Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Albano Rem Juris 05 06
Albano Rem Juris 05 06
Albano Rem Juris 05 06
1
answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, after the amendment is made, and whether any
jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely evidence defendant might have would be equally
upon the whims of the defendant. (Davao Light & applicable to the information in the one form as in
Power Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Judge of the RTC, Davao the other. A look into Our jurisprudence on the
City, et al., G.R. No. 147058, March 10, 2005; matter shows that an amendment to an information
Austria-Martinez, J; Mangalig vs. Pastoral, G.R. No. introduced after the accused has pleaded not guilty
143951, October 25, 2005; Sta. Clara Homeowners’ thereto, which does not change the nature of the
Assn. vs. Gaston, 425 Phil. 221 (2002). crime alleged therein, does not expose the accused
to a charge which could call for a higher penalty,
Court that has jurisdiction over a consignation does not affect the essence of the offense or cause
case. surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to
It depends upon the amount to be deposited. If it is meet the new averment had each been held to be
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, then file it there. one of form and not of substance – not prejudicial to
Otherwise, it is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. the accused, and therefore, not prohibited by
(Ascue vs. CA, 196 SCRA 804; Davao Light & Section 13, Rule 110 (now Section 14) of the
Power Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Judge, RTC, Davao City, et Revised Rules of Court).”
al., supra.). The original information is sufficient in form.
Allowing the amendment does not alter the defense
Formal amendment to information. of the accused. Indeed, it only states with precision
Facts:An information was filed with the RTC of that which is already contained in the original
Makati, accusing Conrado Banal III and Sylvia information. (Conrado Banal III vs. Hon.
Cancie for libel in connection with the column Panganiban, et al., G.R. No. 167474, November 15,
“Breaktime” of the Philippine Daily Inquirer attacking 2005).
the honesty, virtue and reputation of Ma. Teresa
Winternitz thus, exposing her to public hatred, Facts:An information for estafa was filed with the
contempt, ridicule. A Motion to Quash was filed RTC, Makati. It was based on the affidavit of the
alleging that the RTC, Makati had no jurisdiction complainant that the checks were delivered in
since there were no allegations that the article was Makati. The direct and cross – examinations
first published in Makati and the residence of the however, showed that the checks were not delivered
complainant. It was granted, but on motion for in Makati but in Parañaque. Does the Makati Court
reconsideration and moved for the amendment of have jurisdiction? Why?
the information to allege that the article was first Held: No, since the elements of the crime were
published in Makati. The RTC ruled that the perpetrated in Parañaque. Venue in criminal cases
amendment was a formal one, hence, it was granted is an essential element of jurisdiction. (Agustin vs.
as it merely clarified that the libelous article was Pamintuan, G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005).
printed and first published in Makati. Is the ruling It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to
correct? Why? be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense
Held: Yes. The amendment was merely formal. An should have been committed or any one of its
amendment is only in form when it merely adds essential ingredients took place within the territorial
specifications to eliminate vagueness in the jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction in
information and not to introduce new and material criminal cases is the territory where the court has
facts, and merely states with additional precision jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
something which is already contained in the original allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it
information and which, therefore, adds nothing cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with
essential for conviction for the crime charged. an offense allegedly committed outside of that
(Poblete vs. Sandoval, G.R. No. 150610, March 24, limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a
2004, 426 SCRA 346). In the case of People vs. court over the criminal case is determined by the
Casey, 103 SCRA 21, the test in determining allegations in the complaint or information. And once
whether an amendment is a matter of form or it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance
substance, has been laid down, thus: of the case. However, if the evidence adduced
“The test as to whether a defendant is during the trial show that the offense was committed
prejudiced by the amendment of an information has somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action
been said to be whether a defense under the for want of jurisdiction. (Uy vs. CA, 276 SCRA 367
information as it originally stood would be available (1997); Macasaet vs. People, G.R. No. 156747,
2
February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 255; Fukuzume vs. would amount to refusal to give effect to the Local
People, G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005). Government Code and to wiping it off the statute
Where life or liberty is affected by its books insofar as ejectment and other cases
proceedings, the court must keep strictly within the governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure are
limits of the law authorizing it to take jurisdiction and
concerned. The Court has no authority to do that.
to try the case and to render judgment. (Pangilinan Reliance on the ruling of the Court in Diu vs.
vs. CA, 321 SCRA 51). CA, 251 SCRA 472 (1995) is misplaced. In that
case, there was a confrontation by the parties before
The lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter the Barangay Chairman and no agreement was
may be raised for the first time in the CA. reached. Although no pangkat was formed, the
The rule is settled that an objection based on the Court held in that instance that there was substantial
ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the compliance with the law. In any event, the issue in
offense charged may be raised or considered motu that case was whether the failure to specifically
proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings allege that there was no compliance with the
or on appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject barangay conciliation procedure constitutes a waiver
matter in criminal case cannot be conferred upon the of that defense. Moreover, no such confrontation
court by the accused, by express waiver or before the Lupon occurred with respect to the
otherwise, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the unlawful detainer suit against Josephine Pablo
sovereign authority which organized the court, and is before the MTC.
given only by law in the manner and form prescribed
by law. (US vs. Castañares, 18 Phil. 210 (1911). No need for barangay conciliation.
While an exception to this rule was recognized In a case, the principal is a resident of the USA and
beginning with the landmark case of Tijam vs. the agent is a resident of the Philippines. If a suit is
Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 26 (1968), wherein the filed by the latter, there is no need for barangay
defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which conciliation. If the parties are not actual residents in
rendered the questioned ruling was considered to be the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays,
barred by laches, the factual circumstances involved there is no requirement for them to submit their
in said case, a civil case, which justified the dispute to the lupon. (Tavora vs. Veloso, 117 SCRA
departure from the general rule are not present in 613; Vercide vs. Hernandez, 330 SCRA 49 (2000).
the instant criminal case. (Fukuzume vs. People, To construe the express statutory
G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005). requirement of actual residency as applicable to the
attorney – in – fact of the party – plaintiff, as
Barangay Conciliation contended by defendant would abrogate the
meaning of a “real party in interest”.
Barangay conciliation is mandatory. Since the plaintiff, the real party in interest, is
Once again, the SC in Berba vs. Pablo, et al., not an actual resident of the barangay where the
G.R. No. 160032, November 11, 2005, ruled that defendant resides, the local lupon has no jurisdiction
filing a complaint with the barangay for mandatory over their dispute, hence, prior referral to it for
conciliation proceedings is a condition precedent conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing in court.
that must be complied with to afford the parties an (Pascual vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 157830, November
opportunity to settle the case amicably. However, 17, 2005; Banting, et al. vs. Sps. Maglapuz, et al.,
the complaint was filed directly with the MTC. G.R. No. 158867, August 22, 2006).
Clearly then, the complaint was premature. The
execution of the June 5, 1999 Agreement between RULE 1
the parties did not amount to substantial compliance Liberal Interpretation
to the requirements of the Local Government Code The rules of procedure ought not to be
on mandatory barangay conciliation proceedings. applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they have
Indeed, considering that the MTC had already been adopted to help secure – not override –
rendered a decision on the merits of the case, it is substantial justice. For this reason, courts must
not without reluctance that the Court reaches the proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of
conclusion which would require the petitioner to start statutory appeal; rather, they must ensure that all
again from the beginning. The facts of the present litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for the
case, however, do not leave the Court any choice. proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from
To grant the petition under these circumstances the constraint of technicalities. (Atty. Calo, et al. vs.
3
Sps. Villanueva, G.R. No. 153756, January 20, postdated checks. The sellers obliged themselves to
2006). transfer the property upon the execution of the
Well – settled is the rule that procedural laws are contract, subject to the condition that if two of the
construed to be applicable to actions pending and checks would be dishonored, the buyer would
undetermined at the time of their passage, and are recovery the property to the sellers. Due to the
deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. dishonor of the checks, the sellers filed a complaint
As a general rule, the retroactive application of for annulment of the contract, recovery of
procedural laws cannot be considered violative of possession and damages before the RTC of
any personal rights because no vested right may Bulacan. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on
attach to nor arise therefrom. (In Re: Contempt of the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
Hon. Datumanong, Jimmie Tel – Equen, petitioner, matter and improper venue. It was contended that
G.R. No. 150274, August 4, 2006). the principal action for rescission of the contract and
the recovery of the possession of the property is a
RULE 2 real action and not personal, hence, the action
Cause of Action should be filed in Parañaque, where the property is
located. In opposition, it was contended that the
What determines the nature of an action. action for damages and attorney’s fees is a personal
Well-settled is the rule that what determines the action, not real, hence, it can be filed in Bulacan.
nature of the action as well as the court which has Their second cause of action for recovery of
jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the possession is a real action, hence, it can be joined
complaint. In actions for forcible entry, the law tells with the rest of their causes of action for damages
us that two allegations are mandatory for the pursuant to Section 5(c), Rule 2.
municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: First, the By way of reply, the respondents averred that
plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court applies
property. Second, he must also allege that he was only when one or more of multiple causes of action
deprived of his possession by any of the means falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the first level
provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of courts, and the other or others are within the
Court. To effect the ejectment of an occupant or exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC, and the venue lies
deforciant on the land, the complaint should embody therein.
