7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 1/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 1

PANTRANCO North Express, Inc., and Alexander Buncan, versusStandard Insurance Company, Inc., and art!na "!cale ,G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005.

#ACTS$ Crispin Gicale was driving the passenger eepne! owned "! his #other Martina Gicale. $le%ander &'ncan, onthe other hand, was driving a "'s owned "! (antranco North )%press *nc. &oth drivers were travelling along the National+ighwa! o -alavera, N'eva )cia in a rain! aternoon. &'ncan was driving the "'s north"o'nd while Cripin was trailing"ehind. hen the two vehicles were negotiating a c'rve along the highwa!, the passenger "'s overtoo/ the eepne!. *n sodoing, thhe passenger "'s hit the let rear side o the eepne! and sped awa!.

Crispin reported the incident to the police and to the ins'rer o their eepne!, tandard *ns'rance Co. -he total coso the repair a#o'nted to (21, 415. tandard onl! paid (,000 while Martina Gicale sho'ldered the re#aining (1,415.-hereater, tandard and Martina de#anded rei#"'rse#ents ro# (antranco and &'ncan, "'t the "'s co#pan! and thedriver re'sed. -h's, tandard and Martina were pro#pted to ile a co#plaint or s'# o #one! with the R-C o Manila.  (antranco and &'ncan denied the allegations o the co#plaint and asserted that it is the Me-C which has

 'risdiction over the case.

R-C3 -he trial co'rt r'led in avor o tandard and Martina, and ordered (antranco and &'ncan to pa! the or#errei#"'rse#ents with interests d'e thereon pl's attorne!s ees, and litigation e%penses.

(antranco and &'ncan3 -he R-C has no 'risdiction over the co#plaint.  1 Martina Gicale was clai#ing (1,415, while tandard was clai#ing (,000. -heir individ'al clai#s are "elow(20,000. -h's, the case alls 'nder the e%cl'sive 'risdiction o the M-C.

  2 -here was a #isoinder o parties.

C$3 -he appellate co'rt air#ed the decision o the R-C.  1 nder the Totality Rule provided or 'nder ec. 1 o &( 12, it is the s'# o the two clai#s that deter#ines the

 'risdictional a#o'nt. $t the ti#e this case was heard, cases involving #one! clai#s that a#o'nts to #ore than (20,000alls 'nder the e%cl'sive 'risdiction o the R-C.

2 )ven ass'#ing that there was a #isoinder o parties, it does not aect the 'risdiction o the co'rt nor is it agro'nd to dis#iss the co#plaint. -he clai#s o Gicale and tandard arose ro# the sa#e vehic'lar accident involving(antrancos "'s and Gicales eepne!. -h's, there was a 8'estion o act co##on to all parties.

  (antranco and &'ncans #otion or reconsideration was denied "! the C$.

Gicale and tandard3 -here was no #isoinder o parties. -heir individ'al clai#s arose ro# the sa#e vehic'lar accidentand involve a co##on 8'estion o act and law. -h's, the R-C has 'risdiction over the case.

ISS%E$ 9N there was a #isoinder o parties in the case.

&E'($ No. ec. 6, R'le o the Revised R'les o Co'rt provides the ollowing re8'ire#ents or a per#issive oinder oparties3 :a the right to relie arises o't o the sa#e transaction or series o transactions; :" there is a 8'estion o law oract co##on to all the plaintis or deendants; and :c s'ch oinder is not otherwise proscri"ed "! the provisions o theR'les on 'risdiction and ven'e.

*n this case, there is a single transaction co##on to all, that is, (antranco<s "'s hitting the rear side o the eepne!. -hereis also a co##on 8'estion o act, that is, whether petitioners are negligent. -here "eing a single transaction co##on to"oth respondents, conse8'entl!, the! have the sa#e ca'se o action against petitioners.

-o deter#ine identit! o ca'se o action, it #'st "e ascertained whether the sa#e evidence which is necessar! to s'stain

the second ca'se o action wo'ld have "een s'icient to a'thori=e a recover! in the irst. +ere, had respondents iledseparate s'its against petitioners, the sa#e evidence wo'ld have "een presented to s'stain the sa#e ca'se oaction. -h's, the iling "! "oth respondents o the co#plaint with the co'rt "elow is in order. 'ch oinder o partiesavoids #'ltiplicit! o s'it and ens'res the convenient, speed! and orderl! ad#inistration o 'stice.

-here is N9 M*>9*N?)R 9@ ($R-*) i the #one! so'ght to "e clai#ed is in avor o the sa#e plaintiAs and againstthe sa#e deendantAs.

9n the iss'e o l'#ping together the clai#s o Gicale and tandard, ection 5:d, R'le 2 o the sa#e R'les provides3Bec. 5. >oinder o ca'ses o action. $ part! #a! in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as #an! ca'seso action as he #a! have against an opposing part!, s'"ect to the ollowing conditions3% % %

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 2/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 2

:d here the clai#s in all the ca'ses o action are principall! or recover! o #one! the aggregate a#o'nt clai#ed shall"e the test o 'risdiction.D

@'rther, the Co'rt reiterates the Totality rule e%e#pliied "! ec. :1 o &( 123 Bwhere there are several clai#s orca'ses o action "etween the sa#e or dierent parties, e#"odied in the sa#e co#plaint, the a#o'nt o the de#and shal"e the totalit! o the clai#s in all the ca'ses o action, irrespective o whether the ca'ses o action arose o't o the sa#eor dierent transactions.D

+ence, ()-*-*9N * ?)N*)?.

G.R. No. 162575 ?ece#"er 15, 2010 BEATRI) SIO* PIN" TAN",Pet!t!oner, vs.S%BIC BA+ (ISTRIB%TION, INC.,Respondent

PERA'TA, .$

#ACTS$

 

Respondent '"ic &a! ?istri"'tion, *nc. :&?* entered in two ?istri"'torship $gree#ents with petitioner and $"le-ransport

&! virt'e o the provisions o the distri"'tion agree#ent, petitioner applied or and was granted a credit line "! the nitedCocon't (lanters &an/ :C(&, *nternational )%change &an/ :*)&an/, ec'rit! &an/ Corporation :&C and $sia nited&an/ :$& in avor o respondent

 $ll these "an/s separatel! e%ec'ted several 'nderta/ings setting the ter#s and conditions governing the drawing o#one! "! respondent

(etitioner allegedl! ailed to pa! her o"ligations to respondent despite de#and, th's, respondent tried to withdraw ro#these "an/ 'nderta/ings

(etitioner then iled with the R-C separate petitions against the "an/s :C(&, *)&an/, &C and $& or declaration on'llit! o the several "an/ 'nderta/ings and do#estic letter o credit which the! iss'ed with the application or theiss'ance o a te#porar! restraining order :-R9 and writ o preli#inar! in'nction

(etitioner alleged that said contracts are oppressive, 'nreasona"le and 'nconsciona"le on the gro'nd, a#ong others,that the prevailing #ar/et rate with which petitioner will "e charged o as interests and penalties is e%or"itant rendering itagainst p'"lic #orals and polic!

-he co'rt then iss'ed an 9rder granting the -R9 and re8'iring petitioner to i#plead respondent '"ic &a! as anindispensa"le part!

R-C3 ordered iss'ance o rit o (reli# *n'nc restraining all the &an/s ro# releasing an! 'nds to Respondent '"ic

&a!.

itho't iling a Motion or Reconsideration to the 'dg#ent o the R-C, Respondent iled with the C$ a petition orcertiorari with pra!er or the iss'ance o a -R9 and writ o preli#inar! in'nction against respondent >'dge (i=arro andpetitioner.

C$3 granted petition or certiorari and lited the -R9 iss'ed "! the R-C; +ence this appeal.

(etitioner clai#s that3

C$ decision is void or want o a'thorit! o the C$ to act on the petition as the "an/s sho'ld have "een i#pleaded or"eing indispensa"le parties, since the! are the original part! respondents in the R-C

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 3/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 3

C$ co##itted serio's and reversi"le error in giving d'e co'rse and granting Respondent<s petition even i it ailed to ile aMotion or Reconsideration "eore the -rial Co'rt

*)3hether or not the "an/s in this case are necessar! parties in the petition or certiorari iled "! respondent in the Co'rt o

 $ppealsEhether or not the ail're to ile a Motion or Reconsideration "eore the lower co'rt was a atal inir#it! to a Certiorari(etitionE

RF*NG3 N9.

