Rem+Law+Review+2010+Assignment+1+Digest

8/13/2019 Rem+Law+Review+2010+Assignment+1+Digest

1/34

I. Jurisdiction

Republic Act 7691 amending BP 129Rules on Summary Procedure A.. !o. "2#11#"9#S$

Ouano vs. PGTT International Investment Corporation

%A$&S'P(&& )iled a complaint agaisnt *uano )or Reco+ery o) *,ners-ip and Possession o) Propertyand amages against Jo+enal *uano. As o,ner/ it alleged t-at it ,as depri+ed o) its use,-en *uano uprooted t-e concrete monuments o) t-e lot and planted corn t-erein. It alsoclaimed to su))er damages amounting to P1""/""" ,-en *uano re)used to +acate despitet-eir demand. *uano )iled a motion to dismiss on t-e ground t-at it is t-e &$ t-at -as0urisdiction as t-e assessed +alue o) t-e lot is only P2/91". P(&& opposed and said t-at0urisdictiction is determined by t-e maret +alue instead and t-at t-e R&$ -as 0urisdictionsince t-e maret +alue o) t-e lot is P9/ 76" and t-e damages claimed amounted toP1""/""". R&$ ruled in )a+or o) P(&&.

ISS34' 5-et-er t-e R&$ -as 0urisdiction o+er t-is case

48'&-e 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect mater o) t-e claim is determined by t-e assessed +alue andnot t-e maret +alue since t-e action in+ol+es o,ners-ip and possession o) real property.BP 129 pro+ides t-at &$ -as 0urisdiction o+er cases on real property ,-ere t-e assessed+alue o) t-e property or interest t-erein e:clusi+e o) damages does not e:ceed P2"/""" orP;"/""" in ci+il actions in etro anila. t-e R&$ on t-e ot-er -and -as 0urisdiction i) t-eassessed +alue e:ceeds P2"/""" or P;"/""" in ci+il actions in etro anila. &-us/ t-eamount o) damages claimed s-ould not be added in t-e computation as t-e la, e:plicitlye:cludes )rom t-e determination o) 0urisdictional amount t-e demand )or < interest/damages o) ,-ate+er ind/ atorney=s )ees/ litigation e:penses/ and cost. &-e said damages

are merely incidental to/ or a conse>uence o)/ t-e real property. o,e+er/ Administrati+e$ircular !o. "9#9 pro+ides t-at in cases ,-ere t-e claim )or damages is t-e main cause o)action/ or one o) t-e causes o) action/ t-e amount o) suc- claim s-all be considered indetermining t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e court.

HERRERA vs. BOLLOS (G.R. No. 1!"#! $anuar% 1!& "''"

&-e %acts'*n August ;/ 199?/ &eodora Bollos commenced be)ore t-e unicipal $ircuit &rial $ourt o)Baya,an#Basay $i+il $ase !o. 99?/ )or )orcible entry/ solely against 4ddie errera allegingt-at t-e latter/ sometime in t-e second ,ee o) 199?/ t-roug- stealt- and strategy andtaing ad+antage o) t-e absence o) &eodora/ entered and occupied -er Sugarland no,n as8ot !o. 2"/ (SS#61;/ located at $amandagan/ aninyon/ Baya,an/ !egros *riental.

&eodora claims to -a+e in-erited said parcel. e)endant/ 4ddie errera/ denied t-eallegations against -im maintaining t-at -e entered and occupied not 8ot !o. 2"/ as claimedby &eodora/ but 8ot !o. 21/ (SS@61;/ ,-ic- is o,ned by $onrado Bollos/ a brot-er o)&eodora=s )at-er/ Al)onso. %urt-er/ errera said t-at -is occupation o) t-e property ,as nott-roug- stealt- or strategy but by +irtue o) a contract o) lease e:ecuted bet,een $onradoBollos/ as lessor/ and 4rnesto &i0ing/ as lessee. errera is &i0ing=s o+erseer on t-e land. As aconse>uence/ t-e complaint ,as t,ice amended/ )irst/ on arc- 2?/ 199 to include 4rnesto&. &i0ing as a party#de)endant and muc- later on *ctober / 199;/ t-is time to implead$onrado Bollos as an additional de)endant. A)ter due proceedings/ t-e )irst le+el court


2/34

dismissed t-e case )or )ailure to mae#out a )orcible entry case because o) lac o)0urisdiction. Plainti))s= remedy s-ouldbe rei+endicatory sic action be)ore t-e proper )orum.

*n Appeal to t-e Regional &rial $ourt o) umaguete $ity/ doceted as $i+il $ase !o. 12"1/t-e c-allenged +erdict ,as re+ersed restoring 8ot !o. 2"/ (SS#61; to t-e plainti))s ande0ecting t-e de)endants )rom t-e said parcel o) land and pay damages. Petitioners )iled ,it-t-e $A a petition )or re+ie,. t-e $A a))irmed. ence/ t-is appeal.

&-e Issuesa Is t-e municipal trial court +ested ,it- 0urisdiction o+er a second amended complaintimpleading a ne, de)endant )iled beyond one year )rom dispossession alleging a case o))orcible entry in t-e original actionb ay t-e regional trial court a,ard moral and e:emplary damages against de)endants inan appeal )rom a dismissal o) t-e case )or )orcible entry by t-e lo,er court

&-e $ourt=s Ruling' Petition enied

*n t-e 1st issue' ,e emp-asiCe t-e basic rule t-at 0urisdiction o) t-e court o+er t-e sub0ectmatter o) t-e action is determined by t-e allegations o) t-e complaint at t-e time o) its)iling/ irrespecti+e o) ,-et-er or not t-e plainti)) is entitled to reco+er upon all or some o)t-e claims asserted t-erein.


3/34

%A$&S'

Petitioners *ca brot-ers are co#o,ners o) )is-ponds. Respondent Abalos/ on t-e ot-er -and/claims to be t-e s-are#tenant caretaer o) t-e said )is-ponds. e per)orms all t-e p-ases o))arm ,or needed )or t-e production o) bangus/ ,-ile t-e only contribution o) t-e *cabrot-ers are t-eir )is-ponds. Abalos asserts t-at -e -as peace)ul possession/ culti+ation and

care o) t-e )is-ponds until 1992 ,-en -e re>uested )rom t-e *ca brot-ers -is s-are o) t-e-ar+est. Instead o) acceding to -is re>uest/ petitioners demanded t-at -e +acate t-e ponds.Abalos )iled )or a $omplaint )or Peace)ul Possession/ 8ease-old and amages/ ,it- t-e*))ice o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator/ epartment o) Agrarian Re)orm Ad0udication BoardARAB. Pro+incial Ad0udicator declared Abalos as bona )ide tenant o) t-e parcels o) land/en)orcing t-e rig-t o) t-e plainti)) to become t-e agricultural lessee in t-e )is-pond. ecision,as appealed by t-e *ca brot-ers to t-e ARAB/ ,-ic- a))irmed Pro+incial Ad0udicatorEsdecision in toto. Petitioners soug-t )or relie) ,it- $A. $A modi)ied t-e decision. eclaringAbalos as bon)ide tenant only ,it- regard to certain )is-ponds but not all. Petitionersele+ate t-e case be)ore S$ ,it- a ne, argument o) lac o) 0urisdiction o) t-e Pro+incialAd0udicator o+er t-e sub0ect matter o) t-e action

ISS34' 5-et-er or not lac o) 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect matter can be ob0ected to at any

instance

48' &-e general rule t-at lac o) 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect matter can be ob0ected toat any instance is not absolute. 4stoppel or lac-es may operate as a bar s-ield to pre+ent aparty )rom belatedly resorting to t-is )orm o) de)ense.

&-ey ne+er disputed t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator at any stage o) t-eproceeding/ not,it-standing t-e presence o) numerous opportunities in t-e +arious stageso) t-is case to contest t-e ad0udicator=s e:ercise o) 0urisdiction. !eit-er can t-ey claim t-att-ey ,ere pre+ented )rom contesting its 0urisdiction during t-e eig-t years t-is case ,asunder litigation. &-ey -a+e tendered responsi+e pleadings/ attended con)erencesparticipated in t-e -earings and appealed ad+erse decisions against t-em. By t-eir conduct/

t-ey +oluntarily submitted to t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e ad0udicator. $onse>uently/ t-ey mustnot be allo,ed to deny -is 0urisdiction a)ter submitting to it. &-e rule is t-at t-e acti+eparticipation o) t-e party against ,-om t-e action ,as broug-t/ coupled ,it- -is body,-ere t-e action is pending/ is tantamount to an in+ocation o) t-at 0urisdiction and a,illingness to abide by t-e resolution o) t-e case and ,ill bar said party )rom later onimpugning t-e court or body=s 0urisdiction.

Petitioners instituted a counterclaim against t-e respondent##t-ey prayed not only )or t-edismissal o) t-e case but lie,ise ased )or t-e payment o) damages based on t-e latter=spurported bad )ait-. By )iling a counterclaim/ t-ey recogniCed and e:pressly in+oed t-e0urisdiction o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator. &-ey cannot no, insist t-e ,ant o) it only a)ter anun)a+orable decision ,as issued against t-em.

)i*ares v. Rana+a

%acts'

In+oing t-e Alien &ort Act/ petitioners i0ares/ et al.F/ all o) ,-om su))ered -uman rig-ts+iolations during t-e arcos era/ obtained a %inal Judgment in t-eir )a+or against t-e 4stateo) t-e late %erdinand arcos amounting to roug-ly G1.9B in compensatory and e:emplary


4/34

damages )or tortuous +iolations o) international la, in t-e 3S istrict $ourt o) a,aii. &-is%inal Judgment ,as a))irmed by t-e 3S $ourt o) Appeals.

As a conse>uence/ Petitioners )iled a $omplaint ,it- t-e R&$ aati )or t-e en)orcement o)t-e %inal Judgment/ paying P1" as docet and )iling )ees based on Rule 11/ H7b ,-eret-e +alue o) t-e sub0ect matter is incapable o) pecuniary estimation. &-e 4state o) arcos

-o,e+er/ )iled a & alleging t-e non#payment o) t-e correct )iling )ees. R&$ aatidismissed t-e $omplaint stating t-at t-e sub0ect matter ,as capable o) pecuniaryestimation as it in+ol+ed a 0udgment rendered by a )oreign court ordering t-e payment o) ade)inite sum o) money allo,ing )or t-e easy determination o) t-e +alue o) t-e )oreign0udgment. As suc-/ t-e proper )iling )ee ,as P72/ ,-ic- Petitioners -ad not paid.

Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e amount paid by t-e Petitioners is t-e proper )iling )ee.eld'

es/ but on a di))erent basisamount merely corresponds to t-e same amount re>uired )orKot-er actions not in+ol+ing propertyL. R&$ aati erred in concluding t-at t-e )iling )ees-ould be computed on t-e basis o) t-e total sum claimed or t-e stated +alue o) t-e

property in litigation. &-e PetitionerEs $omplaint ,as lodged against t-e 4state o) arcos butit is clearly based on a 0udgment/ t-e %inal Judgment o) t-e 3S istrict $ourt. o,e+er/ t-ePetitioners err in stating t-at t-e %inal Judgment is incapable o) pecuniary estimationbecause it is so capable. *n t-is point/ Petitioners state t-at t-is mig-t lead to an instance,-erein a )irst le+el court &$/ e&$/ etc. ,ould -a+e 0urisdiction to en)orce a )oreign0udgment. 3nder t-e B.P.129/ suc- courts are not +ested ,it- suc- 0urisdiction. H?? o)B.P.129 re)ers to instances ,-erein t-e cause o) action or sub0ect matter pertains to anassertion o) rig-ts o+er property or a sum o) money. But -ere/ t-e sub0ect matter is t-e)oreign 0udgment itsel). H16 o) B.P.129 re+eals t-at t-e complaint )or en)orcement o)0udgment e+en i) capable o) pecuniary estimation ,ould )all under t-e 0urisdiction o) t-eR&$s. &-us/ t-e $omplaint to en)orce t-e 3S istrict $ourt 0udgment is one capable o)pecuniary estimations but at t-e same time/ it is also an action based on 0udgment against

an estate/ t-us placing it beyond t-e ambit o) H7a o) Rule 11. 5-at go+erns t-e propercomputation o) t-e )iling )ees o+er $omplaints )or t-e en)orcement o) )oreign 0udgments isH7b?/ in+ol+ing Kot-er actions not in+ol+ing property.L

T,orton v. T,orton - SCRA ##' ("''-

%acts'Ric-ard Brian &-orton got married to Adel)a %rancisco &-orton in 199D. A year later/ Adel)aga+e birt- to a c-ild/ Segueira Jenni)er &-orton. A)ter ? years o) marriage/ Adel)a &-ortongre, restless and bored as a plain -ouse,i)e and ,anted to return to -er old 0ob as auiera toBasilan.

Ric-ard )iled case ,it- t-e %amily $ourt in aati but t-is ,as dismissed/ because o) t-eallegation t-at t-e c-ild ,as in Basilan. Ric-ard ,ent to Basilan to c-ec on t-e,-ereabouts o) Adel)a and t-eir daug-ter but -e did not )ind t-em t-ere. e ga+e up -issearc- ,-en -e got -old o) Adel)a=s cellular p-one bills s-o,ing calls )rom di))erent placessuc- as $a+ite/ !ue+a 4ci0a/ etro anila and ot-er pro+inces. Ric-ard t-en )iled anot-erpetition )or abeas $orpus/ t-is time ,it- t-e $A ,-ic- could issue a ,rit o) -abeas corpusen)orceable in t-e entire country.

$A' Petition denied )or lac o) 0urisdiction/ ruling t-at t-e %amily $ourt Act o) 1997 RA


5/34

D?69 ga+e )amily courts e:clusi+e original 0urisdiction o+er petitions )or uitoussituation/ lea+ing indi+iduals lie t-e petitioner ,it-out legal recourse in obtaining custodyo) t-eir c-ildren. Indi+iduals ,-o do not no, t-e ,-ereabouts o) minors t-ey are looing)or ,ould be -elpless since t-ey cannot see redress )rom )amily courts ,-ose ,rits areen)orceable only in t-eir respecti+e territorial 0urisdictions. &-us/ i) a minor is beingtrans)erred )rom one place to anot-er/ t-e petitioner in a -abeas corpus case ,ill be le)t,it-out legal remedy. &-e primordial consideration is t-e ,el)are and best interests o) t-ec-ild. &-e $ourt ruled t-ere)ore t-at RA D?69 did not di+est t-e $ourt o) Appeals and t-eSupreme $ourt o) t-eir 0urisdiction o+er -abeas corpus cases in+ol+ing t-e custody o)minors.

&-is is not t-e )irst time t-at t-is $ourt construed t-e ,ord Ke:clusi+eL as not )oreclosing

resort to anot-er 0urisdiction. As correctly cited by t-e Solicitor (eneral/ in %loresca +s.P-ile: ining $orporation/ t-e -eirs o) miners illed in a ,or#related accident ,ere allo,edto )ile suit in t-e regular courts e+en i)/ under t-e 5ormenEs $ompensation Act/ t-e5ormenEs $ompensation $ommissioner -ad e:clusi+e 0urisdiction o+er suc- cases. In t-esaid case/ t-e $ourt applied and ga+e e))ect to t-e constitutional guarantee o) social 0usticein ruling t-at t-e $ommissioner=s e:clusi+e 0urisdiction did not )oreclose resort to t-e regularcourt )or damages. In t-e case at bar/ a literal interpretation o) t-e ,ord Ke:clusi+eL ,illresult in gra+e in0ustice and negate t-e policy Kto protect t-e rig-ts and promote t-e ,el)areo) c-ildrenL under t-e $onstitution and t-e 3nited !ations $on+ention on t-e Rig-ts o) t-e$-ild. &-is mandate must pre+ail o+er legal tec-nicalities and ser+e as t-e guiding principlein construing t-e pro+isions o) RA D?69. oreo+er/ settled is t-e rule in statutoryconstruction t-at implied repeals are not )a+ored. &-e pro+isions o) RA D?69 re+eal no

mani)est intent to re+oe t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e $ourt o) Appeals and Supreme $ourt toissue ,rits o) -abeas corpus relating to t-e custody o) minors. %urt-er/ it cannot be saidt-at t-e pro+isions o) RA D?69/ RA 7"92 and BP 129 are absolutely incompatible since RAD?69 does not pro-ibit t-e $ourt o) Appeals and t-e Supreme $ourt )rom issuing ,rits o)-abeas corpus in cases in+ol+ing t-e custody o) minors. &-us/ t-e pro+isions o) RA D?69must be read in -armony ,it- RA 7"29 and BP 129 M t-at )amily courts -a+e concurrent0urisdiction ,it- t-e $ourt o) Appeals and t-e Supreme $ourt in petitions )or -abeas corpus,-ere t-e custody o) minors is at issue.

BPI v. ALS )nst.

%acts'BPI In+estment $orporation )iled a complaint )or sum o) money against A8S ngt pursuant

to a deed o) sale e:ecuted bet,een t-em )or 1 un)urnis-ed condo unit. BPI ad+anced t-eamount o) P26t-ou )or t-e e:penses in causing t-e issuance and registration o) t-e condocerti)icate o) title ,-ile A8S )ailed and re)used to pay/ not,it-standing repeated demands byt-e BPI. A8S a+erred/ in its counterclaim/ t-at its re)usal to pay is 0usti)ied on t-e groundt-at t-e +endor/BPI/ did not con)orm to t-e ,arranties and t-at t-e unit purc-ased by +endee ,asde)ecti+e. &-e trial court ordered A8S to pay BPI t-e amount ad+anced )or registration and,-ile ordering BPI to correct t-e de)ects in t-e unit and to reimburse t-e +endee )or


6/34

unearned income since t-e +endee -ad to suspend lease contract until t-e unit ,as )i:ed.&-e appellate court sustained t-e trial court s )inding t-at


7/34

respondent=s counterclaim ## being one )or speci)ic per)ormance correction o)de)ectsQde)iciencies in t-e condominium unit and damages )alls under t-e 0urisdiction o)t-e 83RB as pro+ided by Section 1 o) P !o. 1?.

&-e Applicability o) 4stoppel &-e general rule is t-at any decision rendered ,it-out0urisdiction is a total nullity and may be struc do,n at any time/ e+en on appeal be)ore t-is

$ourt. Indeed/ t-e >uestion o) 0urisdiction may be raised at any time/ pro+ided t-at suc-action ,ould not result in t-e mocery o) t-e tenets o) )air play. As an e:ception to t-e rule/t-e issue may not be raised i) t-e party is barred by estoppel. In t-e present case/petitioner proceeded ,it- t-e trial/ and only a)ter a 0udgment un)a+orable to it did it raiset-e issue o) 0urisdiction. &-us/ it may no longer deny t-e trial court s 0urisdiction/ )orestoppel bars it )rom doing so. &-is $ourt cannot countenance t-e inconsistent posturespetitioner -as adopted by attacing t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e regular court to ,-ic- it -as+oluntarily submitted. petitioner also guilty o) estoppel by lac-es )or )ailing to raise t-e>uestion o) 0urisdiction earlier. %rom t-e time t-at respondent )iled its counterclaim on!o+ember D/ 19D;/ t-e )ormer could -a+e raised suc- issue/ but )ailed or neglected to doso. It ,as only upon )iling its appellant s brie) ,it- t-e $A on ay 27/ 1991/ t-at petitionerraised t-e issue o) 0urisdiction )or t-e )irst time.

In &i0am +. Sibong-anoy/it ,as declared t-at t-e )ailure to raise t-e >uestion o) 0urisdictionat an earlier stage barred t-e party )rom >uestioning it later. Applying t-e rule on estoppelby lac-es/ uestion in di))erent ,ays and)or di))erent reasons. &-us/ ,e spea o) estoppel in pais/ o) estoppeNlO by deed or by record/and o) estoppel by lac-es.uestion o) time but isprincipally a >uestion o) t-e ine>uity or un)airness o) permitting a rig-t or claim to be

en)orced or asserted.<


8/34

R&$.

In 1991/ PPI )iled an appeal ,it- regards to t-e grant o) t-e ,rit o) e:ecution pendingappeal. %ertip-il no, assails t-e appeal made by t-e PPI on t-e ground t-at t-ey did notpay t-e docet )ees as re>uired by t-e 1997 Rules o) Procedure.

ISS34' 5Q! t-e appeal s-ould be dismissed )or non#payment o) docet )ees as re>uired byt-e ne, rules.