such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly The motion was denied for lack of merit. A
within the class of cases for which the statutes motion for reconsideration was filed and it was
provide a remedy, as these proceedings are granted, hence, the complaint was dismissed. It was
summary in nature. The complaint must show ruled that the principal action was a real action and
enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction should have been filed in the RTC of Parañaque City
without resort to parol evidence. where the property subject matter of the complaint
A look at the Amended Complaint filed by was located. However, since the case was filed in
petitioner clearly show a case for forcible entry. the RTC of Bulacan where the petitioners reside,
Petitioner alleged therein that he has been in which court had no jurisdiction over the subject
possession of the subject land for the last nineteen matter of the action, hence, it was dismissed, hence,
years and that respondents, in the first week of petition for certiorari was filed with the SC where the
August 1998, without his permission and consent, sole issue was whether or not venue was properly
entered the land by means of force, strategy and laid by the petitioners in the RTC of Malolos,
stealth and started the construction of a building Bulacan. The resolution of this issue is, in turn,
thereon; and upon being informed thereof, he anchored on whether Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules
requested them to stop their construction but of Court invoked by the petitioners is applicable in
respondents refused to vacate the land forcing him this case.
to file the instance case to recover possession Under the said Rule, a party may, in one
thereof. (Domalsin vs. Sps. Valenciano, G.R. No. pleading, assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as
158687, January 25, 2006). many causes of action as he may have against an
opposing party subject to the conditions therein
RULE 2 and 4 enumerated, one of which is Section 5(c) which
Facts:A contract of sale over a real property located states that where the causes of action are between
in Parañaque City was entered into, the value of the same parties but pertain to different venues or
which was payable in six (6) installments via jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC
4
provided one of the causes of action falls within the is to be found in the facts alleged in the complaint
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein. and not in the prayer for relief. It is the substance
(Rule 2). Decide. and not the form that is controlling. A party may
Held: Rule 2, Section 5(c) does not apply because have two or more causes of action against another
the plaintiffs had only one cause of action, the party.
breach of the contract when the buyer refused to
pay the first two installments in payment of the Concept of joinder of causes of action and the
property as agreed upon, and turn over to the sellers tests.
the possession of the real property, as well as the A joinder of causes of action is the uniting of two or
house constructed thereon. The claim for damages more demands or right of action in a complaint. The
for reasonable compensation for the buyer’s use and question of the joinder of causes of action involves
occupation of the property, in the interim, as well as in particular cases a preliminary inquiry as to
moral and exemplary damages suffered by the whether two or more causes of action are alleged. In
sellers on account of the breach of contract of the declaring whether more than one cause of action is
buyers are merely incidental to the main case of alleged, the main thrust is whether more than one
action, and are not independent or separate causes primary right or subject of controversy is present.
of action. Other tests are whether recovery on one ground
The action of the sellers for the rescission of would bar recovery on the other, whether the same
the contract on account of the buyer’s breach evidence would support the other different counts
thereof and the latter’s failure to return the premises and whether separate actions could be maintained
subject of the complaint to the sellers, and the for separate relief; or whether more than one distinct
buyer’s eviction therefrom is a real action. (Punsalan primary right or subject of controversy is alleged for
vs. Vda. De Lacsamana, G.R. No. 55729, March 28, enforcement or adjudication. (Sps. Decena vs. Sps.
1983, 121 SCRA 331; Tenorio vs. Hon. Paño, 230 Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2006).
Phil. 17 (1986). As such, the action should have
been filed in the proper court where the property is A party still have a single cause of action even if
located, namely, in Parañaque City, conformably he seeks for a variety of remedies.
with Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court which A cause of action may be single although the plaintiff
reads: seeks a variety of remedies. The mere fact that the
“Actions affecting title to or possession of real plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs does not indicate
property, or interest therein, shall be commenced that he has stated more than one cause of action.
and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction The prayer may be an aid in interpreting the petition
over the area wherein the real property involved, or and in determining whether or nor not more than one
a portion thereof, is situated.” cause of action is pleaded. If the allegations of the
Since the sellers who were residents of complaint show one primary right and one wrong,
Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in the RTC of only one cause of action is alleged even though
Bulacan, venue was improperly laid; hence, the trial other matters are incidentally involved, and although
court acted conformably with Section 1(c), Rule 16 different acts, methods, elements of injury, items of
of the Rules of Court when it ordered the dismissal claims or theories of recovery are set forth. Where
of the complaint. (Sps. Decena vs. Sps. Piquero, two or more primary rights and wrongs appear, there
G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005, Callejo, J). is a joinder of causes of action. (Sps. Decena vs.
Sps. Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2006).
Cause of action; its elements.
A cause of action is an act or omission of one party RULE 3
in violation of the legal right of the other which Parties to Civil Action
causes the latter injury. The essential elements of a
cause of action are the following: (1) the existence of Nature of indispensable party.
the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal An indispensable party is a party in interest
duty of the defendant to respect one’s right; and (3) without whom no final determination can be had of
an act or omission of the defendant in violation of an action. (China Banking Corp. vs. Oliver, 439 Phil.
the plaintiff’s right. (Sps. Decena vs. Sps. Piquero, 50 (2002), and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs
G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005). or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties
A cause of action should not be confused with is mandatory. (Domingo vs. Scheer, G.R. No.
the remedies or reliefs prayed for. A cause of action 154745, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 468). The
5
presence of indispensable parties is necessary to “In the present case, there are no rights of
vest the court with jurisdiction, which is “the authority defendants Andres Evangelista and Bienvenido
to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a Mangubat to be safeguarded if the sale should be
case”. (Metrobank vs. Alejo, 417 Phil. 303 (2001). held to be in fact an absolute sale nor if the sale is
Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties held to be an equitable mortgage. Defendant Marcos
to a suit or proceedings, judgment of a court cannot Mangubat became the absolute owner of the subject
attain real finality. (BPI vs. CA, 450 Phil. 532 (2003) property by virtue of the sale to him of the shares of
citing BA Finance Corp. vs. CA, 327 Phil. 16). The the aforementioned defendants in the property. Said
absence of an indispensable party renders all defendants no longer have any interest in the
subsequent actions of the court null and void for subject property. However, being parties to the
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent instrument sought to be reformed, their presence is
parties but even as to those present. (Galindo vs. necessary in order to settle all the possible issues of
Roxas, G.R. No. 147969, January 17, 2005). the controversy. Whether the disputed sale be
declared an absolute sale or an equitable mortgage,
Non – joinder of indispensable party not a the rights of all the defendants will have been amply
ground for Motion to Dismiss. protected. Defendants-spouses Luzame in any
In Domingo vs. Scheer, 421 SCRA 468 it was event may enforce their rights against defendant
held that the non – joinder of indispensable parties is Marcos Mangubat.
not a ground for the dismissal of an action and the In Seno, the persons deemed by the Court as
remedy is to implead the non – party claimed to be necessary parties may have had already disposed of
indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the their interests in the property. However, should the
court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at lower court therein grant the prayer for the
any stage of the action and/or such times as are reformation of the deed of sale, the ruling will
just. If the petitioner refuses to implead an undoubtedly have an effect on such parties, on
indispensable party despite the order of the court, matters such as the purchase price which they may
the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the have received, and on whatever transmission of
petitioner/plaintiff’s failure to comply therefor. (Lotte rights that may have occurred between them and the
Phil. Co., Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 166302, vendor. (Chua vs. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 151900,
July 28, 2005). August 30, 2005).
6
Q- Roberto de Galicia and Carmen Arciaga policy. (Oco vs. Limbaring, G.R. No.161298,
were business partners. Carmen asked him to co January 31, 2006).
– sign a check for P50, 000.00. Carmen had it
rediscounted at 8% interest. When the check Meaning of the term interest.
was presented for payment, it was dishonored. Interest within the meaning of the Rules means
De Galicia filed a complaint for annulment of the material interest or an interest in issue to be affected
check and the agreement to pay interest against by the decree or judgment of the case, as
Mercado, but did not implead Carmen. Can the distinguished from mere curiosity about the question
case be dismissed on the ground of failure to involved. One having no material interest to protect
implead an indispensable party? Why? cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the
Answer: Yes, because Carmen is an indispensable plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real
party. Her interest is intertwined with the rights and party in interest, the case is dismissible on the
interests of both parties to the suit. She is involved in ground of lack of cause of action. (Oco vs.
the suit being a co – signer of the check and being Limbaring, G.R. No. 161298, January 31, 2006).
privy to the agreement to pay interest. Had the case
been decided, any judgment made would have RULE 4
affected her, otherwise, she cannot be bound. It is a Venue of Actions
well – accepted rule that the joinder of all
indispensable parties be made under any and all Venue of personal actions.
conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for Facts: In Antonio Chua vs. Total Office Products &
the exercise of judicial power. (De Galicia vs. Services (Topros) Inc., G.R. No. 152808, September
Mercado, G.R. No. 146744, March 4, 2006). 30, 2005, there was a complaint to nullify contracts
of loan and real estate mortgage alleging that there
Rule that a person who is not a party to a was no authority granted to Chua by the corporation
contract is not a real party in interest ; rule is not to enter into a contract of loan. It was alleged that
absolute. the contracts were fictitious. A Motion to Dismiss on
As an exception, parties who have not taken part in the ground of improper venue was filed alleging that
a contract may show that they have a real interest the action should have been filed in Quezon City,
affected by its performance or annulment. (Uy vs. not Pasig City since the properties are located in
CA, 372 Phil. 743; Earth Minerals Exploration Inc. Quezon City, and that the action affected title to or
vs. Macaraig, 194 SCRA 1). In other words, those possession over the parcels of land subject of the
who are not principally or subsidiarily obligated in a real estate mortgage. The Motion to Dismiss was
contract, in which they had no intervention, may who denied ruling that an action to annul the loan and the
in their detriment that could result from it. Contracts mortgage contracts is a personal action, hence,
pour autrui are covered by this exception. In this venue lies in the RTC of Pasig City, where the
latter instance, the law requires that the “contracting parties reside. In affirming the CA, the SC
parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred Held: Well – settled is the rule that an action to
a favor upon a third person.” A “mere incidental annul a contract of loan and its accessory real estate
benefit is not enough.” (Oco vs. Limbaring, G.R. No. mortgage is a personal action. In personal action the
161298, January 31, 2006). plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract or the recovery of
Reasons why actions must be prosecuted in the damages. In contrast, in a real action, the plaintiff
name of the real party in interest. seeks the recovery of real property, or, as indicated
This provision has two requirements: (1) to institute in Section 2(a), Rule 4 of the then Rules of Court, a
an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in real action is an action affecting title to real property
interest; and (2) the action must be prosecuted in or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or
the name of the real party in interest. Necessarily, condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on real
the purposes of this provision are (1) to prevent the property.