*n the instant case, the "an/s have no interest in the iss'ance o the in'nction, it is onl! the petitioner who is the personinterested in s'staining the proceedings in co'rt since she was the one who so'ght or the iss'ance o the writ opreli#inar! in'nction to enoin the "an/s ro# releasing 'nds to respondent. -he "an/s interests as deendants in thepetition or declaration o n'llit! o their "an/ 'nderta/ings iled against the# "! petitioner in the R-C are separa"le ro#the interests o petitioner or the iss'ance o the in'nctive relie 

Moreover, certiorari, as a special civil action, is an original action invo/ing the original 'risdiction o a co'rt to ann'l or#odi! the proceedings o a tri"'nal, "oard or oicer e%ercising 'dicial or 8'asi'dicial 'nctions. *t is an original and

independent action that is not part o the trial or the proceedings on the co#plaint iled "eore the trial co'rt.

Clearl!, in iling the petition or certiorari, respondent sho'ld oin as part! deendant with the co'rt or 'dge, the personinterested in s'staining the proceedings in the co'rt, and it shall "e the d't! o s'ch person to appear and deend, "oth inhis own "ehal and in "ehal o the co'rt or 'dge aected "! the proceedings. *n this case, there is no do'"t that it is onl!the petitioner who is the person interested in s'staining the proceedings in co'rt since she was the one who so'ght orthe iss'ance o the writ o preli#inar! in'nction to enoin the "an/s ro# releasing 'nds to respondent. $s earlierdisc'ssed, the "an/s are not parties interested in the s'"ect #atter o the petition. -h's, it is onl! petitioner who sho'ld"e oined as part! deendant with the 'dge and who sho'ld deend the 'dges iss'ance o in'nction.

N9

-he settled r'le is that a Motion or reconsideration is a condition sine 8'a non or the iling o a petition or certiorari. *tsp'rpose is to grant an opport'nit! or the co'rt to correct an! act'al or perceived error attri"'ted to it "! the re

e%a#ination o the legal and act'al circ'#stances o the case.

-he r'le is, however, circ'#scri"ed "! welldeined e%ceptions, s'ch as :a where the order is a patent n'llit!, as wherethe co'rt a 8'o had no 'risdiction; :" where the 8'estions raised in the certiorari proceeding have "een d'l! raised andpassed 'pon "! the lower co'rt, or are the sa#e as those raised and passed 'pon in the lower co'rt; :c where there isan 'rgent necessit! or the resol'tion o the 8'estion and an! 'rther dela! wo'ld pre'dice the interests o theGovern#ent or o the petitioner or the s'"ect #atter o the action is perisha"le; :d where, 'nder the circ'#stances, a#otion or reconsideration wo'ld "e 'seless; :e where petitioner was deprived o d'e process and there is e%tre#e'rgenc! or relie; : where, in a cri#inal case, relie ro# an order o arrest is 'rgent and the granting o s'ch relie "! thetrial co'rt is i#pro"a"le; :g where the proceedings in the lower co'rt are a n'llit! or lac/ o d'e process; :h where theproceedings were e% parte, or in which the petitioner had no opport'nit! to o"ect; and :i where the iss'e raised is onep'rel! o law or where p'"lic interest is involved.

*n the instant case, the iling o the Motion or Reconsideration can "e "r'shed aside "ased on the gro'nd that the8'estions raised in the certiorari proceedings have "een d'l! raised and passed 'pon "! the lower co'rt, or are the sa#eas those raised and passed 'pon in the lower co'rt.la

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 4/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 4

tate *nvest#en+o'se *ncvs. C$

State Investmen

&ouse Inc. vs. CA

"R No. ---/0anuary --, -110

Bellos!llo, .$

#acts$

NoraMo'lic iss'ed toCora=on Hictorianoas sec'rit! opieces o eweller!

to "e sold onco##ission, twopostdated chec/s inthe a#o'nt o it!tho'sand each-hereater,Hictorianonegotiated thechec/s to tate*nvest#ent +o'se

*nc. henMo'lic ailed tosell the ewellr!

she ret'rned ito Hictoriano"eore the#at'rit! o thechec/s.+owever, thechec/s canno"e retrieved asthe! have "eennegotiated.&eore the#at'rit! dateMo'licwithdrew he

'nds ro# the"an/ contestingthat sheinc'rred noo"ligation onthe chec/s"eca'se the

 eweller! wasnever sold and the chec/s are negotiated witho't her /nowledge and consent. pon present#ent o or pa!#ent, thechec/s were dishono'red or ins'icienc! o 'nds.

Issues$

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 5/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 5

1. hether or not tate *nvest#ent +o'se inc. was a holder o the chec/ in d'e co'rse

2. hether or not Mo'lic can set 'p against the petitioner the deense that there was ail're or a"sence o consideration

&eld$

Ies, ection 52 o the N*F provides what constit'tes a holder in d'e co'rse. -he evidence shows that3 on the aces o thepost dated chec/s were co#plete and reg'lar; that tate *nvest#ent +o'se *nc. "o'ght the chec/s ro# Hictoriano "eorethe d'e dates; that it was ta/en in good aith and or val'e; and there was no /nowledge with regard that the chec/s wereiss'ed as sec'rit! and not or val'e. $ pri#a acie pres'#ption e%ists that a holder o a negotia"le instr'#ent is a holderin d'e co'rse. Mo'lic ailed to prove the contrar!.

No, Mo'lic can onl! invo/e this deense against the petitioner i it was a priv! to the p'rpose or which the! were iss'edand thereore is not a holder in d'e co'rse.

No, ection 11 o N*F provides how an instr'#ents "e discharged. Mo'lic can onl! invo/e paragraphs c and d aspossi"le gro'nds or the discharge o the instr'#ents. ince Mo'lic ailed to get "ac/ the possession o the chec/s asprovided "! paragraph c, intentional cancellation o instr'#ent is i#possi"le. $s provided "! paragraph d, the acts whichwill discharge a si#ple contract o pa!#ent o #one! will discharge the instr'#ent. Correlating $rticle 121 o the CivilCode which en'#erates the #odes o e%ting'ishing o"ligation, none o those #odes o'tlined therein is applica"le in theinstant case. -h's, Mo'lic #a! not 'nilaterall! discharge hersel ro# her lia"ilit! "! #ere e%pedienc! o withdrawing her'nds ro# the drawee "an/. he is th's lia"le as she has no legal "asis to e%c'se hersel ro# lia"ilit! on her chec/ to aholder in d'e co'rse. Moreover, the act that the petitioner ailed to give notice o dishonor is o no #o#ent. -he need or

s'ch notice is not a"sol'te; there are e%ceptions provided "! ec 114 o N*F.

R!v!era #!l!p!na Inc. vs. CA

#acts$Respondent Re!es e%ec'ted a ten !ear renewa"le Contract o Fease with Riviera involving a 1,01 s8'are #eter parcel

o land which was a s'"ect o a Real )state Mortgage e%ec'ted "! Re!es in avor o (r'dential &an/. &'t the loan with(r'dential &an/ re#ained 'npaid 'pon #at'rit! so the "an/ oreclosed the #ortgage thereon and e#erged as the highest"idder at the p'"lic a'ction sale. Re!es decided to sell the propert! oered it to Reviera. $ter seven #onths, Rivieraoered to "'! the propert! "'t Re!es denied it and increased the price o the propert!. Re!es< co'nsel inor#ed Rivierathat he is selling the propert! or (6,000 per s8'are #eter and to conir# their conversation, Riviera sent a letter statinghis interest in "'!ing the propert! or the i%ed and inal price o (5,000 per s8'are #eters "'t Re!es did not accede tosaid price.

-hen Re!es conided to -ra"allo and the latter e%pressed interest in "'!ing the said propert! or (5,00 per s8'are #eter"'t he did not have eno'gh a#o'nt so he loo/ed or a partner. ?espite o the i#pending e%piration o the rede#ptionperiod o the oreclosed #ortgaged propert! and the deal "etween Re!es and -ra"allo was not !et or#all! concl'ded,Re!es decided to approach Riviera and re8'ested $tt!. $linea to approach $ngeles and ind o't i the latter was still

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 6/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 6

interested in "'!ing the s'"ect propert! and as/ hi# to raise his oer or the p'rchase o the said propert! a little higher"'t Riviera said that his oer is (5,000 per s8'are #eter so Re!es did not agree.

C!press and -rading Corporation, were a"le to co#e 'p with the a#o'nt s'icient to cover the rede#ption #one!, withwhich Re!es paid to the (r'dential &an/ to redee# the s'"ect propert! and Re!es e%ec'ted a ?eed o $"sol'te alecovering the s'"ect propert!. C!press and Cornhill #ortgaged the s'"ect propert! to r"an ?evelop#ent &an/. Rivieraso'ght ro# Re!es, C!press and Cornhill a resale o the s'"ect propert! to it clai#ing that its right o irst re'sal 'nderthe lease contract was violated "'t his atte#pts were 'ns'ccess'l. Riviera iled the s'it to co#pel Re!es, C!press,Cornhill and r"an ?evelop#ent &an/ to transer the disp'ted title to the land in avor o Riviera 'pon its pa!#ent o the

price paid "! C!press and Cornhill.