48'!*/ appeal s-ould be allo,ed to allo,ed to proceed. As a general rule/ rules o) procedureapply to actions pending and undetermined at t-e time o) t-eir passage/ -ence/retrospecti+e in nature. o,e+er/ t-e general rule is not ,it-out an e:ception.Retrospecti+e application is allo,ed i) no +ested rig-ts are impaired. 5-ile t-e rig-t toappeal is statutory/ t-e mode or manner by ,-ic- t-is rig-t may be e:ercised is a >uestiono) procedure ,-ic- may be altered and modi)ied only ,-en +ested rig-ts are not impaired.&-us/ t-e 1997 Rules o) $i+il Procedure ,-ic- too e))ect on July 1/ 1997 and ,-ic-re>uired t-at appellate docet and ot-er la,)ul )ees s-ould be paid ,it-in t-e same period)or taing an appeal/ can not a))ect PPI=s appeal ,-ic- ,as already per)ected in 1992.

oreo+er/ ,e -a+e also pre+iously ruled t-at )ailure to pay t-e appellate docet )ee doesnot automatically result in t-e dismissal o) an appeal/ dismissal being discretionary on t-epart o) t-e appellate court. And in determining ,-et-er or not to dismiss an appeal on suc-ground/ courts -a+e al,ays been guided by t-e peculiar legal and e>uitable circumstancesattendant to eac- case.

IA2 vs )ESIAS& $R

%A$&S'

Petitioners are t-e o,ners o) a 1.2 -ectare riceland located at Brgy. (uintigi#an/ *rmoc$ity/ being tilled by/ among ot-ers/ $arlos esias/ Sr./ )at-er o) respondent $arlos/ Jr.

Respondent re>uested t-at -e be granted a -omelot ,it-in t-e riceland by petitioners andt-at t-e s-are tenancy system be c-anged to lease-old system. Petitioners denied bot-re>uests. ence/ t-e matter ,as broug-t to t-e Barangay Agrarian Re)orm $ommittee )ormediation. !o settlement ,as reac-ed. &-e case ,as ele+ated to t-e unicipal AgrarianRe)orm *))ice AR* o) t-e epartment o) Agrarian Re)orm. AR* concluded t-at t-erespondent is not a bona )ide tenant o) t-e petitioners/ considering t-at -e is a member o)t-e immediate )arm -ouse-old o) -is )at-er/ $arlos/ Sr. A petition ,as )iled ,it- t-ePro+incial Ad0udicator o) 8eyte/ ,-o dismissed t-e petition and declared t-at $arlos/ Jr. isnot a tenant de 0ure o) t-e riceland/ rat-er it is -is )at-er/ $arlos/ Sr./ ,-o is t-e tenantt-ereo). Respondent appealed to t-e epartment o) Agrarian Re)orm Ad0udication BoardARAB ,-ic- re+ersed t-e decision o) t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator. ence/ a petition )orre+ie, ,as )iled by t-e petitioners ,it- t-e $A. &-e $A dismissed t-e petition due tode)ecti+e certi)ication against )orum s-opping and )ailure to attac- clearly legible copies o)

pertinent portions o) t-e records and ot-er supporting documents. $A reconsidered itsdecision inso)ar as t-e de)ecti+e certi)ication is concerned/ but maintained t-at petitioners)ailed to comply ,it- t-e procedural re>uirements o) Rule ? Sec. 6 o) t-e Ro$. ISS34'5*! t-e petition )or re+ie, )iled by t-e petitioners complies ,it- t-e re>uirements set inRule ? Sec.6 o) t-e Ro$. R38I!(' &-e dismissal o) t-e petition on purely tec-nical grounds,as un,arranted. Sec.6 o) Rule ? does not re>uire t-at all o) t-e supporting papers oranne:es accompanying t-e petition s-ould be certi)ied true copies or duplicate originals.5-at is mandatory is t-at clearly legible duplicate originals or certi)ied true copies o) t-e0udgment or )inal orders o) t-e lo,er courts be attac-ed to t-e petition.


9/34

Petitioners substantially complied ,it- t-e procedural re>uirements o) t-e Rules. &-eattac-ment o) t-e )inal decisions o) t-e ARAB and t-e Pro+incial Ad0udicator are su))icientin order )or t-e $A to gi+e due course to t-e petition/ instead o) dismissing t-e same on t-eground o) petitioners= )ailure to attac- copies o) t-e pleadings and ot-er supportingdocuments. !e+ert-eless/ e+en i) t-e pleadings and ot-er supporting documents ,ere not

attac-ed to t-e petition/ t-e dismissal ,as un,arranted because t-e entire records o) t-ecase ,ill e+entually be ele+ated to t-e appellate court/ pursuant to Rule ? Sec.11 o) t-eRo$.

$ases s-ould be determined on t-e merits a)ter all t-e parties -a+e been gi+en )ullopportunity to +entilate t-eir causes and de)enses/ rat-er t-an on tec-nicalities orprocedural imper)ections. $ase is remanded to t-e $A )or )urt-er proceedings.

ATLANTIC ERECTORS 3S. HERBAL CO3E REALT4

%A$&S'Atlantic 4rectors and erbal $o+e Realty entered into a $onstruction $ontract/ ,-erebyAtlantic agreed to construct a )our unit to,n-ouse )or a speci)ied contract price. &-e

contract period ,as )or 1D" days. Atlantic claims t-e period ,as not )ollo,ed due to reasonsattributable to erbal i.e. suspension orders/ addEl ,ors. o,e+er/ erbal denied suc-claims and pointed to Atlantic as -a+ing e:ceeded t-e 1D" period aggra+ated by de)ecti+e,ormans-ip and utiliCation o) materials ,-ic- ,ere not in compliance ,it- speci)ications.Atlantic )iled a complaint )or sum o) money representing cost o) materials and )or labor ont-e -ouses constructed ,it- damages ,it- t-e R&$ o) aati. In addition/ t-ey also )iled anotice o) lis pendens )or annotation during t-e pendency o) t-e ci+il case t-ey )iled.

erbal )iled a otion to ismiss t-e $omplaint )or lac o) 0urisdiction and )or )ailure to statea cause o) action. In addition/ t-ey )iled a otion to $ancel !otice o) 8is Pendens. &-eyargue t-at t-e !otices o) lis pendens are ,it-out basis because t-e action is a purely

personal action to collect a sum o) money and reco+er damages and does not directly a))ecttitle to/ use/ or possession o) real property. R&$ initially granted t-e otion to $ancel!otice -o,e+er/ t-ey re+ersed and reinstated t-e !otices a)ter Atlantic )iled a otion )orReconsideration. $A reinstated t-e initial order o) t-e R&$ granting erbalEs otion to$ancel t-e !otice o) 8is Pendens.

ISS34' 5-et-er or not money claims representing cost o) materials )or and labor on t-e-ouses constructed on property are a proper lien )or annotation o) lis pendens on t-eproperty titled.

48'!o. As a general rule/ t-e only instances in ,-ic- a notice o) lis pendens may be a+ailed o)are as )ollo,s' a an action to reco+er possession o) real estate b an action )or partition

and c any ot-er court proceedings t-at directly a))ect t-e title to t-e land or t-e buildingt-ereon or t-e use or t-e occupation t-ereo). &-e complaint ,as a purely personal actionand a simple collection case. It did not contain any material a+erment o) any en)orceablerig-t/ interest or lien in connection ,it- t-e sub0ect matter. &-e annotation o) a notice o) lispendens on titles is not proper ,-ere t-e proceedings instituted are actions in personam.

BRIOSO vs. RILI5)ARIANO

%A$&S'


10/34

Spouses ariano/ t-roug- t-e 8and Ban o) t-e P-ilippines/ repurc-ased t-e property t-att-ey pre+iously sold to (licerio Brioso uently/ t-e Spouses ariano=s counsel )iled aotion )or Substitution o) eceased e)endant ,-ic- Atty. Pardalis recei+ed. &-e motion

,as admitted by t-e trial court. (licerio t-en lost t-e case.

ISS34S'1. 5-et-er t-ere ,as a +alid substitution o) deceased (licerio and2. 5-et-er t-e trial court ac>uired 0urisdiction o+er t-e persons o) t-e petitioners.

48'1. &-ere ,as no +alid substitution. It must be pointed out t-at/ contrary to t-e Spousesariano=s +ie,/ t-eir complaint )or reco+ery o) possession o) real property is an action ,-ic-sur+i+es t-e deat- o) a party. Suc- being t-e case/ t-e rule on substitution o) a deceasedparty is clearly applicable. 3nder t-e e:press terms o) Section 17 o) t-e old Rules/ in case o)t-e deat- o) a party and due notice is gi+en to t-e trial court/ it is t-e duty o) t-e court to

order t-e deceased=s legal representati+e or -eir to appear )or t-e deceased. *t-er,ise/uire 0urisdiction o+er t-eir persons. Suc- being t-e case/ t-ese -eirscannot be bound by t-e 0udgment o) t-e trial court Sun)lo,er !eig-bor-ood

Soli+6an7 Corporation v Arrieta

%acts'

$armen Arrieta is a ban depositor o) Solidban $orporation. S-e issued an S$B c-ec int-e amount o) P??"."" in t-e name o) 8opueEs epartment Store in payment o) -er


11/34

purc-ases )rom said store. 5-en t-e c-ec ,as deposited by t-e store to its account/ t-esame ,as dis-onored due to KAccount $losedL despite t-e )act t-at at t-e time t-e c-ec,as presented )or payment/ $armenEs c-ecing account ,as still acti+e and baced up by adeposit o) P1.27;.2". $onse>uently/ t-e department store sent a demand letter to $arment-reatening -er ,it- criminal prosecution unless s-e redeemed t-e c-ec ,it-in ; days. &oa+oid criminal prosecution/ $armen paid ??"."" in cas- to t-e store and a surc-arge o) ??

)or t-e bouncing c-ec.

$armen )iled a complaint against Solidban $orporation )or damages alleging t-at t-e ban/by its carelessness in certi)ying t-at -er account ,as closed/ destroyed -er and -er )amilyEsgood name and reputation in t-e )orm o) mental anguis-/ sleepless nig-ts etc.... &-e banclaimed t-at $armen +iolated conditions go+erning t-e establis-ment o) operation o) acurrent account and -er account ,as recommended )or closure. In any case/ t-e banclaimed good )ait- in declaring -er account closed because one o) t-e clers/ ,-osubstituted )or t-e regular cler/ committed an -onest mistae ,-en -e t-oug-t t-at t-esub0ect account ,as already closed ,-en t-e ledger containing t-e said account could notbe )ound. &rial $ourt and t-e $A ruled in )a+or o) $armen.

Issue' 5-et-er or not respondents are entitled to damages

eld'es. $ase la, lays out t-e )ollo,ing conditions )or t-e a,ard o) moral damages'

1. t-ere is an in0ury ,-et-er p-ysical/ mental o) psyc-ological clearly sustained byt-e claimant

2. culpable act or omission is )actually establis-ed.?. t-e ,rong)ul act or omission o) t-e de)endant is t-e pro:imate cause o) t-e in0ury

sustained by t-e claimant. t-e a,ard o) damages is predicated on any o) t-e cases stated in Article 2219 o) t-e

$i+il $ode.