prosecution of actions by persons without any right,
title or interest in the case; (2) to require that the Rule in Pascual vs. Pascual, 73 Phil. 561 not
actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to applicable; reason.
prosecute the action; (3) to avoid a multiplicity of In the Pascual case, relied upon by petitioner, the
suits; and (4) to discourage litigation and keep it contract of sale of the fishpond was assailed as
within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public fictitious for lack of consideration. We held that there
7
being no contract to begin with, there is nothing to would indicate the parties’ intention “mandatorily to
annul. Hence, the action for annulment of the said restrict the venue of actions to the courts of Manila
fictitious contract therein was held as one only. In Langaan Realty Dev. Inc. vs. United
constituting a real action for the recovery of the Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 139437,
fishpond subject thereof. December 8, 2000, 347 SCRA 542), where the
The foregoing doctrine cannot be applied to venue stipulation contained the word “shall”, it was
the instant case. In Pascual, title to and possession held that the stipulations of the parties “lack
of the subject fishpond had already passed to the qualifying or restrictive words to indicate the
vendee. There was, therefore, a need to recover the exclusivity of the agreed forum”, and therefore “the
said fishpond. But in the instant case, ownership of stipulated place is considered only as an additional,
the parcels of land subject of the questioned real not a limiting venue”. Consequently, the dismissal by
estate mortgage was never transferred to petitioner, the RTC of the complaint on ground of improper
but remained with TOPROS. Thus, no real action for venue is erroneous, and was correctly reversed by
the recovery of real property is involved. This being the Court of Appeals. (Phil. Bank of
the case, TOPROS’ action for annulment of the Communications, et al. vs. Trazon, G.R. No.
contracts of loan and real estate mortgage remains 165500, August 30, 2006).
a personal action.
RULE 6
Banco Español – Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. Nature of affirmative defenses.
921 not applicable; reason. An answer may allege affirmative defenses which
Reliance on the Banco Español – Filipino case is may strike down the plaintiff’s cause of action. An
misplaced. That case involved a foreclosure of real affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an
estate mortgage against a nonresident. It was held essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action,
therein that jurisdiction is determined by the place but one which, is established, will be a good defense
where the real property is located and that personal – i.e. an “avoidance” of the claim. Affirmative
jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant is defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release
nonessential and, in fact, cannot be acquired. payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel,
Needless to stress, the instant case bears no former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any
resemblance to the Banco Español – Filipino case. other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
In the first place, this is not an action involving When the answer asserts affirmative defenses, there
foreclosure of real estate mortgage. In the second is proper joinder of issues which must be ventilated
place, none of the parties here is nonresident. in a full – blown trial on the merits and cannot be
resolved by a mere judgment on the pleadings.
Venue stipulation. Allegations presented in the answer as affirmative
In a contract where a person opened a defenses are not automatically characterized as
current account with a bank, it was agreed that “in such. Before an allegation qualifies as an affirmative
case of litigation hereunder, venue shall be in the defense, it must be of such nature as to bar the
City Court or RTC of Manila as the case may be for plaintiff from claiming on his cause of action.
determination of any and all questions arising (Mangao vs. Pryce Properties Corp., G.R. No.
thereunder.” The complaint for damages was, 156474, August 16, 2005).
however, filed in Quezon City which dismissed for
improper venue. The CA reversed it as there was no RULE 7
qualifying or restrictive words, hence, the stipulation Parts of Pleading
was only an additional forum. In agreeing with the
ruling of the CA, the SC observed and said that the Misjoined party; effect if he did not sign
parties failed to show that the stipulation is certificate of non – forum shopping.
exclusive. Without the words expressing the parties’ In Chua v. Torres, et al., G.R. 151900, August 20,
intention to restrict the filing of a suit in a particular 2005, there was a misjoined party. The absence of
place, courts will allow the filing of a case in any of his signature in the verification or certificate of non –
the venues prescribed by law or stipulated by the forum shopping a ground for dismissal of the action
parties, as long as the jurisdictional requirements has no bearing on the action.
are followed. (Mangila vs. CA, 435 Phil. 870 (2002). The reason is obvious. A misjoined party has no
The subject clause contains no qualifying nor business participating in the case as plaintiff and it
restrictive words, such as “must”, or “exclusive”, as would make little sense to require the misjoined
8
party in complying with the requirements expected of playing fast and loose with the said rules. Forum
plaintiffs. shopping, an act of malpractice, is considered as
It should then follow that any act or omission trifling with the court and abusing their processes. It
committed by a misjoined party plaintiff should not is improper conduct and degrades the administration
be cause for impediment to the prosecution of the of justice. Its the act of the party or its counsel
case, much less for the dismissal of the suit. After clearly constitutes willful and deliberate forum
all, such party should not have been included in the shopping, the same shall constitute direct contempt,
first place, and no efficacy should be accorded to and a cause for administrative sanctions, as well as
whatever act or omission of the party. Since the a ground for the summary dismissal of the case with
misjoined party plaintiff receives no recognition from prejudice. (Balite vs. CA, G.R. No. 140931,
the court as either an indispensable or necessary November 26, 2004; 444 SCRA 410; Gaudencio
party – plaintiff, it then follows that whatever action Navarro Vda. De Taroma, et al., G.R. No. 160214,
or inaction the misjoined party may take on the December 16, 2005; Huibonhua vs. Concepcion, et
verification or certification against forum – shopping al., G.R. No. 153785, August 3, 2006, citing Villaluz
is inconsequential. (Chua vs. Torres, et al., G.R. No. vs. Ligon, G.R. No. 143721, August 31, 2005, 468
151900, August 30, 2005). SCRA 486, 498).”
Factor that determines whether a party violated Rationale against forum shopping.
the rule on forum shopping. The rationale against forum shopping is that a party
To determine whether a party violated the rule should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
against forum shopping, the most important remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple
question to ask is whether the elements of petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court
litis pendentia are present or whether a final processes, which tends to degrade the
judgment in one case will result to res judicata in administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly
another. Otherwise stated, to determine forum judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the
shopping, the test is to see whether in the two or heavily burdened dockets of the courts. Thus, the
more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote
rights or causes of action and reliefs sought. (Villaluz candor and transparency among lawyers and their
v. Ligon, G.R. No. 143721, August 31, 2005). clients in the pursuit of their cases before the courts
to promote the orderly administration of justice,
When there is forum shopping. prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party,
In a case, a judgment was rendered on February 27, and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims
2003. A motion for reconsideration was filed. Twenty to prevent the embarrassing situation of two or more
– four hours later, a petition for review was filed with courts or agencies rendering conflicting resolutions
the SC. or decisions upon the same issue. (Huibona vs.
The SC said that there is forum shopping, explaining Concepcion, et al., G.R. No. 153785, August 31,
that there is forum shopping when a party 2006).
repetitively avails himself of several judicial
remedies in different courts, simultaneously or How forum shopping determined.
successively, all substantially founded on the same To determine whether a party violated the rule
transactions and the same essential facts and against forum shopping, the most important question
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are
issues either pending in, or already resolved present or whether a final judgment in one case will
adversely by, some court. A party should not be result to res judicata in another. Otherwise stated, to
allowed to present simultaneously remedies in two determine forum shopping, the test is to see whether
different forums for it degrades and wreaks havoc to in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of
the rule on orderly procedure. Thus: parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs
“…A party may avail of the remedies sought. (Huibona vs. Concepcion, et al., G.R. No.
prescribed by the Rules of Court for the myriad 153785, August 31, 2006).
reliefs from the court. However, such party is not
free to resort to them simultaneously or at his Relaxation of the rule on forum shopping.
pleasure or caprice. Such party must follow the In a case, it was contended that the failure to
sequence and hierarchical order in availing such attach a board resolution making a person an
remedies and not resort to shortcuts in procedure or authorized signatory of certification against forum
9
shopping was a fatal error and cannot be rectified by
subsequent submission thereof. Is the contention Three (3) ways of committing forum shopping.
correct? Why?
Held: No. The rule has been relaxed in some cases. Q- What are the three ways of committing
In Shipside Inc. vs. CA, 352 SCRA 344 forum shopping?