Issue$hether or not petitioner can still e%ercise his Bright o irst re'salD.

&eld$No. -he held that in order to have 'll co#pliance with the contract'al right granting petitioner the irst option to p'rchasethe sale o the properties or the price or which the! were inall! sold to a third person sho'ld have li/ewise "een irstoered to the or#er. @'rther, there sho'ld "e identit! o ter#s and conditions to "e oered to the "'!er holding a right oirst re'sal i s'ch right is not to "e rendered ill'sor!. Fastl!, the "asis o the right o irst re'sal #'st "e the c'rrent oerto sell o the seller or oer to p'rchase o an! prospective "'!er. -h's, the prevailing doctrine is that a right o irst re'sal#eans identit! o ter#s and conditions to "e oered to the lessee and all other prospective "'!ers and a contract o saleentered into in violation o a right o irst re'sal o another person, while valid, is rescissi"le.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 7/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 7

#ortune otors, Inc. v CA 2C!v!l procedure3#ortune otors, Inc. v. CA, etropol!tan Ban4 and Trust Company

Facts:

  (rivate respondent e%tended vario's loans to petitioner or a total s'# o (2,500,000.00;

  ?'e to inancial diic'lties, and econo#ic recession, the petitioner was not a"le to pa! the loan which "eca#e d'e;

  -he respondent "an/ initiated e%tra'dicial oreclos're proceedings, the #ortgaged propert! was sold at p'"lic a'ctionwhere respondent was the highest "idder;

  da!s "eore the e%piration o the rede#ption period, petitioner iled a co#plaint or the ann'l#ent o the e%tra'diciaoreclos're sale at the R-C o Manila, alleging that3

a the oreclos're was pre#at're "eca'se its o"ligation to the &an/ was not !et d'e,

" the p'"lication o the notice o sale was inco#plete, there was no p'"lic a'ction,

c thhe price or which was Bshoc/ingl! lowD;

  Respondent iled a #otion to dis#iss the co#plaint on the gro'nd that the ven'e o the action was i#properl! laid inManila or the realt! covered "! the real estate #ortgages is sit'ated in Ma/ati, thereore the action to ann'l theoreclos're sale sho'ld "e iled in the R-C o Ma/ati;

  (etitioner arg'ed that its action is a personal action and that the iss'e is the validit! o the e%tra'dicial oreclos'reproceedings so that it #a! have a new one !ear period to redee# the sa#e.

Lower court rulings3

R-C3 reserved the resol'tion o the &an/<s #otion to dis#iss 'ntil ater the trial on the #erits

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 8/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 8

C$3 on petition or certiorari and prohi"ition, granted the petitions and dis#issed the case witho't pre'dice to the iling othe case "eore the proper co'rts

JReconsideration was denied, hence the petition "eore the C

Issue3 9N petitioner<s action or ann'l#ent o the real estate #ortgage e%tra'dicial oreclos're sale o @ort'ne &'ildingis personal action or a real action or ven'e p'rposes

Ruling 3 Ies, the action is a real action which sho'ld have "een iled "eore the R-C o Ma/ati.

Real actions or actions aecting title to, or or the recover! o possession, or or the partition or conde#nation o ororeclos're o #ortgage on real propert!, #'st "e instit'ted in the C@* o the province where the propert! or an! partthereo lies.

(ersonal actions 'pon the other hand, #a! "e instit'ted in the C@* where the deendant resides or #a! "e o'nd, orwhere the plainti or an! o the plaintis resides, at the election o the plainti.

 $n action or the ann'l#ent or rescission o contract does not operate to eace the tr'e o"ectives and nat're o actionwhich is to recover real propert!.

 $n action or ann'l#ent or rescission o sale o real propert! is a real action; its pri#e o"ective is to recover said reapropert!.

 $n action to ann'l a real estate #ortgage oreclos're is no dierent ro# an action to ann'l a private sale o real propert!.

+ence, the petition is denied or lac/ o #erit. -he decision o C$ is air#ed.

CF$H)C*FF$ Radio !ste# v. +on. $g'stin $ntillon

@acts3

1. New Caga!an Grocer! :N)C$GR9 iled a co#plaint or da#ages against Clavecilla Radio s!ste#. -he! alleged that

Clavecilla o#itted the word BN9-D in the letter addressed to N)C$GR9 or trans#ittal at Clavecilla Caga!an de 9ro&ranch.

2. N)C$GR9 alleged that the o#ission o the word BnotD "etween the word $+)? and $H$*F$&F) altered thecontents o

the sa#e ca'sing the# to s'er ro# da#ages.

. Clavecilla iled a #otion to dis#iss on the gro'nd o ail're to state a ca'se o action and i#proper ven'e.

4. Cit! >'dge o C?9 denied the M-?. Clavecilla iled a petition or prohi"ition with preli#inar! *n'nction with the C@*pra!ing

that the Cit! >'dge "e enoined ro# 'rther proceeding with the case "eca'se o i#proper ven'e.

5. C@* dis#issed the case and held that Clavecilla #a! "e s'ed either in Manila :principal oice or in C?9 :"ranchoice.

6. Clavecilla appealed to the C contending that the s'it against it sho'ld "e iled in Manila where it holds its principaloice.

*ss'e3

9N the present case against Clavecilla sho'ld "e iled in Manila where it holds its principal oice.

+eld3

I)

*t is clear that the case ro# da#ages is "ased 'pon a written contract.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 9/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 9

nder par. :": ec. 1 R'le 4 o the New R'les o Co'rt, when an action is not 'pon a written contract then the casesho'ld "e iled in

the #'nicipalit! where the deendant or an! o the deendant resides or #a!"e served 'pon with s'##ons.

*n corpo. Faw, the residence o the corporation is the place where the principal oice is esta"lished. ince Clavecilla<sprincipal oice is in Manila, then the s'it against it #a! properl! "e ile in the Cit! o Manila.

 $s stated in )vangelista v. antos, the la!ing o the ven'e o an action is not let to plainti<s caprice "eca'se the #atter isreg'lated "! the R'les o Co'rt.

 +oun5 Auto Supply vs CA Case (!5est +oun5 Auto Supply vs. Court o6 Appeals

7"R -8-9:, ;: une -110<

#acts$ 9n 2 9cto"er 17, Io'ng $'to 'ppl! Co. *nc. :I$C9 represented "! Ne#esio Garcia, its president, NelsonGarcia and Hicente !, sold all o their shares o stoc/ in Consolidated Mar/eting K ?evelop#ent Corporation :CM?C toGeorge C. Ro%as. -he p'rchase price was (,000,000.00 pa!a"le as ollows3 a down pa!#ent o (4,000,000.00 and the"alance o (4,000,000.00 in o'r postdated chec/s o (1,000,000.00 each. *##ediatel! ater the e%ec'tion o theagree#ent, Ro%as too/ 'll control o the o'r #ar/ets o CM?C. +owever, the vendors held on to the stoc/ certiicates oCM?C as sec'rit! pending 'll pa!#ent o the "alance o the p'rchase price. -he irst chec/ o (4,000,000.00representing the down pa!#ent, was honored "! the drawee "an/ "'t the o'r other chec/s representing the "alance o(4,000,000.00 were dishonored. *n the #eanti#e, Ro%as sold one o the #ar/ets to a third part!. 9't o the proceeds othe sale, I$C9 received (600,000.00, leaving a "alance o (,400,000.00.

'"se8'entl!, Nelson Garcia and Hicente ! assigned all their rights and title to the proceeds o the sale o the CM?Cshares to Ne#esio Garcia. 9n 10 >'ne 1, I$C9 and Garcia iled a co#plaint against Ro%as in the Regional -rialCo'rt, &ranch 11, Ce"' Cit!, pra!ing that Ro%as "e ordered to pa! the# the s'# o (,400,000.00 or that 'll control othe three #ar/ets "e t'rned over to I$C9 and Garcia. -he co#plaint also pra!ed or the oreit're o the partial pa!#ento (4,600,000.00 and the pa!#ent o attorne!s ees and costs. @ailing to s'"#it his answer, and on 1 $'g'st 1, thetrial co'rt declared Ro%as in dea'lt. -he order o dea'lt was, however, lited 'pon #otion o Ro%as. 9n 22 $'g'st 1Ro%as iled a #otion to dis#iss. $ter a hearing, wherein testi#onial and doc'#entar! evidence were presented "! "othparties, the trial co'rt in an 9rder dated @e"r'ar! 11 denied Ro%as #otion to dis#iss. $ter receiving said orderRo%as iled another #otion or e%tension o ti#e to s'"#it his answer. +e also iled a #otion or reconsideration, whichthe trial co'rt denied in its 9rder dated 10 $pril 11 or "eing proor#a. Ro%as was again declared in dea'lt, on thegro'nd that his #otion or reconsideration did not toll the r'nning o the period to ile his answer. 9n Ma! 11, Ro%asiled an 'nveriied Motion to Fit the 9rder o ?ea'lt which was not acco#panied with the re8'ired aidavit o #erit. &'t

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 10/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 10

witho't waiting or the resol'tion o the #otion, he iled a petition or certiorari with the Co'rt o $ppeals. -he Co'rt o  $ppeals dis#issal o the co#plaint on the gro'nd o i#proper ven'e. $ s'"se8'ent #otion or reconsideration "! I$C9was to no avail. I$C9 and Garcia iled the petition.