All re>uisites ,ere establis-ed'1. $armen is a longstanding depositor o) Solidban/ a department secretary o) $4!4$*

cooperati+e/ deaconess o) $-ristian Alliance $-urc-. 3nderstandably s-e su))eredanguis- and social -umiliation ,-en people learned and taled about -er bouncedc-ec.

2. it is undisputed t-at sub0ect c-ec ,as ,rong)ully dis-onored.?. t-e ,rong)ul dis-onor ,as t-e pro:imate cause o) -er -umiliation. treating t-e account as closed merely because t-e ledger could not be )ound ,as a

recless act t-at could not be simply be brus-ed o)) as an -onest mistae.

&-e negligence in t-is case ,as so gross as to amount to a ,ill)ul in0ury. Art 21 o) $$ statest-at any person ,-o ,ill)ully causes loss or in0ury to anot-er in a manner t-at is contrary to

morals/ good customs or public policy s-all compensate t-e latter )or t-e damages/ Art.2219 pro+ides )or t-e reco+ery o) moral damages )or act re)erred to in t-e Art 21. ence/t-e ban is liable.

REP8BLIC 3S. AG8NO4

%acts'(regorio Agunoy )iled -is application )or )ree patent o+er 8ots 1?1 and 1?2/ an 1D#-a.parcel o) land. &-is application ,as granted. &-e )ree patent led to t-e issuance o) *$& P#


12/34

;22. S-ortly a)ter/ t-e -eirs o) PereC caused an annotation o) an ad+erse claim in t-eir)a+or o+er 1;.1 -ectares o) t-e land co+ered by *$& P#;22. &-e -eirs o) PereC later )iled a)ormal protest. &-e in+estigation o) t-e Bureau o) 8ands s-o, t-at t-e )ree patent in )a+oro) Agunoy ,as indeed )raudulently obtained. espite t-e protest/ numerous transactionsregarding t-e land ,ere made on t-e Agunoy side subdi+ision o) t-e lots/ sales/mortgages causing t-e -eirs o) PereC to )ile a supplemental protest. *n in+estigation by t-e

Bureau o) 8ands/ it ,as )ound t-at an *$& )or t-e lot co+ered by t-e )ree patent alreadye:isted at t-e time o) t-e granting o) t-e )ree patent. &-ese )acts broug-t t-e Republic/t-roug- t-e *S(/ to )ile a case against se+eral de)endants ,-o are successors#in#interest o)Agunoy.

Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e Republic is a real party#in#interest

eld' &-e Republic is not t-e real party#in#interest. &o >uali)y a person to be a real party#in#interest in ,-ose name an action must be prosecuted/ -e must appear to be t-e presentreal o,ner o) t-e rig-t soug-t to be en)orced. As stated in t-e )acts/ t-e land soug-t to berecon+eyed in t-e Republic=s suit belongs to a pri+ate party by +irtue o) t-e *$& pre+iouslyissued to suc- party and is no longer a disposable public land at t-e time o) t-e )raudulentgranting o) )ree patent. &-e Republic t-en no longer -as a rig-t to t-e recon+eyance o) t-e

land.

Rio9erio v CA

%acts' Al)onso *r)inada Jr. died intestate and le)t properties in Angeles/ agupan andalooan. e -ad a ,i)e and se+en legitimate c-ildren. e also -ad a paramour/ ,it- ,-om-e -ad ? illegitimate c-ildren.

&-e legitimate c-ildren learned t-at t-e paramour/ along ,it- -er c-ildren/ e:ecuted an4:tra0udicial Settlement o) 4state o) a ecease Persond in+ol+ing t-e properties o) t-eir)at-er. As a conse>uence/ t-e deceasedEs land in agupan ,ere trans)erred under t-e nameo) t-e illegitimate c-ildren.

Al)onso III/ a legitimate c-ild o) t-e deceased/ )iled a Petition )or 8etters o) Administrationbe)ore t-e R&$ o) Angeles SP ;11D. Subse>uently/ t-e legitimate -eirs )ile a complaint toannul t-e e:tra0udicial settlement o) t-e estate o) t-eir deceased )at-er.

&-e illegitimate c-ildren assert t-at t-e real party#in#interest in t-e case )or annulment ist-e 4state o) Al)onso *r)inada/ and not -is legitimate c-ildren/ since administrationproceedings -a+e already been instituted.

&-e R&$ -eld t-at t-e legitimate c-ildren/ as -eirs/ are t-e real parties#in@interestespecially since no administrator -as yet been appointed in SP ;11D. Issue' 5-et-er or nott-e -eirs -a+e legal standing to prosecute t-e rig-ts belonging to t-e deceased subse>uent

to t-e commencement o) t-e administration proceedings. eld' eirs -a+e legal standing.4+en i) administration proceedings -a+e already been commenced/ t-e -eirs may still bringt-e suit i) an administrator -as not yet been appointed. &-e $ourt cited (oc-an + oung/stating' !o rule categorically addresses t-e situation in ,-ic- special proceedings )or t-esettlement o) an estate -a+e already been instituted/ yet no administrator -as beenappointed. In suc- instances/ t-e -eirs cannot be e:pected to ,ait )or t-e appointment o)an administrator/ t-en ,ait )urt-er to see i) t-e administrator appointed ,ould care enoug-to )ile a suit to protect t-e rig-ts and t-e interests o) t-e deceased and in t-e meantime donot-ing ,-ile t-e rig-ts and t-e properties o) t-e decedent are +iolated or dissipated.


13/34

&-ere)ore/ t-e rule t-at -eirs -a+e no legal standing to sue )or t-e reco+er o) t-e propertyo) t-e estate during t-e pendency o) admin proceedings no, -as t-ree e:ceptions'

1. i) t-e e:ecutor or administrator is un,illing or re)uses to bring suit2. ,-en t-e administrator is alleged to -a+e participated in t-e act complained o) and

-e is made a party de)endant?. ,-ere t-ere is no appointed administrator.

HEIRS O0 BERT8LO HINOG vs. )ELICOR

%A$&S'Balane brot-ers )iled a case against Bertuldo inog. &rial on t-e merits proceeded. inogdied. !e, counsel ,as -ired. inogEs ne, la,yer )iled a motion to -a+e t-e complaintagainst -is client e:punged )rom t-e records and t-e proceedings nulli)ied due to t-e )ailureo) t-e Balane brot-ers to pay t-e prescribed docet )ees. $ourt granted t-is motion/ butreinstated t-e case ,-en t-e Balane brot-ers paid t-e de)iciency docet )ees. &-erea)ter/inog )iled supplemental pleadings. A )e, mont-s t-erea)ter/ petitioner -eirs )iled ,it- t-eS$ a petition )or certiorari and pro-ibition/ alleging t-at t-e public respondent committed(A in allo,ing t-e case to be reinstated a)ter t-e Balane brot-ers paid t-e de)iciencydocet )ees since t-e &$ -ad earlier e:punged t-e complaint )rom t-e records and nulli)ied

t-e proceedings and t-e pri+ate respondents did not contest t-is. oreo+er/ t-ey argue t-att-e &$ committed (A in allo,ing t-e reinstatement o) t-e case despite t-e de)ect in t-ecomplaint ,-ic- prayed )or damages ,it-out speci)ying t-e amounts/ in +iolation o) an S$circular.

ISS34S'1 5-et-er or not direct resort to t-e S$ in t-is case ,as proper2 5-et-er or not t-e petitioners ,ere rig-t in c-allenging t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e courtto reinstate t-e case upon t-e payment o) t-e de)iciency docet )ees? 5-et-er or not reinstatement o) t-e present case ,as proper 5-et-er or not t-ere ,as proper substitution o) parties

48'1 irect resort to t-e S$ ,as !*& proper.Petitioners must obser+e t-e proper -ierarc-y o) courts. A direct in+ocation o) t-e S$Esoriginal 0urisdiction to issue t-ese ,rits s-ould be allo,ed only ,-en t-ere are special andimportant reasons t-ere)or/ clearly and speci)ically set out in t-e petition. &-e rationale )ort-is rule is t,o#)old' a it ,ould be an imposition upon t-e precious time o) t-is $ourt andb it ,ould cause an ine+itable and resultant delay/ intended or ot-er,ise/ in t-ead0udication o) cases/ ,-ic- in some instances -ad to be remanded or re)erred to t-e lo,ercourt as t-e proper )orum under t-e rules o) procedure/ or as better e>uipped to resol+e t-eissues because t-is $ourt is not a trier o) )acts. t-is case/ no special and important reasonor e:ceptional and compelling circumstance analogous to any o) t-e abo+e cases -as beenadduced by t-e petitioners so as to 0usti)y direct recourse to t-is $ourt. &-e present petitions-ould -a+e been initially )iled in t-e $ourt o) Appeals in strict obser+ance o) t-e doctrine on

t-e -ierarc-y o) courts. %ailure to do so is su))icient cause )or t-e dismissal o) t-e petition atbar.

2 Petitioners are estopped )rom c-allenging t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e &$.A)ter recogniCing t-e 0urisdiction o) t-e &$ by seeing a))irmati+e relie) in t-e motion toser+e a supplemental pleading upon pri+ate respondents/ petitioners are e))ecti+ely barredby estoppels )rom c-allenging t-is &$Es 0urisdiction. I) a party in+oed t-e 0urisdiction o) acourt/ -e cannot t-erea)ter c-allenge it in t-e same case. &o rule ot-er,ise ,ould amountto speculating in t-e )ortune o) litigation/ ,-ic- is against t-e policy o) t-e court.


14/34

? Reinstatement is proper

Plainly/ ,-ile t-e payment o) t-e prescribed docet )ee is a 0urisdictional re>uirement/ e+enits non#payment at t-e time o) )iling does not automatically cause t-e dismissal o) t-e case/as long as t-e )ee is paid ,it-in t-e applicable prescripti+e or reglementary period/ more so,-en t-e party in+ol+ed demonstrates a ,illingness to abide by t-e rules prescribing suc-

payment. &-us/ ,-en insu))icient )iling )ees ,ere initially paid by t-e plainti))s and t-ere ,asno intention to de)raud t-e go+ernment/ t-e anc-ester rule does not apply. 3nder t-epeculiar circumstances o) t-is case/ t-e reinstatement o) t-e complaint ,as 0ust and properconsidering t-at t-e cause o) action o) pri+ate respondents/ being a real action/ prescribesin t-irty years/ and pri+ate respondents did not really intend to e+ade t-e payment o) t-eprescribed docet )ee but simply contend t-at t-ey could not be )aulted )or inade>uateassessment because t-e cler o) court made no notice o) demand or reassessment. &-ey,ere in good )ait- and simply relied on t-e assessment o) t-e cler o) court.