(2001), a petition for certiorari was filed with the Answer: They are:
Court of Appeals which contained the requisite (1) filing multiple cases based on the
certification on non – forum shopping but failed to same cause of action and with the
attach proof that the person signing the certification same prayer, the previous case not
was authorized to do so. The Court of Appeals having been resolved yet (litis
dismissed the petition. The petitioner subsequently pendentia);
submitted a motion for reconsideration which (2) filing multiple cases based on the
attached a secretary’s certificate attesting to the same cause of action and with the
signatory’s authority to sign certificates against same prayer, the previous having been
forum shopping on behalf of the petitioner. When the resolved with finality (res judicata);
Court of Appeals, denied the motion for (3) filing multiple cases based on the
reconsideration, the petitioner sought relief with the same causes of action but with
Court. In its decision reversing the decision of the different prayers (splitting of cause of
Court of Appeals, the Court recognized that the action, where the ground for dismissal
belated filing of certifications against forum shopping is also either litis pendentia or res
is permitted in exceptional circumstances. It further judicata (Ao-As vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
held that with more reason should a petition be 128464, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA
given due course when this incorporates a 339).
certification on non – forum shopping without
evidence that the person signing the certification Effect if there is forum shopping.
was an authorized signatory and the petitioner If the forum shopping is not considered willful and
subsequently submits a secretary’s certificate deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed
attesting to the signatory’s authority in its motion for without prejudice. However, if the forum shopping is
reconsideration. willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more
Similarly, in Ateneo De Naga University vs. than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice
Manalo, 458 SCRA 325 (2005), the Court (Ao-As vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 128464, June 26,
acknowledged that it has relaxed, under justifiable 2006, 491 SCRA 339).
circumstances, the rule requiring the submission of
these certifications and has applied the rule of RULE 9
substantial compliance under justifiable Effect of Failure to Plead
circumstances with respect to the contents of the Rule 9 of the Rules of Court requires that all
certification. It also conceded that if the Court has defenses and objections – except lack of jurisdiction
allowed the belated filing of the certification against over the subject matter, litis pendentia, bar by prior
forum shopping for compelling reasons in previous judgment and/or prescription – must be pleaded in a
rulings, with more reason should it sanction the motion to dismiss or in an answer; otherwise, they
timely submission of such certification though the are deemed waived. (Rule 9, Sec. 1; Obando vs.
proof of the signatory’s authority was submitted Figueras, 379 Phil. 150 (2000). As to the excepted
thereafter. grounds, the court may dismiss a claim or a case at
In Pascual & Santos Inc. vs. Tramo Wakas any time “when it appears from the pleadings or the
Neighborhood Association, 442 SCRA 438 (2004) it evidence on record” that any of those grounds
was held that the subsequent submission of proof of exists.
authority to act on behalf of a petitioner corporation
justifies the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of Rule if an answer has not been filed on time.
allowing its petition to be given due course. The court should admit the answer instead of
Since there was substantial compliance, it is declaring the defendant in default. To admit or to
deemed more in accord with substantial justice that reject an answer filed after the prescribed period is
the case be decided on the merits. (China Banking addressed to the sound discretion of the court. In
Corp. vs. Mondragon Int’l. Phils. Inc., et al., G.R. No. fact, the Rules authorize the court to accept answer
164798, November 17, 2005). though filed late when it provides that upon motion
10
and on such terms as may be just, the court may They maintained that by adding together said
extend the time to plead provided in the Rules. The amounts, the sum thereof is sufficient to pay their
court may also, upon like terms allow an answer or loan and to consider the real estate mortgage as
other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by the discharge. Rule on the contention. Explain
Rules. (Sec. 11, Rule 11; Ernestina Crisologo – Jose Held: The contention is not correct. There was no
vs. LBP, G.R. No. 167399, June 22, 2006). allegation that said amounts were withdrawn from
An answer should be admitted where it has their accounts and that same were not applied as
been filed before the defendant was declared in payments for their loan. They did not ask in their
default and no prejudice has been caused to the prayer that said amounts be returned to them or that
plaintiff. (Indiana Aerospace Univ. vs. CHED, G.R. they be used to offset their indebtedness to the
No. 139371, April 4, 2001, 36 SCRA 367). bank. Moreover, when plaintiffs tried to prove this
allegation, counsel for bank objected and attempted
Policy on defaults. to have the testimony thereon stricken off the record
Default orders should be avoided, even if there is on the ground of allegata et probate. (A rule of
late filing of an answer. A declaration of default procedure whereby only matters alleged in the
should not issue unless the claiming party asked for pleading may be proved. (Robles vs. Del Rosario,
it, for the court cannot motu proprio declare a party 100 Phil. 891, cited in Phil. Law Dictionary by
in default. (Trajano vs. Cruz, 80 SCRA 712). There Moreno, 2nd Ed., p. 35).
must be a motion for a declaration of default by the Under Section 5, Rule 10 of the Revised
plaintiff with proof of failure by the defendant to file Rules of Court, if evidence is objected to at the trial
his responsive pleading despite due notice. on the ground that it is not within the issues made by
(Ernestina Crisologo – Jose vs. LBP, G.R. No. the pleadings, the Court may allow the pleadings to
167399, June 22, 2006). be amended freely when the presentation of the
merits of the action will be subserved thereby and
RULE 10 the admission of such evidence would not prejudice
Amended and Supplemental Pleadings the objecting party in maintaining his action or
defense upon the merit.
Amendment, a matter of discretion after answer. When there is an objection on the evidence
In Valenzuela, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. presented because it is not within the issues made
149449, February 20, 2006, Azcuna, J., the SC said by the pleadings, an amendment must be made
that amendment to pleadings is a matter of before accepting such evidence. If no amendment is
discretion after answer has been filed, with pre-trial made, the evidence objected to cannot be
on going. It was said that amendments to pleadings considered. In this case there being an objection on
are allowed at any stage before the rendition of final evidence being presented by the bank, the plaintiff
judgment. (Espiritu vs. Crossfield, 14 Phil. 588 failed to order the amendment of the complaint,
(1909). This is most especially permitted during pre- thus, the court cannot consider evidence regarding
trial as one of its goals is to consider the “necessity the P30, 000.00 and P118, 00.00 allegedly
or desirability of amendments to the pleadings”. withdrawn from their accounts. With this ruling, it
Nevertheless, whether an amendment will be follows that the outstanding loan of plaintiffs in the
allowed is still discretionary upon the trial court, amount of P58, 297.16 remains unpaid. (Cagungun,
taking into account the circumstances of each case et al. vs. Planters Dev. Bank, G.R. No. 158674,
with particular attention to the possibility that the October 17, 2005).
motion was made with intent to delay.
RULE 13
Facts:An action for damages was filed against a Service of notice to lawyer.
bank due to unauthorized withdrawals from the In a case, it was contended that the lawyer
account of the depositor. While holding the bank was considered as having been served with a copy
liable for damages, the CA however, deleted the of the writ of execution during his telephone
portions of the RTC decision declaring their conversation with the Sheriff.
mortgage paid and enjoining the foreclosure. They The SC ruled that there was no service.
contended that they were able to prove that the Knowledge by the lawyer of the existence of an
amounts of P30, 000.00 and P118, 000.00 were order of execution during his telephone conversation
respectively withdrawn from their account and that with the sheriff does not amount to service under
the same were not applied as payment for their loan. Rule 13, Section 13. Service upon him took place
11
only when he, in fact, received the said order thru system of dispensing justice. When no substantial
registered mail. (Phil. Radiant Products Inc. vs. rights are affected and the intention to delay is not
Metrobank, G.R. No. 163569, December 9, 2005). manifest with the corresponding motion to transfer
the hearing having been filed accordingly, it is sound
Presumption if a mail matter is sent by judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that
registered mail. the merits of the case may be fully ventilated. Thus,
When a mail matter is sent by registered mail, there in considering motions for postponements, two
exists a presumption, set forth under Section 3(v), things must be borne in mind: (1) the reason for the
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, (Protector’s Services postponement, and (2) the merits of the case of the
Inc. vs. CA, 386 Phil. 611 (2000), that it was movant. Unless grave abuse of discretion is shown,
received in the regular course of mail. The facts to such discretion will not be interfered with either by
be proved in order to raise this presumption are: (a) mandamus or appeal. (People vs. Leviste, 325 Phil.
that the letter was properly addressed with postage 525; Simon, et. al. vs. Canlas, G.R. No. 148273,
prepaid; and (b) that it was mailed. While mailed April 19, 2006).
letter is deemed received by the addressee in the
ordinary course of mail, this is still merely a Rule on disposition of cases.
disputable presumption subject to controversion, The Court is as aware as anyone of the need
and a direct denial of the receipt thereof shifts the for the speedy disposition of cases. However, it must
burden upon the party favored by the presumption to be emphasized that speed alone is not the chief
prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by objective of a trial. It is the careful and deliberate
the addressee. (Barcelon Roxas Securities, Inc. vs. consideration for the administration of justice, a
Com. Of Internal Rev., G.R. No. 157064, August 7, genuine respect for the rights of all parties and the
2006, citing Rep. vs. CA, 149 SCRA 351). requirements of procedural due process, and an
adherence to the Court’s standing admonition that
Service of judgments. the disposition of cases should always be predicated
Judgments, final orders and resolutions are on the consideration that more than the mere
appealable. It is necessary that it be served convenience of the courts and of the parties in the
personally or, if not possible, by registered mail case, the ends of justice and fairness would be
accompanied by a written explanation why the served thereby. These are more important than a
service was not done personally, in order that the race to end the trial. Indeed, court litigations are
period for taking an appeal may be computed. primarily for the search for truth, and a liberal
As a rule, personal service of judgment is interpretation of the rules by which both parties are
done by delivering them personally to the party or given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the
his counsel, or when they are left in his office, with best way to ferret out such truth. (Simon vs. Canlas,
his clerk or with a person having charge thereof. In G.R. No. 148273, April 19, 2006).
case this is not possible, the copy of the judgment
may be left at the party’s or his counsel’s residence Nature of the requirement of notice when a
with a person of sufficient age or discretion residing motion reconsideration is filed.
therein. (DBP vs. COA, G.R. No. 166933, August The requirement of notice under Sections 4 and 5 of
10, 2006). Rule 15 in connection with Section 2, Rule 37 of the
Rules of Court is mandatory. (National Bank of
RULE 15 Saudi Arabia vs. CA, 396 SCRA 541 (2003).