Issue$ hether the ven'e or the case against I$C9 and Garcia in Ce"' Cit! was i#properl! laid.

&eld$ $ corporation has no residence in the sa#e sense in which this ter# is applied to a nat'ral person. &'t or practicap'rposes, a corporation is in a #etaph!sical sense a resident o the place where its principal oice is located as stated inthe articles o incorporation. -he Corporation Code precisel! re8'ires each corporation to speci! in its articles oincorporation the Lplace where the principal oice o the corporation is to "e located which #'st "e within the (hilippines.L-he p'rpose o this re8'ire#ent is to i% the residence o a corporation in a deinite place, instead o allowing it to "ea#"'lator!. $ctions cannot "e iled against a corporation in an! place where the corporation #aintains its "ranch oices.-he Co'rt r'led that to allow an action to "e instit'ted in an! place where the corporation has "ranch oices, wo'ld createcon'sion and wor/ 'ntold inconvenience to said entit!. &! the sa#e to/en, a corporation cannot "e allowed to ilepersonal actions in a place other than its principal place o "'siness 'nless s'ch a place is also the residence o a coplainti or a deendant. ith the inding that the residence o I$C9 or p'rposes o ven'e is in Ce"' Cit!, where itsprincipal place o "'siness is located, it "eco#es 'nnecessar! to decide whether Garcia is also a resident o Ce"' Cit!and whether Ro%as was in estoppel ro# 8'estioning the choice o Ce"' Cit! as the ven'e. -he decision o the Co'rt o 

 $ppeals was set aside.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 11/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 11

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 12/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 12

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 13/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 13

CAPATI vs. OCAPO".R. No. '=;>98; Apr!l 0, -1>;

?irector! stat'te.*t is per#issive or discretionar! in nat're and #erel! o'tlines the act to "e done in s'ch a wa! that no in'r! can res'ltro# ignoring it or that its p'rpose can "e acco#plished in a #anner other than that prescri"ed and s'"stantiall! the sa#eres'lt can "e o"tained.

@acts3

(lainti Hirgilio Capati, a resident o &acolor, (a#panga, was the contractor o the @eati &an/ or the constr'ction o its"'ilding in *riga, Ca#arines 'r. +e entered into a s'"contract with the deendant >es's 9ca#po, a resident o NagaCit! where he 'ndertoo/ to constr'ct the va'lt walls, e%terior walls and col'#ns o the said @eati "'ilding in accordancewith the speciications indicated therein. ?eendant 'rther "o'nd hi#sel to co#plete said constr'ction on or "eore >'ne5, 167. -o e#phasi=e this ti#e ra#e 9ca#po ai%ed his signat're "elow the ollowing stip'lation in "old letters3 B-*M)* ))N-*$F, -9 &) @*N*+)? 5 >N)< 67.D

 $t the "ac/ o the contract which readsB14. -hat all actions arising o't, or relating to this contract #a! "e instit'ted in the Co'rt o @irst *nstance o the Cit! oNaga.D

Clai#ing that deendant inished the constr'ction in 8'estion onl! on >'ne 20, 167, plainti iled in the Co'rt o @irst*nstance o (a#panga an action or recover! o conse8'ential da#ages.

9ca#po :deendant iled a #otion to dis#iss the co#plaint on the gro'nd that ven'e o action was i#properl! laidCapati :plainti iled an opposition to the #otion, clai#ing that their agree#ent to hold the ven'e in the Co'rt o @irst*nstance o Naga Cit! was #erel! optional to "oth contracting parties.

C@* o (a#panga decided that it is an i#proper ven'e.

*ss'e3

9N the ven'e o action was i#proper :C@* o (a#pangaE N9, it #ade 'se o the word B#a!D, hence onl! director!.

+eld3

*t is well settled that the word B#a!D is #erel! per#issive and operates to coner discretion 'pon a part!. nder ordinar!

circ'#stances, the ter# B#a! "eD connotes possi"ilit!; it does not connote certaint!. BMa!D is an a'%illar! ver" indicatingli"ert!, opport'nit!, per#ission or possi"ilit!.

-he stip'lation as to ven'e in the contract in 8'estion is si#pl! per#issive. &! the said stip'lation, the parties did notagree to ile their s'its solel! and e%cl'sivel! with the Co'rt o @irst *nstance o Naga. -he! #erel! agreed to s'"#it theirdisp'tes to the said co'rt, witho't waiving their right to see/ reco'rse in the co'rt speciicall! indicated in ection 2 :",R'le 4 o the R'les o Co'rt.

ince the co#plaint has "een iled in the Co'rt o @irst *nstance o (a#panga, where the plainti resides, the ven'e oaction is properl! laid in accordance with ection 2 :", R'le 4 o the R'les o Co'rt.

%n!master Con5lomerat!on Inc. vs. Court o6 Appeals

@$C-31. '"ota $griMachiner! (hilippines, *nc. and ni#asters Conglo#eration, *nc. entered into a?ealership $gree#ent or ales and ervices o the or#ers prod'cts in a#ar and Fe!te (rovinces.

2. -he ?ealership $gree#ent contained a stip'lation that B $ll s'its arising o't o this $gree#ent shall "eiled with A in the proper Co'rts o 'e=on Cit!D

. @ive !ears later, #i#asters iled an action in the R-C o -aclo"an against '"ota, Re!naldo Go andMetro"an/ or da#ages and "reach o contracts, and in'nction with pra!er or te#porar! restrainingorder.

4. '"ota iled two #otions 9ne or the dis#issal o the case on the gro'nd o i#proper ven'e .-he

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 14/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 14

other pra!ed or the transer o the in'nction hearing its co'nsel was not availa"le.

5. -he co'rt iss'ed an order allowing the iss'ance o preli#inar! in'nction and a #otion den!ing the#otion to dis#iss on the reason that #i#asters< place o "'siness is in -aclo"an Cit! while '"ota<sprincipal place o "'siness is in 'e=on Cit!. *n accord with the the R'les o Co'rt, the proper ven'ewo'ld either "e 'e=on Cit! or -aclo"an Cit! at the election o the plainti. +ence, the iling in the R-Co -aclo"an is proper.

6. '"ota appealed "oth orders on the gro'nds the! were iss'ed with grave a"'se o discretion in a

special action or certiorari and prohi"ition iled with the C$. '"ota asserted that R-C o -aclo"an hadno 'risdiction was i#properl! laid.

7. -he Co'rt o $ppeals decided in avor o '"ota and it held that3 Bthe stip'lation respecting ven'e inits ?ealership $gree#ent with N*M$-)R did in tr'th li#it the ven'e o all s'its arising there'nder onl! and e%cl'sivel! to the proper co'rts o 'e=on Cit!D

. '"se8'entl!, ni#asters iled a #otion or reconsideration "'t was t'rned down "! the appellateco'rt.

*)39N the ven'e stip'lations in a contract has the eect o li#iting the ven'e to a speciied place.

RF*NG3 N9. -he (ol!trade doctrine was applied in the case at "ar. -his doctrine en'nciated that aslong as the stip'lation does not set orth 8'ali!ing or restrictive words to indicate that the agreed placealone and none other is the ven'e o the action, the parties do not lose the option o choosing the ven'e

 $"sence o 8'ali!ing or restrictive words, ven'e stip'lations in a contract sho'ld "e considered #erel!as agree#ent on additional or'#, not as li#iting ven'e to the speciied place. nless the parties #a/ever! clear, "! e#plo!ing categorical and s'ita"l! li#iting lang'age, that the! wish the ven'e o actions"etween the# to "e laid onl! and e%cl'sivel! at a deinite place, and to disregard the prescriptions o R'le4, agree#ents on ven'e are not to "e regarded as #andator! or restrictive, "'t #erel! per#issive, or co#ple#entar! o said r'le. $"sent additional words and e%pressions deinitel! and 'n#ista/a"l!denoting the parties desire and intention that actions "etween the# sho'ld "e ventilated onl! at the placeselected "! the#, 'e=on Cit! or other contract'al provisions clearl! evincing the sa#e desire andintention the stip'lation sho'ld "e constr'ed, not as conining s'its "etween the parties onl! to that oneplace, 'e=on Cit!, "'t as allowing s'its either in 'e=on Cit! or -aclo"an Cit!, at the option o theplainti :N*M$-)R in this case.