&-ere ,as no proper substitution o) parties.

!o )ormal substitution o) t-e parties ,as e))ected ,it-in t-irty days )rom date o) deat- o)Bertuldo/ as re>uired by Section 16/ Rule ? o) t-e Rules o) $ourt. !eedless to stress/ t-e

purpose be-ind t-e rule on substitution is t-e protection o) t-e rig-t o) e+ery party to dueprocess. It is to ensure t-at t-e deceased party ,ould continue to be properly representedin t-e suit t-roug- t-e duly appointed legal representati+e o) -is estate. !on#compliance,it- t-e rule on substitution ,ould render t-e proceedings and 0udgment o) t-e trial courtin)irm because t-e court ac>uires no 0urisdiction o+er t-e persons o) t-e legalrepresentati+es or o) t-e -eirs on ,-om t-e trial and t-e 0udgment ,ould be binding. &-us/proper substitution o) -eirs must be e))ected )or t-e trial court to ac>uire 0urisdiction o+ert-eir persons and to ob+iate any )uture claim by any -eir t-at -e ,as not apprised o) t-elitigation against Bertuldo or t-at -e did not aut-oriCe Atty. Petalcorin to represent -im. &-elist o) names and addresses o) t-e -eirs ,as submitted si:teen mont-s a)ter t-e deat- o)Bertuldo and only ,-en t-e trial court directed Atty. Petalcorin to comply ,it- t-e pro+isionso) Section 16/ Rule ? o) t-e Rules o) $ourt. Strictly speaing t-ere)ore/ be)ore said

compliance/ Atty. Petalcorin -ad no standing in t-e court a >uo ,-en -e )iled -is pleadings.Be t-at as it may/ t-e matter -as been duly corrected by t-e *rder o) t-e trial court dated*ctober 1;/ 1999.

III. Venue - Rule 4

Ben:uet )ana:ement Corporation vs. CA

%acts'B$ and BPI entered into a 8oan Agreement and ortgage &rust Indenture ,-ereby B$loaned 19" Pesos ,it- a mortgage in )a+or o) BPI o+er lots in Alaminos/ 8aguna and Iba/

Tambales. B$ )ailed to pay ,-en it became due.BPI )iled an application )or e:tra0udicial)oreclosure be)ore R&$ Tambales. 8ater anot-er ,as )iled in San Pablo/ 8aguna ,it- acerti)ication t-at )oreclosure )ees ,ere paid by BPI in Iba/ Tambales already. B$ )iled inSan Pablo a re>uest not to gi+e due course to BPIEs application. It alleged insu))iciency in)orm and substance and because BPI included unaut-oriCed penalties and did not gi+et-em a 6"#day grace period. A complaint ,as )iled in Tambales ,it- similar a+erments.&-e)oreclosure in 8aguna pus-ed t-ru. B$ tried to stop t-e registration o) t-e properties. &-epayment o) )oreclosure )ees ,as >uestioned in relation to t-e legality o) t-e auction sale andas to t-e +enue o) t-e sale and more importantly as to )orum s-opping on t-e part o) B$


15/34

in )iling se+eral in0unction suits as its remedy against BPI.

Issue' 5-at )ees need t-e applicant in a )oreclosure o) a mortgage pay and ,-ere

eld'

&-e $ourt -eld t-at an applicant in an e:tra 0udicial )oreclosure o) mortgage under A.. !o.99#1"#";#" co+ering di))erent properties in di))erent pro+inces is re>uired to pay only one)iling )ee regardless o) t-e number o) properties to be )oreclosed so long as t-e applicationco+ers only one transaction or indebtedness payment o) )ees is J3RISI$&I*!A8. &-eUenue -o,e+er o) t-e e:tra0udicial proceedings is t-e place ,-ere eac- mortgaged propertyis located. B$ is not guilty o) )orum s-opping naturally as t-e +enue )or a+ailing a remedyagainst suc- proceedings is also located in di))erent pro+inces. &-ey ,ere e+en -onestenoug- to certi)y t-e pendency o) similar proceedings in t-e Tambales court.

Ban7 o9 Ameri/a NT ; SA v. CA

4duardo and Aurelio 8iton0ua o,ned 2 +essels and ,ere engaged in t-e s-ipping businesst-roug- t-eir ,-olly o,ned corporations. &-ey deposited t-eir re+enues ,it- branc-es o)

Ban o) America in t-e 3 and . &-e bans induced t-em to add s-ips in t-eir operation/o))ering easy loans. It ac>uired/ t-roug- 8iton0uasE corporation as borro,ers/ more s-ips.&-e operation and )unds deri+ed/ as ,ell as possession o) t-e s-ips/ ,ere placed under t-econtrol o) t-e persons designated by t-e ban.

ue to t-e bansE breac- o) )iduciary duties andQor negligence in t-e operation o) t-e 6+essels/ t-e re+enues deri+ed )rom t-e operation o) all t-e +essels declined drastically. &-eloans ,ere not paid prompting t-e bans to -a+e all 6 +essels )oreclosed. &-e 8iton0uas alsolost/ )rom t-eir personal )unds/ e>ui+alent to 1"V o) t-e ac>uisition cost o) t-e +esselsand ,ere le)t ,it- t-e unpaid balance o) t-eir loans ,it- t-e bans.

&-e 8iton0uas claim t-at/ as trustees/ t-e bans did not )ully render an account o) t-e

income deri+ed )rom t-e business and t-e proceeds o) t-e subse>uent )oreclosure sale.&-ey )iled a complaint ,it- t-e R&$ o) Pasig/ praying )or an accounting o) t-e re+enuesderi+ed in t-e operation and o) t-e proceeds o) )oreclosure proceedings/ as ,ell as damages)or breac- o) trust. &-e bans )iled a otion to ismiss on grounds o) )orum noncon+eniens. &-e R&$ and $A denied t-e bansE motions.

Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e complaint be dismissed on t-e ground o) )orum non#con+eniens

eld'

!o/ t-e complaint s-ould not be dismissed.&-e doctrine o) )orum non#con+eniens/ literally meaning Wt-e )orum is incon+enientE/ aims todeter t-e practice o) global )orum s-opping/ t-at is to pre+ent non#resident litigants )rom

c-oosing t-e )orum or place ,-erein to bring t-eir suit )or malicious reasons/ suc- as tosecure procedural ad+antages/ to annoy and -arass t-e de)endant/ to a+oid o+ercro,deddocets/ or to select a more )riendly +enue. 3nder t-is doctrine/ a court/ in con)licts o) la,cases/ may re)use impositions on its 0urisdiction ,-ere it is not t-e most Kcon+enientL ora+ailable )orum and t-e parties are not precluded )rom seeing remedies else,-ere.

5-et-er a suit s-ould be entertained or dismissed on t-e basis o) said doctrine dependslargely upon t-e )acts o) t-e particular case and is addressed to t-e sound discretion o) t-etrial court. A P-ilippine $ourt may assume 0urisdiction o+er t-e case i) it c-ooses to do so/


16/34

pro+ided t-at t-e )ollo,ing re>uisites are met' 1 t-at t-e P-ilippine $ourt is one to ,-ic-t-e parties may con+eniently resort to 2 t-at t-e P-ilippine $ourt is in a position to maean intelligent decision as to t-e la, and t-e )acts and/ ? t-at t-e P-ilippine $ourt -as oris liely to -a+e po,er to en)orce its decision.L All t-ese re>uisites are present in t-e instantcase.

CAB8TIHAN vs. LANCENTER CONSTR8CTION

%acts'*n ecember ?/ 1996/ respondent 8andcenter entered into a contract ,it- petitioner$abuti-an. &-e agreement stipulated t-at t-e petitioner ,ould assist t-e respondent in)acilitating and arranging t-e reco+ery o) certain properties in consideration )or 2"V o) t-etotal area o) t-e property t-us reco+ered. &-e respondent breac-ed t-e agreement.Petitioner )iled an action )or speci)ic per)ormance ,it- damages. Respondent )iled a motionto dismiss on t-e ground t-at +enue ,as improperly laid. &-e respondent asserts t-at sincet-e present case )iled by t-e petitioner is )or t-e reco+ery o) -er interest in t-e respondentcorporationEs land/ t-en t-e action ,as in rem/ t-us according to Rule Section 1/ t-e cases-ould -a+e been )iled in t-e court -a+ing 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect property. &-erespondent also argued t-at t-ere ,as a mis0oinder or non#0oinder o) parties to t-e case

and t-at t-e paid )iling )ee ,as insu))icient.Issue' ,as +enue properly laideld' 5e agree ,it- petitioner. Sections 1 and 2/ Rule o) t-e Rules o) $ourt pro+ide anans,er to t-e issue o) +enue. Actions a))ecting title to or possession o) real property or aninterest t-erein real actions/ s-all be commenced and tried in t-e proper court t-at -asterritorial 0urisdiction o+er t-e area ,-ere t-e real property is situated. *n t-e ot-er -and/all ot-er actions/ personal actions s-all be commenced and tried in t-e proper courts,-ere t-e plainti)) or any o) t-e principal plainti))s resides or ,-ere t-e de)endant or any o)t-e principal de)endants resides.

&-e $ourt reiterated t-e rule t-at a case )or speci)ic per)ormance ,it- damages is a

personal action/ ,-ic- may be )iled in a court ,-ere any o) t-e parties reside.In t-e present case/ petitioner sees payment o) -er ser+ices in accordance ,it- t-eundertaing t-e parties signed. Breac- o) contract gi+es rise to a cause o) action )or speci)icper)ormance or )or rescission. I) petitioner -ad )iled an action in rem )or t-e con+eyance o)real property/ t-e dismissal o) t-e case ,ould -a+e been proper on t-e ground o) lac o)cause o) action.

!eit-er a mis0oinder nor a non#0oinder o) parties is a ground )or t-e dismissal o) an action.Parties may be dropped or added by order o) t-e court/ on motion o) any party or on t-ecourtEs o,n initiati+e at any stage o) t-e action.

&rue/ Section ;/ Rule 11 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt re>uires t-at t-e assessed +alue o) t-e realestate/ sub0ect o) an action/ s-ould be considered in computing t-e )iling )ees. But t-e $ourt

-as already clari)ied t-at t-e Rule does not apply to an action )or speci)ic per)ormance/,-ic- is classi)ied as an action not capable o) pecuniary estimation.