Motions Absence of the mandatory requirement renders the
motion a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of
Grant or denial of motion for postponement, a court has no right to receive and which the court has
matter of discretion. no authority to act upon. (Pallada vs. RTC, Kalibo,
As a rule, the grant or denial of a motion for Aklan, 304 SCRA 440). Being a fatal defect, in
postponement is addressed to the sound discretion cases of motion to reconsider a decision, the
of the court which should always be predicated on running of the period to appeal is not tolled by their
the consideration that more than the mere filing or pendency. (Nuñez, et al. vs. GSIS Family
convenience of the courts or of the parties in the Bank, et al., G.R. No. 163988, November 17, 2005).
case, the ends of justice and fairness should be
served thereby. After all, postponements and RULE 16
continuances are part and parcel of our procedural Motion to Dismiss
12
on any of the grounds provided for by the Rules.
Remedy or remedies that may be resorted to if a (Sec. 1, Rule 16).
motion to dismiss is denied. “Within the time for pleading” means within
The defendant should file an answer, go to trial and the time to answer. (JM Tuason & Co. vs. Rafor, 55
appeal from the judgment raising as an issue the SCRA 478). Since the motion to dismiss was filed
denial of the motion to dismiss. It has long been after answer, it was filed out of time. (Heirs of
settled that an order denying a motion to dismiss is Mariano Lagutan vs. Icao, G.R. no. 58057, June 30,
an interlocutory order. It neither terminates nor 1993, 224 SCRA 9). In fact, after the answer has
finally disposes of a case, as it leaves something to been filed, the defendant is estopped from filing a
be done by the court before the case is finally motion to dismiss. (Ruiz, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No.
decided on the merits, and as such, the general rule 101566, March 6, 1993, 220 SCRA 490).
is that the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be The rule is not absolute.
questioned in a special civil action for certiorari. In The only exceptions to the rule are: (1) where the
order to justify the grant of extraordinary remedy of ground raised is lack of jurisdiction of the court over
certiorari, the denial of the motion to dismiss must the subject matter; (2) where the complaint does not
have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion state a cause of action; (3) prescription; and (4)
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Davao where the evidence that would constitute a ground
Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Judge, RTC, for the dismissal of the complaint was discovered
Davao City, et al., G.R. No. 147058, March 10, only during the trial. (Phil. Ville Dev. & Housing
2005; Lu Ym vs. Nabua, 452 SCRA 298 (2005). Corp., et al. vs. Javier, G.R. No. 147738, December
13, 2005).
Rule is not absolute.
The rule admits of other exceptions, such as when Effect of the filing of Motion to Dismiss on the
an appeal would not prove to be a speedy and ground of failure to state a cause of action.
adequate remedy as when an appeal would not A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action
promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious (should failure to state a cause of action)
effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in
the plaintiff’s baseless action and compelling the the complaint. The allegations in a complaint are
defendant needlessly to go through a protracted trial sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the
and clogging the court dockets by another futile defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts
case. (Balo vs. CA, G.R. No. 129704, September alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon
30, 2005, citing Bank of America NT & SA vs. CA, the same in accordance with the prayer therein.
400 SCRA 156, 166). (Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Trazon, G.R. No.
165500, August 30, 2006).
Effect if there is a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of failure to state a cause of action. RULE 18
The rule is that in a motion to dismiss, a defendant Pre-Trial
hypothetically admits the truth of the material
allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. This Effect if a party fails to appear at the pre-trial.
hypothetical admission extends to the relevant and At the pre – trial conference, the defendants
material facts pleaded in, and the inferences fairly did not appear. They did not even file a motion for
deducible from the complaint. Hence, to determine postponement stating the reasons therein. Worst,
whether the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the they did not file a pre – trial brief. The court allowed
complaint constitutes a cause of action, the test is as the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte.
follows: admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can Upholding the validity of the act of the court,
the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the SC said that under the Rules, if the defendant
the prayer? (Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. vs. fails to appear at the pre – trial conference, it shall
Hon. Judge, RTC, Davao City, et al., G.R. No. be cause for the plaintiff to present evidence ex
147058, March 10, 2005). parte and the court to render judgment on the basis
thereof. (Sec. 5, Rule 18). Failure to file the trial brief
Defendant may not file a motion to dismiss after shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the
filing an answer; exceptions. pre – trial. (Sec. 6, Rule 18). Since the defendants
As a rule, no, because under the Rules, within the failed to appear without any justifiable reason, the
time for pleading a motion to dismiss may be made act of the court is proper. (Khonghun vs. United
13
Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154334, July 31, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
2005). agent of the Republic of the Philippines; (b) before
such person or officer as may be appointed by
Valid ground to excuse non-appearance at the commission or under letters rogatory; or (c) before
pre-trial conference. any person authorized to administer oaths as
What constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants stipulated in writing by the parties. While letters
and their counsels at the pre – trial is subject to the rogatory are requests to foreign tribunals,
sound discretion of a judge. They could not question commissioners are directives to official of the issuing
the discretion of the court absent any showing that it jurisdiction. (Dulay, et al. vs. Dulay, G.R. No.
did so whimsically or capriciously. The decision to 158857, November 11, 2005).
allow the plaintiff to present its evidence ex parte
was prompted by the fact that defendants and their When is leave of court required when deposition
counsel failed to appear at the pre – trial without is taken abroad.
informing the court of the reasons for their absence. Leave of court is not required when the deposition is
They did not even file any motion for postponement to be taken before a secretary of embassy or
of the pre – trial. Neither did they send their legation, consul general, consul, vice consul or
representatives to apprise the court of their consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines and
predicament. Worse, they failed to file a pre – trial the defendant’s answer has already been served.
brief. (Sps. Khonghun vs. UCPB, G.R. No. 154334, However, if the deposition is to be taken in a foreign
July 31, 2006). country where the Philippines has no secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
RULE 23 consul or consular agent, it may be taken only
Depositions before such person or officer as may be appointed
by commission or under letters rogatory. (Dulay, et
Concept of deposition. al. vs. Dulay, G.R. No. 158857, November 11, 2005;
Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the citing Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. vs. Reyes, G.R.
primary function of which is to supplement the No. 108229, August 22, 2003, 225 SCRA 622).
pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real
points of dispute between the parties and affording RULE 23, Section 4
an adequate factual basis during the preparation for Depositions
trial. It may be taken with leave of court after
jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or Judicial policy or attitude on depositions.
over property that is the subject of the action; or, A deposition should be allowed, absent any showing
without such leave, after an answer has been that taking it would prejudice any party. (Jonathan
served. A party’s right to avail itself of this procedure Landoil International Co. Inc. vs. Mangudadatu, G.R.
is “well – nigh unrestricted” if the matters inquired No. 155010, August 16, 2004, 436 SCRA 559, 575).
into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and It is accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the
the inquiry is made in good faith and within the liberty of a party to make discovery is well – nigh
bounds of the law. (Jonathan Landoil Int’l. Corp., Inc. unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise
vs. Mangundadatu, G.R. No. 155010, August 16, relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made
2004, 436 SCRA 559). Nevertheless, the use of in good faith and within the bounds of the law.
discovery procedures is directed to the sound (Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Tagle, G.R. No. 153667,
discretion of the trial courts, (People vs. Webb, 371 August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 521, 532). It is allowed
Phil. 491 (1999), which, in general, are given wide as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial
latitude in granting motions for discovery in order to proceedings of examining witnesses in open court
enable the parties to prepare for trial or otherwise to where their demeanor could be observed by the trial
settle the controversy prior thereto. (Security Bank judge, consistent with the principle of promoting just,
Corp. vs. CA, 38 Phil. 299 (2000); Dulay, et al. vs. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action
Dulay, G.R. No. 158857, November 11, 2005, Tinga, and proceeding; and provided it is taken in
J). accordance with the provisions of the Rules of
Court, i.e., with leave of court if summons have been
How depositions in a foreign country is taken. served, and without such leave if an answer has
Depositions in foreign countries may be taken: (a) been submitted; and provided further that a
on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, circumstance for its admissibility exists (Sec. 4, Rule
14
23, Rules of Court). The rules on discovery should While depositions may be used as evidence in court
not be unduly restricted, otherwise, the advantage of proceedings, they are generally not meant to be a
a liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining the substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a
truth and expediting the disposal of litigation would party or witness. Stated a bit differently, a deposition
be defeated. (Hyatt Industrial Mfg. Corp., et al. vs. is not to be used when the deponent is at hand.
Ley Construction and Dev. Corp., et al., G.R. No. Indeed, any deposition offered during a trial to prove
147143, March 10, 2006). the facts therein set out, in lieu of the actual oral
testimony of the deponent in open court, may be
Cases may the court disallow depositions. opposed and excluded on the ground of hearsay.
