleged to have
taken away the fish after the intrusion and even destroyed a chapel
o
In response, Treyes filed a motion to dismiss the damages case
The RTC dismissed petitoners complaint on the ground of prematurity

Issue: Can petitioners independently institute and maintain an action for damages
which they claim arose from incidents occurring AFTER their dispossession?

The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases refer to rents of
the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises.
o
The only form of damages that may be recovered in a forcible entry
action is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation of the properties
In this case, the petitioners claim for damages have no direct relation to the
loss of possession of the premises
o
It had to do with respondents alleged harvesting and carting away
several tons of milkfish in the fishponds, the destruction of the chapel
AFTER the act of dispossession
In this case, there is no identity in the facts, the damages are not prayed for in
relation to the dispossession
o
In the progressive case, the damages prayed for was based solely on
the dispossession
There was no splitting of a cause of action in this case.

An examination of the first complaint filed against appellant in the Court of First
Instance of Manila shows that it was based on appellants' having unlawfully
stopped payment of the check for P2,500.00 she had issued in favor of
appellees;
o
while the complaint in the present action was for non-payment of the
balance of P96,000.00 guaranteed by the mortgage.
The claim for P2,500.00 was, therefore, a distinct debt not covered by the
security and since the mortgage was constituted on lands situated in
Quezon City, the vendor-mortgagees could not ask for its foreclosure in
the Manila courts. The two causes of action being different, section 4 of Rule
2 does not apply

Rule 2 Section 5:
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

Enriquez v. Ramos

(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.

Uniwide Holdings, Inc vs Cruz

Enriquez and the spouses Dizon sold to Ramos 11 parcels of land in QC for
101k. Ramos paid a down payment amounting to 12.5, 2.5k of which was

11

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

Petitioner Uniwide Holdings, Inc (UHI) entered into a Franchise Agreement,

granting respondent Cruz, a 5-year franchise to adopt and use Uniwide Family
Store System for the establishment of a Uniwide Family Store along Marcos
Highway, Marikina. Art 10.2 of the agreement called for Cruz to pay UHI a
monthly service fee of P50k or 3% of gross monthly purchases.

Cruz bought goods from UNHI-affiliated companies First Paragon Corp (FPC)
and Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc (USWCI).

FPC and USWCI then executed Deeds of Assignment in favor of UHI

assigning all their rights and interest over Cruz accounts payable to
them.

Where there is a joinder of causes of action between the same parties of one
which does not arise out of the contract where the exclusive venue was
stipulated upon, the complaint may be brought before other venues provided
that such other cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the court and the
venue lies therein.

The 2nd and 3rd causes of action are based on the deeds of assignment in its
favor by FPC and USWCI, and not from the Franchise agreement containing the
exclusive venue stipulation, the general rule on venue applies that the
complaint may be filed in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides (Sec
2, Rule 4 Rules of Court).

14. REMEDY AGAINST SPLITTING

SINGLE CAUSE

OF

ACTION

Rule 16 Section 1. Grounds.

UHI then filed a complaint before the RTC of Paraaque for collection of Cruz
debt.
o

Causes of action:

1. For the payment of monthly service fee (P1,327,669);

2. Being assignee of the receivable of FPC, which Cruz failed

to pay (actual damages - P64,165);

3. Being assignee of the receivable of USWCI, which Cruz

failed to pay (actual damages P1,579,062);

4. Attys fees (P250k)

Cruz filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, claiming that
under Art 27.5 of the agreement, courts of QC has exclusive jurisdiction.
RTC Paraaque granted motion to dismiss.

Hence the present petition. UHI is claiming FPC and USWCI is not part of
their agreement and therefore now bound by the stipulation on
exclusive venue.

Issue: W/n a case based on several causes of action is dismissable on the ground
of improper venue where only one of the causes of action arises from a contract
with exclusive venue stipulation. NO

Sec 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court allows parties, before filing the action, to
validly agree in writing on an exclusive venue, but such doesnt preclude parties
from bringing a case to other venues.

Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
grounds:
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations;
Rule 16 Sec. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.
If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for
in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the
discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to
dismiss had been filed.
The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the
prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.
15. TOTALITY RULE: PERMISSIVE JOINDER

OF

PARTIES

Flores v. Mallare-Phillips

Petitioner has appealed by certiorari from the order of Judge Heilia S. MallarePhillipps of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province which
dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The order:
o
First COA: against Binongcal for refusing to pay 11k representing truck
tires bought from petitioner Flores
o
Second COA: against Calion for refusing to pay 10k representing also
truck tires
12

Civpro. Justice de Leon Outline with Digests. by:

On December 15, 1983, counsel for respondent Binongcal filed a Motion to

Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the amount of the
demand against said respondent was only P11,643.00, and under
Section 19(8) of BP129 the regional trial court shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more than twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
o It was further averred in said motion that although another person,
Fernando Calion, was allegedly indebted to petitioner in the amount of
P10,212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct from that of
the other respondent. At the hearing of said Motion to Dismiss,
counsel for respondent Calion joined in moving for the dismissal of
the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Counsel for
petitioner opposed the Motion to Dismiss. As above stated, the
trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner maintains that the lower court has jurisdiction over the case following
the "novel" totality rule introduced in Section 33(l) of BP129 and Section 11 of
the Interim Rules.

Issue: Does the Court have jurisdiction?

The pertinent portion of Section 33(l) of BP129 reads as follows:

o
... Provided,That where there are several claims or causes of action
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 the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different transactions. ...

Section 11 of the Interim Rules provides thus:

o
Application of the totality rule.-In actions where the jurisdiction of the
court is dependent on the amount involved, the test of jurisdiction
shall be the aggregate sum of all the money demands, exclusive only
of interest and costs, irrespective of whether or not the separate
claims are owned by or due to different parties. If any demand is for
damages in a civil action, the amount thereof must be specifically
alleged.

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.
o 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.
In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is
subject to the rules on joinder of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and
Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after a careful scrutiny of
the complaint, it appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the
reason that the claims against respondents Binongcal and Calion are
separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction.

Petitioner argues that with the deletion of the proviso in the former rule, the
totality rule was reduced to clarity and brevity and the jurisdictional
test is the totality of the claims in all, not in each, of the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions.
o
This argument is partly correct. 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.
o 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.
o If the total demand exceeds twenty thousand pesos, then the regional
trial court has jurisdiction.
13