ROOL0O 3. $AO 3. CO8RT O0 APPEALS AN PERICO 3. $AO

%acts' Rodol)o and Perico ,ere t-e sons and -eirs o) Spouses Ignacio Jao &ayag and Andrea+. Jao ,-o died intestate on 19DD and 19D9/ respecti+ely. &-e decedents le)t real estate/cas-/ s-ares o) stoc and ot-er personal properties. Perico t-en instituted a petition in R&$XueCon $ity X$ )or t-e issuance o) letters o) administration o+er t-e estate o) t-eir


17/34

parents/ alleging among ot-er t-ings/ t-at -is brot-er Roberto ,as dissipating t-e estateEsassets and ,as recei+ing rentals )rom se+eral properties ,it-out rendering t-e necessaryaccounting and )orcibly opening +aults and disposing o) t-e cas- and +aluables t-erein.Rodol)o mo+ed to dismiss & t-e petition on t-e ground o) improper +enue. e allegedt-at t-e petition s-ould -a+e been instituted in Angeles $ity/ Pampanga A$ ,-ere t-eirmot-er used to run a baery and truly reside. e submitted documentary e+idence

pre+iously e:ecuted by t-eir parents suc- as income ta: returns/ +oterEs a))ida+its/statement o) assets and liabilities/ real estate ta: payments/ +e-icle registration andpassports/ all indicating t-at t-eir residence ,as in A$. Perico countered t-at t-e residenceat t-e time o) deat- ,as in X$/ as t-eir parents ,-o ,ere already undergoing medicaltreatment in t-e edical $ity in andaluyong -a+e been staying in Rodol)oEs -ouse in X$ )or)our years and t-at in t-eir deat- certi)icates/ Rodol)o -imsel)/ )illed in as place o) residence/-is address in X$ and t-erea)ter/ a))i:ed -is signature. Rodol)o )iled a re0oinder andasserted t-at -e only put -is address as re)erence and t-at -e did so by mistae and ingood )ait- and )urt-er maintaining t-at it is A$ and not X$ t-at s-ould be t-e proper +enue.3pon t-e )ailure o) bot- parties to nominate )or t-e estateEs administrator/ t-e courtappointed $arlos Sundiam and denied Rodol)oEs &/ )urt-er ruling t-at -e cannot diso,n-is o,n representations by taing an inconsistent position on -is o,n admission. Uiapetition )or $ertiorari/ Rodol)o appealed and t-e $A a))irmed t-e denial. %R ,as also

denied.

ISS34' 54R4 S*38 &4 S4&&844!& PR*$44I!(S B4 A### I! A$/ 54R4 &4PAR4!&SQ4$44!&S A &4IR P4RA!4!& R4SI4!$4 *R I! X$/ 54R4 &4A$&3A88 S&A4 B4%*R4 &4IR 4IS4

48'

&-e estate o) an in-abitant o) t-e P-ilippines s-all be settled or letters o) administrationgranted in t-e proper court located in t-e pro+ince ,-ere t-e decedent resides at t-e timeo) -is deat-. Sec. 1/ Rule 7?/ Ro$.

Rodol)oEs contention in+oing t-e case o) 4usebio +. 4usebio ,as misplaced as t-e )actst-erein di))ered )rom t-e case at bar. 3nlie in 4usebio/ t-ere is substantial proo) t-at t-edecedents -a+e trans)erred to REs X$ residence and ot-er )actors indicate t-at t-eir stay,as more t-an temporary. Rodol)o )ailed to su))iciently re)ute PericoEs assertion t-at t-eirelderly parents stayed in REs -ouse )or some t-ree to )our years be)ore t-ey died in t-e late19D"s.

%urt-ermore/ t-e decedentsE respecti+e deat- certi)icates state t-at t-ey ,ere bot-residents o) XueCon $ity at t-e time o) t-eir demise. Signi)icantly/ it ,as Rodol)o -imsel),-o )illed up -is late mot-erEs deat- certi)icate. &o t-e S$/ t-is un>uali)iedly s-o,s t-at att-at time/ at least/ R recogniCed -is deceased mot-erEs residence to be X$.

P,ilippine Ban7 o9 Communi/ations vs. Lim

P-ilippine Ban o) $ommunications )iled a complaint against 8im et.al/ )or t-e collection o) ade)iciency amounting to P e:clusi+e o) interest. PB$ alleged t-at 8im et.al obtained a loan)rom it and e:ecuted a continuing surety agreement in )a+or o) PB$ )or all loans/ credits/etc./ t-at ,ere e:tended or may be e:tended in t-e )uture to 8im et. It ,as e:presslystipulated t-erein t-at t-e +enue )or any legal action t-at may arise out o) said promissorynote s-all be aati $ity/ Wto t-e e:clusion o) all ot-er courts. 8im et )ailed to pay/ -encet-is case. 8im mo+ed to dismiss t-e complaint on t-e ground o) improper +enuecase ,as)iled in anila/ in+oing t-e stipulation contained in t-e last paragrap- o) t-e promissory


18/34

note ,it- respect to t-e restricti+eQe:clusi+e +enue. otion denied. $A re+ersed R&$. PB$appeals.

Issue' 5*! a restricti+e stipulation on t-e +enue o) actions contained in a promissory noteapplies to t-e surety agreement supporting it

Ruling' It s-ould.

A restricti+e stipulation on t-e +enue o) actions contained in a promissory note applies tot-e surety agreement supporting it/ because t-e nature o) t-e t,o contracts and t-e )actualcircumstances surrounding t-eir e:ecution are intert,ined or interconnected. &-e suretyagreement is merely an accessory to t-e principal loan agreement embodied in t-epromissory note. ence/ t-e en)orcement o) t-e )ormer depends upon t-e latter. Suretys-iparises upon t-e solidary binding o) a person ## deemed t-e surety ## ,it- t-e principaldebtor/ )or t-e purpose o) )ul)illing an obligation. &-e prestation is not an original and directobligation )or t-e per)ormance o) t-e suretyEs o,n act/ but merely accessory or collateral tot-e obligation contracted by t-e principal. Alt-oug- t-e surety contract is secondary to t-eprincipal obligation/ t-e surety assumes liability as a regular party to t-e undertaing. Inen)orcing a surety contract/ t-e Kcomplementary#contracts#construed@toget-erL doctrine

)inds application. F2?Y According to t-is principle/ an accessory contract must be read in itsentirety and toget-er ,it- t-e principal agreement.N2O &-is principle is used in construingcontractual stipulations in order to arri+e at t-eir true meaning certain stipulations cannotbe segregated and t-en made to control.N2;O &-is no#segregation principle is based onArticle 1?7 o) t-e $i+il $ode/ ,-ic- ,e >uote' KArt. 1?7. &-e +arious stipulations o) acontract s-all be interpreted toget-er/ attributing to t-e doubt)ul ones t-at sense ,-ic- mayresult )rom all o) t-em taen 0ointly.L &-e a)orementioned doctrine is applicable to t-epresent case. Incapable o) standing by itsel)/ t-e SA can be en)orced only in con0unction,it- t-e P!. &-e latter documents t-e debt t-at is soug-t to be collected in t-e actionagainst t-e sureties. PB$ argues based on Section ; o) Rule 2 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt.o,e+er/ t-e cause o) action/ -o,e+er/ does not a))ect t-e +enue o) t-e action.

Pilipino Telep,one Corporation vs. Te/son

%acts'

&ecson applied )or si: 6 cellular p-one subscriptions ,it- Pilipino &elep-one/ ,-ic- ,ereappro+ed by si: 6 mobile ser+ice agreements. A)ter a )e, years/ &ecson )iled a complaintagainst Pilipino &elep-one )or A Sum *) oney in R&$ 8anao del !orte. Pilipino &elep-onemo+ed )or t-e dismissal o) t-e complaint on t-e ground o) improper +enue/ citing apro+ision in t-e mobile ser+ice agreement t-at all +enue o) suits arising )rom suc-Agreement s-all be broug-t to t-e aati $ourts/ ,it- t-e subscriber e:pressly ,ai+ing allot-er +enues.

Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e case s-ould be litigated in 8anao del !orte despite pro+ision in

t-e mobile ser+ice agreement t-at suits bet,een suc- parties be litigated in aati $ity

eld'

&-e suit in 8anao s-ould be dismissed )or improper +enue. Section / Rule o) t-e Re+isedRules o) $i+il Procedure allo,s parties to agree and stipulate in ,riting/ be)ore t-e )iling o)an action/ on t-e e:clusi+e +enue o) any litigation bet,een t-em. Suc- an agreement ,ouldbe +alid and binding pro+ided t-at t-e stipulation on t-e c-osen +enue is e:clusi+e in natureor in intent/ t-at it is e:pressed in ,riting by t-e parties t-ereto/ and t-at it is entered into


19/34

be)ore t-e )iling o) t-e suit. &-e pro+ision in t-e obile Ser+ice Agreement concerningaati $ourts as to t-e +enue o) suits complies ,it- t-e a)orementioned re>uisites. &-elo,er courtEs ruling on t-e agreement as to +enue as not binding on &ecson because it is acontract o) ad-esion is o) no moment. $ontracts o) ad-esion are not per se ine))icacious. Itis only struc do,n ,-en suc- contracts lea+e t-e ,eaer party ,it- no c-oice by t-edominant bargaining party. Suc- is not present in t-is case. Respondent secured si: 6

subscription contracts )or cellular p-ones. &ecson -ad su))icient opportunity to read and goo+er t-e terms and conditions embodied in t-e agreements.Suit is dismissed )or improper +enue.

IV. Summary Procedure - Rule 5

$ALI


20/34

ans,er. &-us/ t-ey ,ere declared in de)ault. *n January 2"/ 1992/ 2D days a)ter t-e e:piration o) t-e period to ans,er/ Atty.

Uitan/ counsel )or petitioners/ )iled a Kotion to 8i)t *rder o) e)ault.L &-e motion,as denied. *n 2? arc- 1992/ a decision ,as rendered by t-e &$ againstpetitioners.

!o appeal ,as )iled resulting in t-e issuance o) a ,rit o) e:ecution.

S-eri)) ser+ed t-e ,rit o) e:ecution ,it- respect to t-e e0ectment aspect o) t-e case. Relati+e to t-e monetary aspect/ s-eri)) le+ied upon se,ing mac-ines and ot-er

personal properties. Sale did not materialiCe due to an order

sc-eduled sale did not materialiCe due to an order o) 4:ecuti+e Judge in connection

,it- t-e Petition )or Relie) )rom Judgment o) t-e &$ decision ,it- preliminaryin0unction and restraining order )iled by petitioners ,it- t-e aati Regional &rial$ourt.

In t-e petition )or relie) )rom 0udgment/ petitioners Siasat and *ng blamed Atty.

Uitan )or t-e alleged negligence and bad )ait- in causing t-em to be in de)ault and in)ailing to appeal.