Depositions may be disallowed by trial courts if the (Sales vs. Sabino, G.R. No. 133154, December 9,
examination is conducted in bad faith; or in such a 2005).
manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the
person who is the subject of the inquiry, or when the Exceptions to the rule.
inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches Depositions may be used without the deponent
upon the recognized domains of privilege. (Hyatt being called to the witness stand by the proponent,
Industrial Mfg. Corp., et al. vs. Ley Construction and provided the following conditions are met, like:
Dev. Corp., et al., G.R. No. 147143, March 10, 1. that the witness is dead;
2006). 2. that the witness resides at a distance
more than one hundred (100) kilometers
Availability of a witness to testify is not a ground from the place of trial or hearing, or is out
to deny the taking of deposition. of the Philippines, unless it appears that
The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in his absence was procured by the party
court does not constitute “good cause” to justify the offering the deposition; or
court’s order that his deposition shall not be taken. 3. that the witness is unable to attend or
That the witness is unable to attend or testify is one testify because of age, sickness, infirmity,
of the grounds when the deposition of a witness may or imprisonment; or
be used in court during the trial. But the same 4. that the party offering the deposition has
reason cannot be successfully invoked to prohibit been unable to procure the attendance of
the taking of his deposition. the witness by subpoena; or
The right to take statements and the right to 5. upon application and notice, that such
use them in court have been kept entirely distinct. exceptional circumstances exist and with
The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions; due regard to the importance of
restrictions are imposed upon their use. As a result, presenting the testimony of witnesses
there is accorded the widest possible opportunity for orally in open court, to allow the
knowledge by both parties of all the facts before the deposition to be used. (Sales vs. Sabino,
trial. Such of this testimony as may be introduced at G.R. No. 133154, December 9, 2005, Sec.
the trial; the remainder of the testimony, having 4(c) Rule 23).
served its purpose in revealing the facts to the
parties before trial, drops out of the judicial picture. Effect of participating in deposition taking.
xxx. Under the concept adopted by the new The act of participating and even cross – examining
Rules, the deposition serves the double function of a the deponent during the taking of the deposition
method of discovery – with use on trial not cannot be considered a waiver of the right to object
necessarily contemplated – and a method of to its admissibility as evidence in the trial proper. In
presenting testimony. Accordingly, no limitations participating, therefore, in the taking of the
other than relevancy and privilege have been placed deposition, but objecting to its admissibility in court
on the taking of depositions, while the use at the trial as evidence, he did not assume inconsistent
is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use positions. He is not estopped. Under the Rules,
of oral testimony wherever practicable. (Hyatt while error and irregularities in depositions as to
Industrial Mfg. Corp., et al. vs. Ley Construction and notice, qualifications of the officer conducting the
Dev. Corp., et al., G.R. No. 147143, March 10, 2006; deposition, and manner of taking the deposition are
citing Fortune Corp. vs. CA, 229 SCRA 355 (1994). deemed waived if not objected to before or during
the taking of the deposition, objections to the
Deposition is not admissible in evidence if the competency of a witness or the competency,
defendant is available to testify. relevancy, or materiality of testimony may be made
15
for the first time at the trial and need not be made at Alleging that there was negligence of the
the time of the taking of the deposition, unless they lawyer, the SC said:
could be obviated at that point. (Sec. 29, Rule 23; “It has been held time and again that blunders
Sales vs. Sabino, G.R. No. 133154, December 9, and mistakes made in the conduct of the
2005). proceedings in the trial court as a result of the
ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel
Objection to the admissibility of a deposition in do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were
evidence. to be admitted as valid reasons for reopening cases,
As a rule, the inadmissibility of testimony taken by there would never be an end to litigation so long as
deposition is anchored on the ground that such a new counsel could be employed to allege and
testimony is hearsay, i.e., the party against whom it show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently
is offered has no opportunity to cross – examine the diligent, experienced or learned. This will put a
deponent at the time his testimony is offered. But as premium on the willful and intentional commission of
jurisprudence teaches, it matters not that opportunity errors by counsel, with a view to securing new trials
for cross – examination was afforded during the in the event of conviction.” (Rivera vs. CA, 405
taking of the deposition; for normally, the opportunity SCRA 61 (2003).
for cross – examination must be accorded a party at
the time the testimonial evidence is actually RULES 34/35
presented against him during the trial or hearing. When judgment on the pleadings proper.
(Sales vs. Sabino, G.R. No. 133154, December 9, Facts:A complaint for quieting of title and for
2005; citing Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. vs. Reyes, declaration of nullity of Free Patent No. 495269,
225 SCRA 622 (1993)). OCT No. 711 and TCT No. 186516 was filed against
the defendants. The complaint was amended
RULE 30 alleging that the plaintiff were the co – owners of a
Relief from Judgments, Orders, or other parcel of land located in Marikina Rizal, Metro
Proceedings Manila covered by TCT No. 257152. Said title was
transfer from TCT No. 22395 in the name of Antonio
Remedy if a petition for relief from judgment is Araneta and among the lots covered by TCT No.
denied. 257152 was Lot No. 89. It was contended that the
In Sps. Regalado vs. Regalado, et al., G.R. title, TCT No. 27219, is void because it covered Lot
No. 134154, February 28, 2006, the SC once again No. 89 belonging to them. They impleaded the
said that the appropriate remedy in case of denial of buyer, herein petitioner which contended that it was
a petition for relief from judgment is special civil a buyer in good faith and for value since there was
action for certiorari; not appeal. (Rule 41, Section no annotation of lis pendens at the back of the title.
1(b); Trust Int’l. Paper Corp. v. Pelaez, G.R. No. Answering the complaint, they alleged that Lot No.
146871, August, 22, 2006). 89 was covered by another title OCT No. 734 not
It went further and said that a petition for relief OCT No. 730. The plaintiffs however, filed a motion
from judgment is an equitable remedy; it is allowed for judgment on the pleadings. Is the motion proper?
only in exceptional cases where there is no other Why?
available or adequate remedy. When a party has Held: No, considering that the answer generated the
another remedy available to him, which may be following issues: (1) whether the respondents’ TCT
either a motion for new trial or appeal from an No. 257152 is valid or not; (2) whether Lot No. 89 is
adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not covered by TCT No. 257152; (3) whether the buyers
prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable were purchasers in good faith. This is clearly not a
negligence from filing such motion or taking such case for judgment on the pleadings considering that
appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition. the answers tendered factual issues. (Tan, et al. vs.
Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who De La Vega, et al., G.R. No. 168809, March 10,
seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment 2006).
when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his In a proper case for judgment on the
own negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because
be used to revive the right to appeal which had been of the failure of the defending party’s answer to raise
lost thru inexcusable negligence. (citing Tuason vs. an issue. The answer would fail to tender an issue,
CA, 256 SCRA 158). of course, if it does not deny the material allegations
in the complaint or admits said material allegations
16
of the adverse party’s pleadings by confessing the proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the
truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them place of trial. (Tan vs. De La Vega, et al., G.R. No.
at all. Now, if an answer does not in fact specifically 168809, March 10, 2006).
deny the material averments of the complaint and/or
asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new RULE 37
matter which, while admitting the material Second Motion for Reconsideration.
allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, Rule 37, Section 5 proscribes the
would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the entertainment of a second motion for
plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by
naturally be improper. (Tan, et al. vs. De La Vega, et the same party. (Padillo vs. Apas, et al., G.R. No.
al., G.R. No. 168809, March 10, 2006, citing 156615, April 10, 2006).
Mangao vs. Pryce Properties Corp., G.R. No.
156474, August 6, 2005, 467 SCRA 201). Requisites of a newly discovered evidence.
The requisites for newly discovered evidence under
Distinctions between summary judgment and Section2, Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
judgment on the pleadings. Procedure are: (a) the evidence was discovered
In Narra Integrated Corp. vs. CA, 398 Phil. 733 after the trial; (b) such evidence could not have been
(2000), the distinctions between a proper case of discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable
summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely
were laid down, thus: cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of
The existence or appearance of ostensible such weight that, if admitted, will probably change
issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their the judgment. (Dinglasan, Jr. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what 145420, September 19, 2006).
distinguish a proper case for summary judgment
from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a The Berry Rule and state its origin.
proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is It is actually requirements of a newly discovered
no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of evidence or the standards of a newly discovered
the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. On evidence.
the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, These standards, also known as the “Berry
issues apparently exist – i.e. facts are asserted in Rule”, trace their origin to the 1851 case of Berry vs.
the complaint regarding which there is as yet no State of Georgia, 10 Ga. 511 (1851), as cited in
admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific Custodio vs. SB, G.R. Nos. 96027-28, March 8,
denial or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in 2005, 453 SCRA 24, 34), where the Supreme Court
the answer – but the issues thus arising from the of Georgia held:
pleadings are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as “Applications for new trial on account of newly
shown by affidavits, depositions, or admission. x x x. discovered evidence, are not favored by the Courts.
In any case, a summary judgment is likewise x x x. Upon the following points there seems to be a
not warranted in this case as there are genuine pretty general concurrence of authority, viz; that it is
issues which call for a full blown trial. A “genuine incumbent on a party who asks for a new trial, on
issue” is an issue of fact which requires the the ground of newly discovered evidence, to satisfy
presentation of evidence as distinguished from a the Court, 1st. That the evidence has come to his
sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the knowledge since the trial. 2d. That it was not owing
facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, to the want of due diligence that it did not come
then there is no real or genuine issue or question as sooner. 3d. That it is so material that it would
to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. produce a different verdict, if the new trial were
The party who moves for summary judgment has the granted. 4th. That it is not cumulative only – viz;
burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any speaking to facts, in relation to which there was
genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the evidence on the trial. 5th. That the affidavit of the
complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to witness himself should be produced, or its absence
constitute a genuine issue for trial. Trial courts have accounted for. And 6th, a new trial will not be
limited authority to render summary judgments and granted, if the only object of the testimony is to
may do so only when there is clearly no genuine impeach the character or credit of a witness.”
issue as to any material fact. When the facts as (Dinglasan, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 145420, September
pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, 19, 2006).