".R. No. -0:>:. Apr!l ;1, -111<CSCvs.(ACO+CO+

@$C-3(edro ?aco!co! was charged with ha"it'al dr'n/enness, #iscond'ct and nepotis#. $ter the actinding investigation,the CC Regional 9ice -aclo"an Cit!, o'nd a pri#a acie case against respondent and iss'ed the correspondingor#al charge against hi#. $ccordingl!, the CCcond'cteda or#al investigation and the CCpro#'lgated its resol'tion inding nos'"stantial evidence to s'pport the

charge o ha"it'al dr'n/enness and #iscond'ct. +owever, CC o'nd respondent ?aco!co! g'ilt! o nepotis# on twoco'nts as a res'lt o the appoint#ent o his two sons, Rito and (ed, as driver and 'tilit! wor/er,respectivel!,and their assign#ent 'nder his i##ediates'pervision and control as the Hocationalchool $d#inistrator &alic'atro College o $rts and -rades, and i#posed on hi# the penalt! o dis#issal ro# theservice.Respondent ?aco!co! iled a #otion or reconsideration. +owever CC denied the#otion. Respondent ?aco!co! iled with theCo'rt o $ppeals a special civil action orcertiorari with preli#inar! in'nction to setaside the Civil ervice Co##ission<sresol'tions.C$ reversed and set aside thedecision o the CC, r'ling that respondent did not appoint or reco##end his two sons Rito and (ed, and, hence, was notg'ilt! o nepotis#. -he Co'rt 'rther held that it is Bthe person whoreco##ends or appoints who sho'ld "esanctioned, as it is he who peror#s theprohi"ited act.D +ence, this appeal.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 15/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 15

RF*NG3e agree with the CC thatrespondent (edro 9. ?aco!co! was g'ilt! o nepotis# and correctl! #eted o't the penalt! odis#issal ro# the service. $t this point, we have necessaril! to resolve the 8'estion o the part! adversel! aected who#a! ta/e an appeal ro# an adverse decision o the appellate co'rt in an ad#inistrative civil servicedisciplinar! case. -here is no 8'estion that respondent ?aco!co! #a! appeal to the Co'rt o $ppeals ro# the decision othe Civil ervice Co##ission adverse to hi#. +e was the respondent oicial #eted o't the penalt! o dis#issal ro# theservice. 9n appealto the Co'rt o $ppeals, the co'rt re8'ired thepetitioner therein, here respondent ?aco!co!, to i#pleadthe Civil ervice Co##ission as p'"lic respondent as the govern#ent agenc! tas/ed with the d't! to enorce the

constit'tional and stat'tor! provisions on the civil service. '"se8'entl!, the Co'rt o $ppeals reversed thedecision o the Civil ervice Co##ission and held respondent not g'ilt! o nepotis#. ho now #a! appeal thedecision o the Co'rt o $ppeals to the 'pre#e Co'rtE Certainl! not the respondent, who was declared not g'ilt!o the charge. Nor the co#plainant George (.'an, who was #erel! a witness or thegovern#ent.Conse8'entl!, the Civilervice Co##ission has "eco#e the part! adversel! aected "! s'ch r'ling, which serio'sl! pre'dices the civil services!ste#. +ence, as an aggrieved part!, it #a! appeal the decision o the Co'rt o $ppeals to the 'pre#e Co'rt.&! thisr'ling, we now e%pressl! a"andon and overr'le e%tant 'rispr'dence that Bthe phrase Opart! adversel! aected "! thedecision< reers to the govern#ent e#plo!ee against who# the ad#inistrative case is iled or the p'rpose o disciplinar!action which #a! ta/e the or# o s'spension, de#otion in ran/ or salar!, transer,re#oval or dis#issal ro# oiceD and not incl'ded are Bcases where the penalt! i#posed is s'spension or not #ore thenthirt! :0 da!s or ine in an a#o'nt not e%ceeding thirt! da!s salar!D or Bwhen the respondent ise%onerated o the charges, there is no occasion or appeal.D*n other words, we overr'le prior decisions holding that theCivil ervice Faw Bdoes not

conte#plate a review o decisionse%onerating oicers or e#plo!ees ro#ad#inistrative chargesD en'nciated in(aredes v.Civil ervice Co##ission;Mende= v. Civil ervice Co##ission; Magpale v. Civil ervice Co##ission;Navarro v. Civil ervice Co##ission and )%port (rocessing Pone $'thorit! and #ore recentl! ?el Castillo v. Civil erviceCo##ission

(avao '!5ht ? Po@er Co. Inc. v CA 2;8 SCRA 0803

#acts$

?avao Fight and (ower *nc, Co. iled a co#plaint or recover! o s'# o #one! and da#ages against 'eensland +oteland -eodorico $darna. -he co#plaint contained an e% parte application or a writ o preli#inar! attach#ent.

>'dge Nartate= granted the writ and i%ed the attach#ent "ond at aro'nd (4Million. -he s'##ons, cop! o co#plaint,

writ o attach#ent, cop! o attach#ent "ond were served 'pon 'eensland and $darna. ('rs'ant to the writ, the herisei=ed the properties o the latter.

'eensland and $darna iled a #otion to discharge the attach#ent or lac/ o 'risdiction to iss'e the sa#e "eca'se atthe ti#e the order o attach#ent was pro#'lgated :Ma! , 1 and the attach#ent writ iss'ed :Ma! 11,1, the -rialCo'rt had not !et ac8'ired 'risdiction over ca'se and person o deendants.

-rial Co'rt denied the #otion to discharge.

C$ ann'lled the -rial Co'rt<s 9rder. ?avao see/s to reverse C$<s order.

*ss'e3

hether or not preli#inar! attach#ent #a! iss'e e% parte against a deendant "eore ac8'iring 'risdiction over hisperson.

+eld3

Ies. R'le 57 spea/s o the grant o the re#ed! Bat the co##ence#ent o the action or at an! ti#e thereaterD hat ther'le is sa!ing is that ater an action is properl! co##enced :"! iling o the co#plaint and pa!#ent o all re8'isite doc/et

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 16/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 16

and other ees, the plainti #a! appl! or and o"tain a writ o preli#inar! attach#ent. -his he #a! do so, "eore or ater,the s'##ons to the deendant.

-he C$ decision is reversed and the writ o attach#ent iss'ed "! >'dge Nartate= is reinstated.

JJ

(reli#inar! $ttach#ent provisional re#ed! in virt'e o which a plainti or other part! #a!, at the co##ence#ent o theaction or at an! ti#e thereater, have the propert! o the adverse part! ta/en into c'stod! o co'rt as sec'rit! orsatisaction o 'dg#ent to "e recovered.

Nat're o $ttach#ent3 a re#ed! which is p'rel! stat'tor! in respect o which the law re8'ires a strict o constr'ction o theprovisions granting it. No principle, whether stat'tor! or thro'gh 'rispr'dence, prohi"its its iss'ance "! an! co'rt "eorethe ac8'isition o 'risdiction over the person.

An!ta AN"I'A . CA and 'oreta "u!na

@$C-3

 $nita Mangila is an e%porter o seaoods and doing "'siness 'nder the na#e o eaoods (rod'cts. (rivate respondentForeta G'ina is the (resident and General Manager o $ir wit *nternational, a single registered proprietorship engagedin the reight orwarding "'siness.

*n >an'ar! 1, Mangila contracted the reight orwarding services o G'ina or ship#ent o petitioner<s prod'cts, s'ch ascra"s, prawns and assorted ishes, to G'a# :$ where petitioner #aintains an o'tlet. Mangila agreed to pa! cash ondeliver!. G'ina<s invoice stip'lates a charge o 1 percent interest per ann'# on all overd'e acco'nts, and in case o s'it,stip'lates attorne!<s ees e8'ivalent to 25 percent o the a#o'nt d'e pl's costs o s'it.

9n the irst ship#ent, Mangila re8'ested or 7 da!s within which to pa! private G'ina. +owever, or the ne%t threeship#ents, March 17, 24 and 1, 1, petitioner ailed to pa! private respondent shipping charges a#o'nting to (10,76.5.

?espite several de#ands, Mangila never paid. -h's, on >'ne 10, 1, G'ina iled "eore the R-C (asa! Cit! an action

or collection o s'# o #one!.

-he heri<s Ret'rn showed that s'##ons was not served on Mangila. $ wo#an o'nd at Mangila<s ho'se inor#ed thesheri that petitioner transerred her residence to G'ag'a, (a#panga. -he sheri o'nd o't 'rther that petitioner had letthe (hilippines or G'a#.