*n 2; ay 1992/ t-e R&$ issued t-e ,rit o) preliminary in0unction/ en0oining t-e

s-eri)) )rom proceeding ,it- t-e auction sale o) t-e personal properties o) Siasat.

Issue' 5-et-er t-ere e:ist genuine issues o) material )acts constituti+e o) petitionersEsubstantial and meritorious claim.

eld'

&-e case at bar arose )rom Ka simple e0ectmentL o) petitioners )rom t-e leased premisesinitiated in t-e etropolitan &rial $ourt/ aati. &-e Re+ised Rule on Summary Procedureco+ers all e0ectment cases/ regardless o) ,-et-er t-ey in+ol+e >uestions o) o,ners-ip.3nder t-at Rule/ a petition )or relie) )rom 0udgment is a pro-ibited pleading. ence/ a partyto an e0ectment suit in t-e municipal trial court may not )ile suc- pleading in t-e regionaltrial court.

Boni9a/io La= O99i/e vs. Bellosillo

%acts'

Atty. Salomon o) t-e Boni)acio 8a, *))ice c-arged t-en acting Judge Bellosillo ,it-ignorance o) t-e la,/ gra+e abuse o) discretion/ and ob+ious partiality. &-e respondentissued an *rder re)erring t-e e0ectment case bac to t-e barangay )or conciliationproceedings despite t-e copy o) t-e $erti)ication to %ile otion attac-ed to t-e +eri)iedcomplaint. $omplainant assailed t-e said *rder. &-e $ourt insisted t-at t-e case be re)erredbac to t-e barangay and -ence/ t-e complainant decided to 0ust )ile a notice to ,it-dra,complaint. o,e+er/ t-e said dismissal ,as denied.

It ,as only a)ter a year )rom t-e time t-e complaint ,as )iled t-at respondent ordered t-esummons be ser+ed on de)endants. 5-en de)endants )ailed to )ile an Ans,er/ -e )iled aotion to Render Judgment in accordance ,it- t-e pro+isions o) Sec. ; o) t-e Rules onSummary Procedure. o,e+er/ instead o) rendering 0udgment/ respondent merely re>uiredde)endants to comment on t-e motion to render 0udgment. A)ter de)endants )iled t-eircomment/ respondent still did not act on t-e said motion. Issue' S-ould t-e 0udge be -eldadministrati+ely liable )or ignorance o) t-e la,/ gra+e abuse o) discretion/ and ob+iouspartiality eld' &-e records s-o, t-at t-e $erti)ication to %ile Action ,as improperly and


21/34

prematurely issued as t-ere ,as no personal con)rontation be)ore a duly constitutedPangat ng &agapagasndo. ence/ respondent ,as not incorrect in remanding t-e case tot-e barangay )or completion o) t-e mandated proceedings. is act cannot be e>uated ,it-gross ignorance o) t-e la,. &-e 0udge issued summons and opted to continue ,it- t-e courtproceedings ,it-out insisting on strict compliance ,it- t-e mandated barangay proceedings.e did so a)ter noting t-at t-e case )ell under t-e Rules on Summary Proceedure. Suc- act

o) t-e 0udge is a 0udicial error and cannot be corrected in administrati+e proceedings.

Because -e c-ose to continue ,it- t-e proceedings o) t-e case/ and because respondents)ailed to ans,er t-e e0ectment $omplaint on time/ -e s-ould -a+e rendered 0udgment ,it-in?" days )rom t-e e:piration o) t-e period to )ile an ans,er. Sec. 6 and 1"/ Rules onSummary Proceedings e rendered 0udgment almost a year )rom t-e time t-e case -adbeen deemed submitted )or resolution.

%ailure o) 0udges to decide cases ,it- dispatc- constitutes gross ine))iciency and ,arrantst-e imposition o) administrati+e sanctions on t-em.&-e respondent ,as )ound guilty o) undue delay in rendering a decision.

0RANCISCA PASC8AL vs. $8GE E8ARO $O3ELLANOS

%acts'

&-e complainant/ %rancisca Pascual/ )iled a complaint )or )orcible entry against 8orenCoanaois. At )irst/ it ,as dismissed )or being insu))icient in some material allegations. A)ter)iling a corrected complaint/ t-e de)endant instead o) )iling an ans,er )iled a otion toStrie *ut saying t-at t-e ne, allegations ,ere )alse. As t-e period to ans,er lapsed,it-out t-e de)endant -a+ing )iled one/ Pascual )iled a otion )or Summary Judgment o),-ic- t-e de)endant opposed. Judge Jo+ellanos granted t-e otion to Strie *ut o) t-ede)endant. Pascual )iled a otion )or Reconsideration. &-is led to t-e )iling o) t-eadministrati+e complaint c-arging t-e 0udge ,it- gross ignorance o) t-e la,/ bias andpartiality/ abuse o) discretion and neglect o) duty. ean,-ile/ t-e de)endant too ad+antage

o) t-e situation by starting t-e construction o) a building. Pascual )iled an Application o)Preliminary In0unction ,-ic- ,as granted by t-e Judge. *n t-e last day o) t-e e))ecti+ity o)t-e &R*/ s-e )iled an 4:tremely 3rgent 4:#Parte otion to grant -er application )orin0unction ,-ic- ,as -o,e+er until t-e promulgation o) t-is S$ decision -as not been ruledupon by t-e Judge.

Issue' 5*! t-e Judge may be -eld liable )or t-e c-arges mentioned in t-e administrati+ecomplaint )iled against -im.

eld'

*$A/ a)ter its in+estigation/ )ound t-at t-e respondent Judge indeed )ailed to apply t-e Ruleon Summary Procedure and recommended t-at -e be )ined P1"/"""."" and be ,arned.

o,e+er/ t-e S$/ not,it-standing its agreement ,it- t-e )indings o) t-e *$A/ increased t-epenalty as t-is ,as t-e respondentEs second in)raction.

&-e S$ )ound t-at Judge Jo+ellanos lacs t-e a,areness o) t-e rele+ant pro+isions one0ectment. e -as e+idently been remiss in resol+ing t-e )orcible entry case/ pursuant tot-e Re+ised Rules on Summary Procedure. &-e 0udgment s-ould -a+e bee rendered basedon t-e allegations o) t-e $omplaint an t-e e+idence presented t-erein/inasmuc- as t-ede)endant )ailed to )ile -is ans,er a)ter t-e lapse o) 1" days )rom t-e ser+ice o) t-esummons. Sec. 6 allo,s t-e $ourt to render 0udgment/ e+en motu propio/ upon )ailure o)


22/34

t-e de)endant to )ile an ans,er ,it-in t-e reglementary period. oreo+er/ under Sec. 1"/respondent ,as duty#bound to render -is decision ,it-in ?" days )rom receipt o) t-e lasta))ida+its and position papers/ or t-e e:piration o) t-e period )or )iling t-em. %urt-er/respondent )ailed to apply t-ese +ery basic rules ,-en -e granted t-e de)endantEs otion toStrie *ut ,-ic- ,as in reality a otion to ismiss/ a pro-ibited pleading. 8ie,ise in t-e*rder -e issued ,-en -e ruled t-at t-e complaint in $i+il $ase !o. 7" ,as a mere re-as-

o) t-e dismissed complaint in $i+il $ase !o. 7?"/ -e cited t-at Sec. 12 o) Rule D as -isbasis. &-is is an ob+ious mistae s-o,ing gross ignorance o) t-e la, because )orcible entryis a ci+il case go+erned by t-e Rules on Summary Procedure. 8ac o) no,ledge o) t-eRules on Summary Procedure re)lects a serious degree o) incompetence.

Bo% vs. Court o9 Appeals (ROBLES

%acts'

8agrimas Boy 8agrimas sold -er -ouse and lot to t-e Ramos Spouses. &-ey agreed t-at8agrimas be gi+en time to +acate t-e premises/ but ,-en time came t-e Ramos spousesneeded t-e -ouse/ t-ey demanded 8agrimas to +acate t-e premises/ but s-e re)used to doso. ence/ t-e Ramos spouses initiated an action )or e0ectment against 8agrimas in t-e

etropolitan &rial $ourt e&$.

8agrimas de)ense ,as t-at s-e still o,ned t-e sub0ect property because t-e Ramos spousesallegedly -ad not yet paid t-e remaining balance. S-e contends t-at because o) t-e issue o)o,ners-ip/ t-e e&$ is ,it-out 0urisdiction to -ear t-e e0ectment case.

Issue' 5-et-er or not t-e 8agrimas= de)ense o) o,ners-ip di+ests t-e &$ o) t-e0urisdiction to -ear t-e e0ectment case.

eld'

!o. Prior to t-e e))ecti+ity o) B.P. Blg. 129 &-e Judiciary ReorganiCation Act/ t-e

0urisdiction o) in)erior courts ,as con)ined to recei+ing e+idence o) o,ners-ip in order todetermine only t-e nature and e:tent o) possession/ by reason o) ,-ic- suc- 0urisdiction,as lost t-e moment t-at it became apparent t-at t-e issue o) possession ,as ,o+en ,it-t-at o) o,ners-ip. 5it- t-e enactment o) B.P. Blg. 129/ in)erior courts ,ere granted0urisdiction to resol+e >uestions o) o,nders-ip pro+isionally in order to determine t-e issueo) possession. &-us/ in )orcible entry and unla,)ul detainer cases/ i) t-e de)endant raisest-e >uestion o) o,ners-ip in -is pleadings and t-e >uestion o) possession cannot beresol+ed ,it-out deciding t-e isssue o) o,ners-ip/ t-e in)erior courts may pro+isionallyresol+e t-e issue o) o,ners-ip )or t-e sole purpose o) determining t-e issue o) possession.&-e &$ did not/ t-ere)ore/ err in taing cogniCance o) t-e instant case.


23/34

Petitioners )iled a complaint ,it- t-e $&$ ,it- prayer )or t-e issuance o) a ,rit o)e:ecution o) t-e compromise agreement ,-ic- ,as denied because t-e sub0ect propertycannot be determined ,it- certainty. R&$ re+ersed t-e decision and ordered t-e issuance o)t-e ,rit o) e:ecution. $A re+ersed t-e decision o) t-e R&$ and reinstated t-e decision o) t-e$&$.