17
that the period for the finality of judgments shall run,
Threshold question in resolving a motion for thereby, prolonging the disposition of cases.
new trial on the ground of a newly discovered Moreover, such a ruling would allow a party to
evidence. forestall the running of the period finality of judgment
The threshold question in resolving a motion for new by virtue of filing a prohibited pleading; such a
trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether situation is not only illogical but also unjust to the
the proferred evidence is in fact a “newly discovered winning party. (Dinglasan, Jr. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
evidence which could not have been discovered by 145420, September 19, 2006).
due diligence”. The question of whether evidence is
newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one, RULE 39
i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a Executions, Satisfactions and Effects of
predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have Judgments
been discovered. (Dinglasan, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No.
145420, September 19, 2006). Two aspects of the doctrine of res judicata.
The reason for the rule is that, it is contrary to The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects. The
human experience to have overlooked an evidence first, known as “bar by prior judgment”, or “estoppel
which was decisively claimed to have such by verdict”, is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the
significance that might probably change the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim,
judgment. If it is not a newly discovered evidence as demand or cause of action. The second, known as
it was already existing and known to the party at the “conclusiveness of judgment” or otherwise known as
time of the trial, it is not truly a newly discovered the rule of auter action pendant, ordains that issues
evidence, hence, a motion for new trial should be actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot
denied. again be raised in any future case between the
same parties involving a different cause of action. It
Effect of second Motion for Reconsideration. has the effect of preclusion of issues only. (Sps.
After conviction in a criminal case for violation Rasdas, et al. vs. Estenor, G.R. No. 157605,
of BP 22, the accused went to the extent of filing a December 13, 2005).
second motion for reconsideration. He contended
that the finality of the judgment should be computed Reasons behind the principle of conclusiveness
from the time he received the order denying the of judgment.
second motion for reconsideration. Is the contention The reasons for establishing the principle of
correct? Why? “conclusiveness of judgment” are founded on sound
Held: No, considering that the second motion for public policy, and to grant this petition would have
consideration, as such motion is merely an attempt the effect of unsettling this well – settled doctrine. It
to raise again a defense which was already weighed is allowable to reason back from a judgment to the
by the appellate court. A contrary ruling may open basis on which it stands, upon the obvious principle
the floodgates to an endless review of decisions, that where a conclusion is indisputable, and could
where losing litigants, in delaying the disposition of have been drawn only from certain premises, the
cases, invoke evidence already presented, whether premises are equally indisputable with the
through a motion for reconsideration or for a new conclusion. When a fact has been once determined
trial, in a guise of newly discovered evidence. in the course of a judicial proceeding, and a final
(Dinglasan, Jr. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 145420, judgment has been rendered in accordance
September 19, 2006). therewith, it cannot be again litigated between the
This prohibition is justified by public policy same parties without virtually impeaching the
which demands that at the risk of occasional errors, correctness of the former decision, which, from
judgments of courts must become final at some motives of public policy, the law does not permit to
definitive date fixed by law. (GSIS vs. CA, 334 Phil. be done. (Sps. Rasdas, et al. vs. Estenor, G.R. No.
163 (1997). 157605, December 13, 2005).
To rule that finality of judgment shall be
reckoned from the receipt of the resolution or order Effect if a judgment has become final and
denying the second motion for reconsideration executory; exceptions.
would result to an absurd situation whereby courts It is settled that when a judgment is final and
will be obliged to issue orders or resolutions denying executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.
what is prohibited motion in the first place, in order (Mayon Estate Corp. vs. Altura, 440 SCRA 337
18
(2004). The judgment may no longer be modified in Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of
any respect, except to correct clerical errors or to judgment, facts and issues actually and directly
make nunc pro tunc entries. The court which resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in
rendered judgment has the ministerial duty to issue any future case between the same parties, even if
a writ of execution by raising new issues of fact or the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause
law, except under the following circumstances: of action. The identity of causes of action is not
1. the writ of execution varies the judgment; required but merely identity of issues. (Tan vs. Ca,
2. there has been a change in the situation 363 SCRA 450 (2001).
of the parties making execution Conclusiveness of judgment clearly exists in
inequitable or unjust; the present case, because respondents again seek
3. execution is sought to be enforced against to enforce a right based on a sale which has been
property exempt from execution; nullified by a final and executory judgment. Recall
4. it appears that the controversy has been that the question of validity of the sale had long been
submitted to the judgment of the court; settled. The same question, therefore, cannot be
5. the terms of the judgment are not clear raised again even in a different proceeding involving
enough and there remains room for the same parties.
interpretation thereof; or The doctrine of res judicata provides that a
6. it appears that the writ of execution has final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of
been improvidently issued, or that it is competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the rights
defective in substance, or issued against of the parties and their privies and constitutes an
the wrong party, or that the judgment debt absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the
has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or same claim, demand, or cause of action.
the writ was issued without authority. (Phil.
Considering that the sale on which respondents
Economic Zone Authority vs. Hon. based their right to reversion has long been nullified,
Borreta, et al., G.R. No. 142669, March they have not an iota of right over the property and
15, 2006). thus, have no legal personality to bring forth the
action for reversion of expropriated property. Lack of
Res Judicata legal personality to sue means that the respondents
Facts:Respondents filed an action for reversion of are not the real parties – in – interest. This a ground
an expropriated property. The Republic denied the for the dismissal of the case, related to the ground
right to reacquire by respondents on the ground of that the complaint evidently states no cause of
res judicata and lack of cause of action. Res judicata action. (Taganas vs. Emuslan, 410 SCRA 237
was interposed based on Valdehueza vs. Republic, (2003); Rep. vs. Yu, et al., G.R. No. 157557, March
17 SCRA 107 and Yu vs. Republic, CA – G.R. No. 10, 2006).
01223, October 30, 1986. In the first case,
expropriation of a property in Lahug, Cebu was A final and executory judgment may not be
affirmed and that Francisca Valdehueza, et al. were amended.
not entitled to recover possession but only to A decision that has acquired finality, as in this case,
demand its fair market value. In the second, the CA becomes immutable and unalterable. (Phil. Veterans
annulled the subsequent sale of the lot by Francisca Bank vs. Estrella, 453 Phil. 45 (2003). A final
Valdehueza, et al. to Yu and held that the judgment may no longer be modified in any respect,
purchasers were in bad faith. There was no appeal, even if the modification is meant to correct
hence, it became final and executory. erroneous conclusions of fact or law. (Ramos vs.
The case was dismissed on the ground of res Ramos, 447 Phil. 114 (2003). In short, once a
judicata. The respondents contended that there was judgment becomes final and executory, it can no
no res judicata because the abandonment of the longer be disturbed no matter how erroneous it may
government of the public purpose constitutes a new be (Natalia Realty Inc. vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 164914,
cause of action. They contended that the October 3, 2005) and nothing further can be done
determination their right to reacquire or repossess therewith except to execute it. (Florentino vs. Rivera,
the lot necessitates a full blown trial. Is the G.R. No. 167968, January 23, 2006, citing King
contention correct? Integrated Security Services, Inc. vs. Gatan, 453
Held: No. There is conclusiveness of judgment in Phil. 296 (2003).
the case at bar.
Operative part of the decision.
19
It is settled rule that “the operative part in every be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts
decision is the dispositive portion or the fallo, and must, therefore, guard against any scheme
where there is conflict between the fallo and the calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as
body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule they are to put an end to controversies, courts
rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
while the opinion in the body is merely a statement, (Florentino vs. Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 167968,
ordering nothing”. (Florentino vs. Rivera, et al., G.R. January 23, 2006 citing Ho vs. Lacsa, G.R. No.
No. 167968, January 23, 2006 citing Mendoza, Jr. 142664, October 5, 2005).
vs. San Miguel Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 158684, May
16, 2005, 458 SCRA 664). Ejectment suit and annulment of judgment; no
res judicata.
Conflict between the dispositive portion of the A complaint for sum of money was filed by
decision and the body of the same. Travel 2000 International against Aida Lugayan with
Where there is a conflict between the dispositive the MTC, Manila. The defendant was declared in
portion of the decision and the body thereof, the default for failure to file an answer. The house of the
dispositive portion controls irrespective of what defendant was levied upon and sold at an auction
appears in the body of the decision. While the body sale. She failed to redeem from the highest bidders,
of the decision, order or resolution might create the spouses Tizons who later filed a complaint for
some ambiguity in the manner the court’s reasoning ejectment against Rona and Arturo Lugayan, Aida’s
preponderates, it is the dispositive portion thereof children. Aida and Diosdado Lugayan appeared as
that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets voluntary defendants and alleged that they are the
conditions for the exercise of those rights, and real parties in interest since Aida is the owner of the
imposes the corresponding duties or obligations. property and that it was constituted as a family
(Florentino vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 167968, January 23, home. They contended that the spouses Tizon had
2006; Light Rail Transit Authority vs. CA, 444 SCRA no cause of action against them due to the
125 (2004). pendency of an action of annulment of the judgment
in the sum of money case. They further contended
Basic foundations of the principle of res that litis pendentia barred the civil action for
judicata. ejectment.