-h's, on epte#"er 1, constr'ing petitioner<s depart're ro# the (hilippines as done with intent to dera'd hercreditors, Gin'a iled a Motion or (reli#inar! $ttach#ent, which the co'rt s'"se8'entl! granted. $ rit o (reli#inar!

 $ttach#ent was thereater iss'ed.

-hro'gh the assistance o the sheri o R-C (a#panga, the Notice o Fev! with the 9rder, $idavit and &ond was servedon Mangila<s ho'sehold help in an @ernando, (a#panga on 9cto"er 1.

 9n Nove#"er 1, Mangila iled an rgent Motion to ?ischarge $ttach#ent witho't s'"#itting hersel to the 'risdiction

o the trial co'rt. he pointed o't that 'p to then, she had not "een served a cop! o the Co#plaint and the s'##ons.+ence, petitioner clai#ed the co'rt had not ac8'ired 'risdiction over her person.

 $ter the hearing on the #otion, R-C granted the sa#e on >an'ar! 1, 1 'pon iling o petitioner<s co'nter"ond. -hetrial co'rt, however, did not r'le on the 8'estion o 'risdiction and on the validit! o the writ o preli#inar! attach#ent.

-hereater, G'ina applied or an alias s'##ons and on >an'ar! 26, 1 s'##ons was inall! served on petitioner.

9n @e"r'ar! 1, Mangila #oved or the dis#issal o the case on the gro'nd o i#proper ven'e, clai#ing that asstip'lated in the invoice o G'ina<s reight services, the ven'e in case a co#plaint is iled wo'ld "e in Ma/ati and not(asa!. @or her part, G'ina e%plained that altho'gh BMa/atiD appears as the stip'lated ven'e, the sa#e was #erel! aninadvertence "! the printing press whose general #anager e%ec'ted an aidavit ad#itting s'ch inadvertence. Moreover,G'ina clai#ed that Mangila /new that private respondent was holding oice in (asa! Cit! and not in Ma/ati.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 17/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 17

-he R-C ave credence to G'ina<s 9pposition, denied the Motion to ?is#iss, and gave petitioner 5 da!s to ile her $nswer(etitioner iled an MR "'t this too was denied. -h's she iled her $nswer on >'ne 1, #aintaining her contention thatthe ven'e was i#properl! laid.

-he case was set or pretrial. Meanwhile, G'ina iled a Motion to ell $ttached (roperties "'t the trial co'rt denied the#otion.

9n #otion o Mangila, the R-C reset the pretrial "'t Mangila ailed to appear on the resched'led date. itho't declaringMangila to "e in dea'lt, the co'rt allowed G'ina to present evidence e% parte.

Mangila iled an MR o the order ter#inating the pretrial, and arg'ed that there was no order decalring hi# in dea'lt andthat his attorne! was onl! late "'t not a"sent d'ring the resched'led pretrial.

Nevertheless, the R-C r'led in avor o G'ina and ordered petitioner to pa! respondent (10,76.5 pl's 1 percentinterest per ann'#, 25 percent attorne!<s ees and costs o s'it. Mangila appealed to the C$ while G'ina iled a Motion or)%ec'tion (ending $ppeal "'t the trial co'rt denied the sa#e.

-he C$ air#ed the R-C decision. -he Co'rt o $ppeals 'pheld the validit! o the iss'ance o the writ o attach#ent ands'stained the iling o the action in the R-C o (asa!. -he Co'rt o $ppeals also air#ed the declaration o dea'lt onpetitioner and concl'ded that the trial co'rt did not co##it an! reversi"le error.

*)3

9N the C$ erred in air#ing the validit! o the iss'ance o the writ o (reli#inar! $ttach#ent

9N the ven'e was i#properl! laid

+)F?3

1 Ies, "eca'se there was no proper service o s'##ons, order, and the writ o attach#ent

J*#proper *ss'ance and ervice o rit o $ttach#ent. *n?avao Fight K (ower Co., *nc. v. Co'rt o $ppeals, this Co'rtclariied the act'al ti#e when 'risdiction sho'ld "e had3

B*t goes witho't sa!ing that whatever "e the acts done "! the Co'rt prior to the ac8'isition o 'risdiction over the persono deendant iss'ance o s'##ons, order o attach#ent and writ o attach#ent these do not and cannot "ind andaect the deendant 'ntil and 'nless 'risdiction over his person is event'all! o"tained "! the co'rt, either "! service on

hi# o s'##ons or other coercive process or his vol'ntar! s'"#ission to the co'rt<s a'thorit!. +ence, when the sheri orother proper oicer co##ences i#ple#entation o the writ o attach#ent, it is essential that he serve on the deendant notonl! a cop! o the applicant<s aidavit and attach#ent "ond, and o the order o attach#ent, as e%plicitl! re8'ired "!ection 5 o R'le 57, "'t also the s'##ons addressed to said deendant as well as a cop! o the co#plaint %%%.D

@'rther#ore, we have held that the grant o the provisional re#ed! o attach#ent involves three stages3 irst, the co'rtiss'es the order granting the application; second, the writ o attach#ent iss'es p'rs'ant to the order granting the writ; andthird, the writ is i#ple#ented. @or the initial two stages, it is not necessar! that 'risdiction over the person o thedeendant "e irst o"tained. +owever, once the i#ple#entation o the writ co##ences, the co'rt #'st have ac8'ired

 'risdiction over the deendant or witho't s'ch 'risdiction, the co'rt has no power and a'thorit! to act in an! #anneragainst the deendant. $n! order iss'ing ro# the Co'rt will not "ind the deendant.

2 Ies.

J*#proper Hen'e. -he R'les o Co'rt provide that parties to an action #a! agree in writing on the ven'e on which anaction sho'ld "e "ro'ght. +owever, a #ere stip'lation on the ven'e o an action is not eno'gh to precl'de parties ro#"ringing a case in other ven'es. -he parties #'st "e a"le to show that s'ch stip'lation is e%cl'sive. -h's, a"sent wordsthat show the parties< intention to restrict the iling o a s'it in a partic'lar place, co'rts will allow the iling o a case in an!ven'e, as long as 'risdictional re8'ire#ents are ollowed. Hen'e stip'lations in a contract, while considered valid andenorcea"le, do not as a r'le s'persede the general r'le set orth in R'le 4 o the Revised R'les o Co'rt. *n the a"senceo 8'ali!ing or restrictive words, the! sho'ld "e considered #erel! as an agree#ent on additional or'#, not as li#itingven'e to the speciied place.

*n the instant case, the stip'lation does not li#it the ven'e e%cl'sivel! to Ma/ati. -here are no 8'ali!ing or restrictivewords in the invoice that wo'ld evince the intention o the parties that Ma/ati is the Bonl! or e%cl'siveD ven'e where theaction co'ld "e instit'ted. e thereore agree with private respondent that Ma/ati is not the onl! ven'e where this co'ld"e iled.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 18/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 18

The case @as d!sm!ssed @!thout preud!ce.

Chua vs. Topros Inc.

@acts3Q -otal 9ice (rod'cts and ervices :-9(R9, *nc., thro'gh its a'thori=ed representative , iled a co#plaint orann'l#ento contractQ '##ons was served to Ch'a

Q ?eendant Ch'a iled a M-? the co#plaint "'t was denied. Fi/ewise, his MR was also denied.Q Ch'a iled a petition or certiorari wA C$ assailing the R-C<s order den!ing the M-? :C$ did not iss'e restraining orderto the R-CQ ince no answer was iled "! the deendant, plainti iled a #otion to declare deendant in dea'ltQ R-C3 iss'ed an order declaring deendant in dea'lt and ordering the reception o the plaintis evidenceex-parte.3 rendered a decision in avor o plainti and against deendantQ ?eendant appealed to C$Q C$3 denied the appeal and air# R-C<s decision. -he trial co'rts order declaring herein petitioner in dea'lt or ailingto ile his answer within the ti#e allowed "! the r'les, is valid and in accordance with ection , R'le o the R'les oCo'rtQ +ence, this petition.

*ss'e3 AN C$ erred in dis#issing the appeal "ased p'rel! on technical considerations, res'lting in petitioners'n'stdeprivation o his propert! witho't d'e process o law d'e to his or#er co'nsels gross negligence.