It is to the interest of the public that there should be Brushing aside the contention, the SC ruled,
an end to litigation by the parties over a subject fully no, because between the two cases; ejectment suit
and fairly adjudicated. The doctrine of res judicata is and annulment of judgment, there is no identity of
a rule which pervades every well – regulated system parties, subject matter and causes of action. The
of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds parties in the annulment case are Travel 2000
embodied in various maxims of the common law, International and Aida. The subject matter are
namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which different because in the first it was non – payment of
makes it to the interest of the State that there be an debt and in the second, it was unlawful possession
end to litigation – republicate ut sit litium, and (2) the of the property. There is likewise no identity of
hardship on the individual that he should be vexed causes of action since in the first was for sum of
twice for the same cause – nemo debet bis vexari et money and in the second, it was for illegal detainer.
eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would subject the Hence, there is no res judicata, especially so that
public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of the elements of res judicata, also known as “bar by
individuals and prefer the gratification of the litigious prior judgment”, are: (a) the former judgment over
disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation the subject matter and the parties; (b) the court
of the public tranquility and happiness. (Heirs of the which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject
Late Faustina Adalid vs. CA, G.R. No. 122202, May matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on
26, 2005, 459 SCRA 27). the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first
It is almost trite to say that execution is the and second actions, identity of parties, subject
fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law. A matter, and causes of action. (Lugayan, et al. vs.
judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but Tizon, G.R. No. 147958, March 31, 2005, Gutierrez,
an empty victory for the prevailing party. Litigation J, citing Tolentino vs. Natanauan, 416 SCRA 273;
must end sometime and somewhere. An effective Sta. Lucia Realty & Dev. Corp. vs. Cabrigas, 358
and efficient administration of justice requires that SCRA 715 (2001)).
once a judgment has become final, the winning party
20
Facts:In one case it was alleged that a property against the sheriff, of course, and such other parties
subject of a co – ownership was taken possession of as may be alleged to have colluded with the sheriff
by another with the use of strategy and stealth, in the supposedly wrongful execution proceedings,
hence, a complaint to recover it was filed. The such as the judgment creditor himself. (Capa vs. CA,
possessor filed an answer that the property was et al., G.R. No. 160082, September 19, 2006; citing
donated to him. It was contended that the donation Sy vs. Discaya, 181 SCRA 378 (1990).
was void especially so that the donor was sick and
bed – ridden when the owner allegedly signed the Remedy of a judgment obligee if there is a
deed; that his signature was obtained with the use of frivolous or spurious third – party claim.
fraud. After trial, the donation was declared valid The remedy to a judgment oblige when a frivolous
which was affirmed by the CA on appeal. The SC and plainly spurious claim was filed by a third – party
affirmed the decision. The plaintiffs again filed an claimant, i.e., to file his claim for damages in the
action to declare the donation void, hence, a Motion same court where the third – party claimant filed his
to Dismiss on the ground of res judicata was filed. It third – party claim or to file a separate action. The
was granted. claim for damages must be flied in the trial court,
Holding that there is res judicata, the SC whether in the same case where a third – party
Held: Yes. The issue in both cases as shown by the claim has been filed or in a separate action for
allegations in the complaints, is the validity or nullity damages which he may institute. This is so in order
of the deed of donation. Thus, if the judgment in the to require the filing of proper pleadings and to hold
first case declares that the document is valid, then trial so as to give the parties the chance to submit
the second case should dismissed under the their respective evidence. (Capa vs. CA, et al., G.R.
principle of res judicata. (Balanay, et al. vs. Atty. No. 160082, September 19, 2006).
Jose Paderanga, et al., G.R. No. 136963, August
25, 2006). RULE 39, SECTION 9
Q- What are the factors to consider in Q- When may temporary visitation rights be
determining custody? awarded?
Answer: In awarding custody, the court shall Answer: The court shall provide in its order
consider the best interest of the minor and shall give awarding provisional custody appropriate visitation
paramount consideration to his material and moral rights to the non – custodial parent or parents,
welfare. The court shall also consider the following: unless the court finds said parent or parents unfit or
a) Any extrajudicial agreement which the parties disqualified.
may have bound themselves to comply with The temporary custodian shall give the court
respecting the rights of the minor to maintain and non custodial parent or parent at least five days’
direct contact with the non custodial parent notice of any plan to change the residence of the
on a regular basis, except when there is an minor or take him out of his residence for more than
existing threat or danger of physical, mental, three days provided it does not prejudice the
sexual or emotional violence which visitation rights of the non – custodial parent or
endangers the safety and best interests of parents. (Sec. 15, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, Proposed
the minor; Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
b) The desire and ability of one parent to foster Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors).
an open and loving relationship between the
minor and the other parent; Q- A is a minor child subject of a custody battle
c) The health, safety and welfare of the minor; between X and Z. X sought to bring him to Bangkok
d) Any history of child or spousal abuse by the for a vacation. May this be allowed?
person seeking custody or who has had any Answer: No. The minor child subject of the petition
filial relationship with the minor, including shall not be brought out of the country without prior
anyone courting the parent; order from the court while the petition is pending.
(Sec. 16, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, Proposed Rule on
44
Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Relation to Custody of Minors). Q- What is the order of preference in the order of
awarding the custody of a child?
Q- What is the procedure for the issuance of a Answer: The parents or either of them shall first be
hold departure order? considered. If it appears that both parties are unfit to
Answer: The court, motu proprio or upon application have the care and custody of the minor, the court
under oath, may issue ex parte a hold departure may designate either the paternal or maternal
order, addressed to the Bureau of Immigration and grandparent of the minor, or his eldest brother or
Deportation, directing it not to allow the departure of sister, or any reputable person to take charge of
the minor from the Philippines without the such minor, or commit him to any suitable home for
permission of the court. (Sec. 16, A.M. No. 03-04- children. (Sec. 18, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, Proposed
04-SC, Proposed Rule on Custody of Minors and Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors).
Minors).
Q- What may be contained in the judgment?
Q- When may a protection order be issued? Answer: In its judgment, the court may order either
Answer: The court may issue a Protection Order or both parents to give an amount necessary for the
requiring any person: support, maintenance and education of the minor,
a) To stay away from the home, school, irrespective of who may be its custodian. In
business or place of employment of the determining the amount of support, the court may
minor, other parent or any other party, or from consider the following factors: (1) the financial
any other specific place designated by the resources of the custodial and non – custodial
court; parent and those of the minor; (2) the physical and
b) To cease and desist from harassing, emotional health, special needs, and aptitude of the
intimidating, or threatening such minor or minor; (3) the standard of living the minor has been
other parent or any other person to whom accustomed to; and (4) the non – monetary
custody of the minor is awarded; contributions that the parents would make toward
c) To refrain from acts of commission or the care and well – being of the minor.
omission that create an unreasonable risk to The court may also issue any order that is just
the health, safety, or welfare of the minor; and reasonable permitting the parent who is
d) To permit a parent, or a party entitled to deprived of the care and custody of the minor to visit
visitation by a court order or a separation or have temporary custody. (Sec. 18, A.M. No. 03-
agreement, to visit the minor at stated 04-04-SC, Proposed Rule on Custody of Minors and
periods; Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
e) To permit a designated party to enter the Minors).
residence during specified period of time in
order to take personal belongings not Q- Only when shall an appeal be allowed as an
contested in a proceeding pending with the act?
Family Court; and Answer: No appeal from the decision shall be
f) To comply with such other orders as are allowed unless the appellant has filed a motion for
necessary for the protection of the minor. reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from
(Sec. 17, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, Proposed notice of judgment. (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC,
Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Proposed Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors).
Minors).
Q- Within what period may appeal be filed?
Q- What should be the consideration of the court Answer: An aggrieved party may appeal from the
in awarding the custody of the minor? decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen
Answer: After trial, the court shall render judgment days from notice of the denial of the motion for
awarding the custody of the minor to the proper reconsideration or new trial and serving a copy
party considering the best interests of the minor. thereof on the adverse parties. (Sec. 19, A.M. No.
(Sec. 18, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, Proposed Rule on 03-04-04-SC, Proposed Rule on Custody of Minors
Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Relation to Custody of Minors). Minors).
45
members and, if so granted, the writ shall be
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The writ
THE CUSTODY OF MINORS may be made returnable to a Family Court or to any
regular court within the region where the petitioner
Q- Where may the writ be filed? resides or where the minor may be found for hearing
Answer: A verified petition for a writ of habeas and decision on the merits.
corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with Upon the return of the writ, the court shall
the Family Court. The writ shall be enforceable decide the issue on custody of minors. The appellate
within its judicial region to which the Family Court court, or the member thereof, issuing the writ shall
belongs. be furnished a copy of the decision. (Sec. 20, A.M.
However, the petition may be filed with the No. 03-04-04-SC, Proposed Rule on Custody of
regular court in the absence of the presiding judge of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to
the Family Court, provided, however, that the regular Custody of Minors).
court shall refer the case to the Family Court as
soon as its presiding judge returns to duty. Q- What is the rule on the proceedings?
The petition may also be filed with the Answer: The hearings on custody of minors may, at
appropriate regular courts in places where there are the discretion of the court, be closed to the public
no Family Courts. and the records of the case shall not be released to
The writ issued by the Family Court or the non – parties without its approval. (Sec. 21, A.M. No.
regular court shall be enforceable in the judicial 03-04-04-SC, Proposed Rule on Custody of Minors
region where they belong. and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
The petition may likewise be filed with Minors).
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or with any of its
46