R'ling3-he petition is denied.General R'le3 the client is "o'nd "! the #ista/es o his law!er. -o triviali=e this r'le wo'ld "ring a"o't a dangero's trendo endless litigation.)%ception3Hilario v. People 3 the e%ception is when the negligence o co'nsel is so gross, rec/less and ine%c'sa"le thatthe client isdeprived o his da! in co'rt. * the inco#petence, ignorance or ine%perience o co'nsel is so great andtheerror co##itted as a res'lt thereo is so serio's that the client, who otherwise has a good ca'se, ispre'diced anddenied his da! in co'rt, the litigation #a! "e reopened to give the client another chance topresent his cases. $s correctl! pointed o't "! the C$, there is no showing whatsoever that petitioner had s'ch a Bgoodca'se.D

)ven d'ring proceedings "eore the trial co'rt, petitioner never presented a strong deense to pers'adethe co'rt that the

interest o 'stice wo'ld "e served "! the liting o the dea'lt order. (etitionera"sol'tel! ailed to show that he had a #eritorio's deense.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 19/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 19

G.R. No. 716. >'l! 24, 12.J ERRI'' '+NC& #%T%RES, INC., pet!t!oner,vs. &ON. CO%RT O# APPEA'S,and the SPO%SES PE(RO . 'ARA and E'ISA ". 'ARA, respondents. Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Test of existence of a cause of action. 

 $s regards thesecond gro'nd, i.e., that the co#plaint states no ca'se o action, the settled doctrine oco'rse is that saidgro'nd #'st appear on the ace o the co#plaint, and its e%istence #a!"e deter#ined onl! "! the allegations o theco#plaint, consideration o other acts "eingproscri"ed, and an! atte#pt to prove e%traneo's circ'#stances not "eing

allowed. -he testo the s'icienc! o the acts alleged in a co#plaint as constit'ting a ca'se o action iswhether or not,ad#itting the acts alleged, the co'rt #ight render a valid 'dg#ent 'ponthe sa#e in accordance with the pra!er o theco#plaint. *ndeed, it is error or a 'dge tocond'ct a preli#inar! hearing and receive evidence on the air#ative deenseo ail're othe co#plaint to state a ca'se o action

CO%NICATION ATERIA'S AN( (ESI"N, INC et al vs.CA et al.".R. No. -;;;0Au5ust ;;, -11/#ACTS3 (etitioners C9MMN*C$-*9N M$-)R*$F $N? ?)*GN, *NC., :CM?* and $($C MF-*-R$?) *NC.,:$($C are "oth do#estic corporations.. (rivate Respondents *-)C, *NC. andAor *-)C, *N-)RN$-*9N$F, *NC. :*-)Care corporations d'l! organi=ed and e%isting 'nder the laws o the tate o $la"a#a, $. -here is no disp'te that *-)Cis a oreign corporation not licensed to do "'siness in the (hilippines.*-)C entered into a contract with $($C reerred to as BRepresentative $gree#entD. ('rs'ant to the contract, *-)Cengaged $($C as its Be%cl'sive representativeD in the (hilippines or the sale o *-)C<s prod'cts, in consideration o

which, $($C was paid a stip'lated co##ission. -hro'gh a BFicense $gree#entD entered into "! the sa#e parties lateron, $($C was a"le to incorporate and 'se the na#e B*-)CD in its own na#e. -h's , $($C M'lti-rade, *nc. "eca#elegall! and p'"licl! /nown as $($C*-)C :(hilippines.9ne !ear into the second ter# o the parties< Representative $gree#ent, *-)C decided to ter#inate the sa#e, "eca'sepetitioner $($C allegedl! violated its contract'al co##it#ent as stip'lated in their agree#ents. *-)C charges thepetitioners and another (hilippine Corporation, ?*G*-$F &$) C9MMN*C$-*9N, *NC. :?*G*-$F, the (resident owhich is li/ewise petitioner $g'irre, o 'sing /nowledge and inor#ation o *-)C<s prod'cts speciications to develop theirown line o e8'ip#ent and prod'ct s'pport, which are si#ilar, i not identical to *-)C<s own, and oering the# to *-)C<sor#er c'sto#er.

-he co#plaint was iled with the R-CMa/ati "! *-)C, *NC. ?eendants iled a M-? the co#plaint on the ollowinggro'nds3 :1 -hat plainti has no legal capacit! to s'e as it is a oreign corporation doing "'siness in the (hilippines

witho't the re8'ired &9* a'thorit! and )C license, and :2 that plainti is si#pl! engaged in or'# shopping which 'stiies the application against it o the principle o Bor'# non conveniensD. -he M-? was denied.

(etitioners elevated the case to the respondent C$ on a (etition or Certiorari and (rohi"ition 'nder R'le 65 o theRevised R9C. *t was dis#issed as well. MR denied, hence this (etition or Review on Certiorari 'nder R'le 45.

ISS%E31. ?id the (hilippine co'rt ac8'ire 'risdiction over the person o the petitioner corp, despite allegations o lac/ o capacit!to s'e "eca'se o nonregistrationE2. Can the (hilippine co'rt give d'e co'rse to the s'it or dis#iss it, on the principle o or'# non convenienceE&E'(3 petition dis#issed.1. I); e are pers'aded to concl'de that *-)C had "een Bengaged inD or Bdoing "'sinessD in the (hilippines or so#e

ti#e now. -his is the inevita"le res'lt ater a scr'tin! o the dierent contracts and agree#ents entered into "! *-)C withits vario's "'siness contacts in the co'ntr!. *ts arrange#ents, with these entities indicate convincingl! that *-)C isactivel! engaging in "'siness in the co'ntr!.

 $ oreign corporation doing "'siness in the (hilippines #a! s'e in (hilippine Co'rts altho'gh not a'thori=ed to do"'siness here against a (hilippine citi=en or entit! who had contracted with and "eneited "! said corporation. -o p't it inanother wa!, a part! is estopped to challenge the personalit! o a corporation ater having ac/nowledged the sa#e "!entering into a contract with it. $nd the doctrine o estoppel to den! corporate e%istence applies to a oreign as well as todo#estic corporations. 9ne who has dealt with a corporation o oreign origin as a corporate entit! is estopped to den! itscorporate e%istence and capacit!.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 20/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 20

*n $nta# Consolidated *nc. vs. C$ et al. we e%pressed o'r chagrin over this co##onl! 'sed sche#e o dea'lting localco#panies which are "eing s'ed "! 'nlicensed oreign co#panies not engaged in "'siness in the (hilippines to invo/ethe lac/ o capacit! to s'e o s'ch oreign co#panies. 9"vio'sl!, the sa#e plo! is resorted to "! $($C to prevent thein'nctive action iled "! *-)C to enoin petitioner ro# 'sing /nowledge possi"l! ac8'ired in violation o id'ciar!arrange#ents "etween the parties.

2. I); (etitioner<s insistence on the dis#issal o this action d'e to the application, or non application, o the privateinternational law r'le o or'# non conveniens deies wellsettled r'les o air pla!. $ccording to petitioner, the (hilippine

Co'rt has no ven'e to appl! its discretion whether to give cogni=ance or not to the present action, "eca'se it has notac8'ired 'risdiction over the person o the plainti in the case, the latter allegedl! having no personalit! to s'e "eore(hilippine Co'rts. -his arg'#ent is #isplaced "eca'se the co'rt has alread! ac8'ired 'risdiction over the plainti in thes'it, "! virt'e o his iling the original co#plaint. $nd as we have alread! o"served, petitioner is not at li"ert! to 8'estionplainti<s standing to s'e, having alread! acceded to the sa#e "! virt'e o its entr! into the Representative $gree#entreerred to earlier.

-h's, having ac8'ired 'risdiction, it is now or the (hilippine Co'rt, "ased on the acts o the case, whether to give d'eco'rse to the s'it or dis#iss it, on the principle o or'# non convenience. +ence, the (hilippine Co'rt #a! re'se toass'#e 'risdiction in spite o its having ac8'ired 'risdiction. Conversel!, the co'rt #a! ass'#e 'risdiction over the casei it chooses to do so; provided, that the ollowing re8'isites are #et3

1 -hat the (hilippine Co'rt is one to which the parties #a! convenientl! resort to;2 -hat the (hilippine Co'rt is in a position to #a/e an intelligent decision as to the law and the acts; and, -hat the (hilippine Co'rt has or is li/el! to have power to enorce its decision.-he aoresaid re8'ire#ents having "een #et, and in view o the co'rt<s disposition to give d'e co'rse to the 8'estionedaction, the #atter o the present or'# not "eing the B#ost convenientD as a gro'nd or the s'it<s dis#issal, deservesscant consideration.

&A&N v. CAG.R. No. 11074; >an'ar! 22, 17

(onente3 >. Mendo=a

#ACTS$ (etitioner $lred +ahn is a @ilipino citi=en doing "'siness 'nder the na#e and st!le L+ahnManilaL. 9n the other hand,private respondent :&M is a nonresident oreign corporation e%isting 'nder the laws o the or#er @ederal Rep'"lic oGer#an!, with principal oice at M'nich, Ger#an!.

9n March 7, 167, petitioner e%ec'ted in avor o private respondent a L?eed o $ssign#ent with pecial (ower o $ttorne!. (er the agree#ent, the parties Lcontin'edS "'siness relations as has "een 's'al in the past witho't a or#alcontract.L

&'t on @e"r'ar! 16, 1, in a #eeting with a &M representative and the president o Col'#"ia Motors Corporation:CMC, >ose $lvare=, petitioner was inor#ed that &M was arranging to grant the e%cl'sive dealership o &M cars andprod'cts to CMC, which had e%pressed interest in ac8'iring the sa#e.

9n @e"r'ar! 24, 1, petitioner received conir#ation o the inor#ation ro# &M which, in a letter, e%pressed

dissatisaction with vario's aspects o petitioners "'siness, #entioning a#ong other things, decline in sales, deterioratingservices, and inade8'ate showroo# and wareho'se acilities, and petitioners alleged ail're to co#pl! with the standardsor an e%cl'sive &M dealer.

Nonetheless, &M e%pressed willingness to contin'e "'siness relations with the petitioner on the "asis o a Lstandard&M i#porterL contract, otherwise, it said, i this was not accepta"le to petitioner, &M wo'ld have no alternative "'t toter#inate petitioners e%cl'sive dealership eective >'ne 0, 1.

&eca'se o +ahns insistence on the or#er "'siness relations, &M withdrew on March 26, 1 its oer o aLstandard i#porter contractL and ter#inated the e%cl'sive dealer relationship eective >'ne 0, 1.

9n $pril 2, 1, &M proposed that +ahn and CMC ointl! i#port and distri"'te &M cars and parts.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 21/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 21

+ahn o'nd the proposal 'naccepta"le. 9n Ma! 14, 1, he iled a co#plaint or speciic peror#ance and da#agesagainst &M to co#pel it to contin'e the e%cl'sive dealership.

ISS%E$ hether petitioner $lred +ahn is the agent or distri"'tor in the (hilippines o private respondent &M

&E'($  $lred +ahn is an agent o &M.

 -he 'pre#e Co'rt held that agenc! is shown when +ahn clai#ed he too/ orders or &M cars and trans#its the# to&M. -hen &M i%es the down pa!#ent and pricing charges and will noti! +ahn o the sched'led prod'ction #onth orthe orders, and reconir# the orders "! signing and ret'rning to +ahn the acceptance sheets.

-he pa!#ent is #ade "! the "'!er directl! to &M. -itle to cars p'rchased passed directl! to the "'!er and +ahn neverpaid or the p'rchase price o &M cars sold in the (hilippines. +ahn was credited with a co##ission e8'al to 14T o thep'rchase price 'pon the invoicing o a vehicle order "! &M. pon conir#ation in writing that the vehicles had "eenregistered in the (hilippines and serviced "! hi#, +ahn received an additional T o the 'll p'rchase price. +ahnperor#ed atersale services, incl'ding, warrant! services. or which he received rei#"'rse#ent ro# &M. $ll orderswere on invoices and or#s o &M.

Moreover, the Co'rt disting'ished an agent ro# a "ro/er. -he co'rt r'led that an agent receives a co##ission 'pon the

s'ccess'l concl'sion o a sale. 9n the other hand, a "ro/er earns his pa! #erel! "! "ringing the "'!er and the sellertogether, even i no sale is event'all! #ade.

SERICEDI(E SPECIA'ISTS, INC. CA ".R. No. --8> U Nove#"er 1, 1 U >. ('risi#a

 

#ACTS$1. Feticia Fa's p'rchased on credit a Colt Galant %%% ro# @ort'ne Motors :(hils. Corporation and e%ec'ted a pro#issor!note or the a#o'nt o (56,02.00, incl'sive o 12T ann'al interest, pa!a"le within a period o 4 #onths. *n case o

dea'lt in the pa!#ent o an! install#ent, the total principal s'#, together with the interest, shall "eco#e i##ediatel! d'eand pa!a"le.2. $s a sec'rit! or the pro#issor! note, a chattel #ortgage was constit'ted over the said #otor vehicle, with a deed oassign#ent incorporated therein s'ch that the credit and #ortgage rights were assigned "! @ort'ne Motors Corp. in avoro @ilinvest Credit Corporation with the consent o the #ortgagorde"tor Fa's.

. @ilinvest in t'rn assigned the credit in avor o ervicewide pecialists, *nc.

4. Fa's ailed to pa! the #onthl! install#ent or $pril 177 and the s'cceeding 17 #onths. ervicewide de#andedpa!#ent o the entire o'tstanding "alance with interests "'t Fa's ailed to pa! despite or#al de#ands.

5. $s a res'lt o Fa's< ail're to settle her o"ligation, or at least to s'rrender possession o the #otor vehicle ororeclos're, ervicewide instit'ted a co#plaint or replevin, i#pleading +ilda -ee and >ohn ?ee in whose c'stod! thevehicle was "elieved to "e at the ti#e o the iling o the s'it. (lainti alleged, a#ong others, that it had s'perior lien overthe #ortgaged vehicle. -he co'rt approved the replevin "ond.

6. $l"erto Hillaranca iled a third part! clai# contending that he is the a"sol'te owner o the s'"ect #otor vehicle aterp'rchasing it ro# a certain Re#edios Iang ree ro# all lien and e#c'#"rances; and that on >'l! 14, the saida'to#o"ile was ta/en ro# his residence "! ?ep't! heri &ernardo &erna"e p'rs'ant to the sei='re order iss'ed "! theco'rt a 8'o.

7. pon #otion o the plainti "elow, Hillaranca was s'"stit'ted as deendant and s'##ons was served 'ponhi#. Hillaranca #oved or the dis#issal o the co#plaint on the gro'nd that there is another action pending "etween thesa#e parties "eore the Ma/ati R-C. -he co'rt granted the the #otion "'t s'"se8'entl! set aside the order o dis#issal.@or ail're to ile his $nswer as re8'ired "! the co'rt a 8'o, Hillaranca was declared in dea'lt and plainti<s evidence wasreceived e% parte.

7/21/2019 Civpro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civpro-digest-56dff3b8609cc 22/22

C i v P r o D i g e s t | 22

. -he lower co'rt later on dis#issed the co#plaint or ins'icienc! o evidence. *ts #otion or reconsideration having"een denied, petitioner appealed to C$ on the gro'nd that a s'it or replevin ai#ed at the oreclos're o a chattel is anaction quasi in rem, and does not re8'ire the incl'sion o the principal o"ligor in the Co#plaint.. C$ air#ed the R-C decision. *t also denied petitioner<s MR, hence, the present petition or review on certiorari  'nderR'le 45. 

ISS%E3AN a case or replevin #a! "e p'rs'ed against the deendant, $l"erto Hillaranca, witho't i#pleading the a"sconding

de"tor#ortgagor 

 

&E'(3No. R'le 60 o the Revised R'les o Co'rt re8'ires that an applicant or replevin #'st show that he Bis the owner o thepropert! clai#ed, partic'larl! descri"ing it, or is entitled to the possession thereo.D here the right o the plainti to thepossession o the speciied propert! is so conceded or evident, the action need onl! "e #aintained against hi# who sopossesses the propert!. In rem action est per quam rem nostram quae ab alio possietur petimus! et semper aversuseum est qui rem possiet.&o@ever, !n case the r!5ht o6 possess!on on the part o6 the pla!nt!66, or h!s author!ty to cla!m such possess!on orthat o6 h!s pr!nc!pal, !s put to 5reat dout 2a contend!n5 party may contest the le5al ases 6or pla!nt!66Fs cause o6act!on or an adverse and !ndependent cla!m o6 o@nersh!p or r!5ht o6 possess!on may e ra!sed y that party3, !tcould ecome essent!al to have other persons !nvolved and !mpleaded 6or a complete determ!nat!on andresolut!on o6 the controversy.*n a s'it or replevin, a clear rig"t o# possession must be establis"e. -he conditions essential or oreclos're o chattel#ortgage wo'ld "e to show, irstl!, the e%istence o the chattel #ortgage and, secondl!, the dea'lt o the#ortgagor. ince the #ortgagee<s right o possession is conditioned 'pon the act'al act o dea'lt which itsel #a! "econtroverted, the incl'sion o other parties, li/e the de"tor or the #ortgagor hi#sel, #a! "e re8'ired in order to allow a'll and concl'sive deter#ination o the case. Fa's, "eing an indispensa"le part!, sho'ld have "een i#pleaded in theco#plaint or replevin and da#ages. $n indispensa"le part! is one whose interest will "e aected "! the co'rt<s action inthe litigation, and witho't who# no inal deter#ination o the case can "e had. (etition ?)N*)?.