Issue'1 5-et-er t-e amicable settlement bet,een t-e parties is +alid and en)orceable.2 5-et-er a ,rit o) e:ecution may issue on t-e basis o) t-e amicable settlement.

eld'1 4S. &-ere ,as meeting o) t-e minds bet,een t-e contracting parties. In e:ecuting t-eAgreement/ t-e respondent undertoo to con+ey 1 -ectare o) land to petitioners ,-oaccepted. &-e ob0ect is a 1 -ectare parcel o) land representing petitioners= in-eritance )romt-eir deceased grandmot-er. &-e cause o) t-e contract is t-e deli+ery o) petitioners= s-arein t-e in-eritance. &-e inability o) t-e municipal court to identi)y t-e e:act location o) t-ein-erited property did not negate t-e principal ob0ect o) t-e contract. &-is is merely an erroroccationed by t-e )ailure o) t-e parties to de:cribe t-e sub0ect ptoperty/ ,-ic- is correctible

by re)ormation and does not indicate t-e absence o) t-e principal ob0ect as to render t-econtract +oid.

2 !*. (enerally/ ,-ere no repudiation ,as made during t-e 1"#day period/ t-e amicablesettlement attains t-e status o) )inality and it becomes t-e ministerial duty o) t-e court toimplement and en)orce it. o,e+er/ suc- rule is not in)le:ible. &-e imperati+es o)substantial 0ustice/ or )acts t-at may -a+e transpired a)ter t-e )inality o) 0udgment ,-ic-,ould render its e:ecution un0ust/ may ,arrant t-e suspension o) e:ecution o) a decisiont-at -as become )inal and e:ecutory. In t-e case at bar/ t-e ends o) 0ustice ,ould be)rustrated i) a ,rit o) e:ecution is issued considering t-e uncertainty o) t-e ob0ect o) t-eagreement. &o do so ,ould open t-e possibility o) error and )uture litigations.

&-e Agreement e:ecuted by Ar0ona purports to con+ey a parcel o) land consisting o) moreor less 1 -ectare to petitioners. Anot-er Agreement/ prepared on t-e same date ande:ecuted by Banda ,-o signi)ied -is intention to +acate t-e parcel o) land -e ,as tillinglocated at &orrod/ 8abney/ Pangasinan/ )or and in be-al) o) t-e Ar0ona )amily. *n ocularinspection -o,e+er/ t-e municipal trial court )ound t-at t-e land re)erred to in t-e secondAgreement ,as di))erent )rom t-e land being occupied by t-e petitioners. ence/ no ,rit o)e:ecution could be issued )or )ailure to determine ,it- certainty ,-at parcel o) land Ar0onaintended to con+ey.

V. Preliminary Conference

Macasaet v.Macasaet, G.R.Nos. 154391-92, September 30, 2004

%A$&S'&-e present case in+ol+es a dispute bet,een parents respondents Uicente and Rosarioacasaet and c-ildren petitioners Ismael and &eresita acasaet. &-e c-ildren ,erein+ited by t-e parents to occupy t-e latterEs t,o lots/ out o) parental lo+e and a desire to)oster )amily solidarity. 3n)ortunately/ an unresol+ed con)lict terminated t-is situation. *uto) pi>ue/ t-e parents ased t-em to +acate t-e premises and )iled an e0ectment suit ,it-t-e &$$. &-e &$$ ruled in )a+or o) respondents/ t-us t-e c-ildren lost t-eir rig-t toremain on t-e property. *n appeal/ t-e R&$ up-eld t-e )indings o) t-e &$$/ but appliedArticle D o) t-e $i+il $ode petitioners -a+e t-e rig-t to be indemni)ied )or t-e usual


24/34

impro+ements t-at t-ey constructed in good )ait-. 3pon denial o) t-eir indi+idual rs/ t-eparties )iled ,it- t-e $A separate Petitions )or Re+ie,/ ,-ic- ,ere later consolidated.

Petitioners claim t-at t-e &$$ s-ould -a+e dismissed t-e case upon t-e )ailure o)respondents to attend t-e con)erence. o,e+er/ petitioners do not dispute t-at an attorney#in#)act ,it- a ,ritten aut-oriCation )rom respondents appeared during t-e preliminary

con)erence.

ISS34' 5-et-er or not t-e rule on appearance o) parties during t-e Pretrial s-ould apply onappearance o) parties during Preliminary $on)erence in an unla,)ul detainer suit. 5-et-ert-e rules on e0ectment allo, a representati+e to substitute )or a partyEs personalappearance.

48'

es/ it s-ould apply. Section D o) Rule 7" o) t-e R*$ re>uires t-e appearance o) t-e plainti))and t-e de)endant during t-e preliminary con)erence. 3nless inconsistent ,it- Rule 7"/ t-epro+isions o) Rule 1D on pretrial applies to t-e preliminary con)erence. 3nder Sec o) t-isRule/ t-e non#appearance o) a party may be e:cused by t-e s-o,ing o) a +alid cause or by

t-e appearance o) a representati+e/ ,-o -as been )ully aut-oriCed in ,riting to enter into anamicable settlement/ to submit to alternati+e modes o) dispute resolution/ and to enter intostipulations or admissions o) )acts and o) documents. Section o) Rule 1D may supplementSection D o) Rule 7". &-us/ t-e spirit be-ind t-e e:ception to personal appearance under t-erules on pretrial is applicable to t-e preliminary con)erence. I) t-ere are +alid reasons o) i) arepresentati+e -as a Kspecial aut-ority/L a partyEs appearance may be ,ai+ed. As petitionersare c-allenging only t-e applicability o) t-e rules on pretrial to t-e rule on preliminarycon)erence/ t-e ,ritten aut-oriCation )rom respondents can indeed be really considered as aKspecial aut-oriCation.L

Tu:ot vs. Coli9lores -" SCRA 1 (3ILLA)OR

%acts'

&-is case is rooted in an administrati+e case against Judge amerto $oli)lores )iled by oneRodrigo &ugot/ plainti)) in an e0ectment case.

Among t-e c-arges against t-e 0udge ,as t-at $oli)lores )ailed to conduct t-e preliminarycon)erence ,it-in t-e period mandated by t-e Rules o) $ourt. %or ,-ile in -is August 2D/199; order -e acno,ledged t-e )iling o) t-e last pleading/ sc-eduled t-e Kpre#trialcon)erenceL )or September 26/ 199; and directed t-e parties to submit t-eir KPre#&rialBrie)sL t-ree days be)ore t-e -earing/ -e/ -o,e+er/ noted t-e )iling o) de)endantEs Pre#&rialBrie)/ only in -is *rder dated !o+ember 11/ 1997 a period o) o+er t,o years. Judge$oli)lores based t-e delayed setting o) t-e preliminary con)erence on t-e pro+isions o) Rule1D on pre#trial stating t-at suc- s-ould be conducted a)ter t-e last pleading -as been

ser+ed and )iled and upon e: parte motion o) t-e plainti)) t-at t-e case be set )or pre#trial.Plainti)) &ugot/ on t-e ot-er -and/ culled upon Section D o) Rule 7".

Issue' 5-et-er or not Judge $oli)lores is liable )or administrati+e c-arges )or )ailure todemonstrate t-e re>uired competence in administrating t-e e0ectment case +is#Z#+is t-econduct o) preliminary con)erence

eld'


25/34

es. It must be noted t-at unla,)ul detainer and )orcible entry cases are co+ered bysummary procedure. Accordingly/ tec-nicalities or details o) procedure s-ould be care)ullya+oided. Judge $oli)lores )ailed to obser+e t-e period ,it-in ,-ic- to conduct preliminarycon)erence ,-ic-/ according to Section D o) Rule 7"/ s-all be -eld KFnYot later t-an t-irty?" days a)ter t-e last ans,er is )iled.L In t-e present case/ t-e preliminary con)erence ,asconducted more t-an t,o years a)ter t-e )iling o) t-e last ans,er.

&-e respondent 0udge ,as mistaen in Kt-iningL t-at Rule 1D on pre#trial ,as t-e pro+isionapplicable to e0ectment cases. Section D o) Rule 7" allo,s t-e application o) Rule 1D/ butonly ,-ere t-e pro+isions o) t-e latter are consistent ,it- t-ose o) t-e )ormer/ being merelysecondary t-ereto. It must be emp-asiCed t-at t-e adoption o) t-e Rule on SummaryProcedure is part o) t-e commitment o) t-e 0udiciary to en)orce t-e constitutional rig-t o)litigants to a speedy disposition o) t-eir cases. It ,as promulgated )or t-e purpose o)ac-ie+ing Kan e:peditious and ine:pensi+e determination o) casesL. Any member o) t-e0udiciary ,-o causes t-e delay soug-t to be pre+ented by t-e Rule is sanctionable.VI. PLEADINGS - Rules 6 to

BPI vs. CA& NLRC

%acts'

9 ,orers )iled a $omplaint against BPI and iarEs Assistance/ Inc. agency )or t-eregulariCation o) t-eir ,or status. uring t-e pendency o) t-e case/ t-e 9 ,orers prayed)or t-e inclusion o) 121 more as complainants a)ter t-e latter -ad signi)ied t-eir intention to0oin t-e union. &-erea)ter/ t-e $omplaint ,as amended and t-e name o) t-e complainantc-anged to t-at o) t-e organiCation/ iarEs 4mployees 8abor 3nion 3nion and prayed t-att-e employment status o) t-eir members be regulariCed by BPI. 8abor Arbiter dismissed t-e$omplaint. !8R$ a))irms. &-e 3nion )iled a ne, $omplaint )or t-e declaration o) itsmembers as regular employees o) BPI. A)ter 8abor Arbiter dismissed t-e case )or lac o)merit/ t-e union appealed to t-e !8R$. BPI and t-e agency opposed t-e appeal and

interposed )orum s-opping as one o) t-eir de)enses. &-e !8R$ set aside t-e labor arbiterEsecision and declared complainants as regular employees o) BPI and on t-e issue o) )orums-opping/ it ruled t-at t-e complainants in t-e )irst case are not t-e same complainants int-is t-ird case. Alt-oug- t-e causes o) action in t-e )irst case and t-is t-ird case are t-esame )or t-e regulariCation o) t-e members o) complainant union t-ere is no identity o)t-e parties in+ol+ed. &-e second case is )or in0unction and t-e same is/ t-ere)ore/ notsimilar to t-is case.L BPI )iled ,it- t-e $A a Petition )or $ertiorari under Rule 6;/ assailingt-e !8R$ ecision. &-e $A dismissed t-e recourse on t-e ground t-at t-e +eri)ication -asbeen signed only by petitionerEs +ice president/ ,it-out e:press aut-ority )rom any boardresolution or po,er o) attorney. ence t-is appeal.

Issues1 ,-et-er BPIEs Petition s-ould be dismissed due to irregularity o) its +eri)ication

2 ,-et-er t-e second regulariCation case is barred by res 0udicata.

Ruling %irst Issue' ismissal o) t-e Appeal on &ec-nicality &-e rules on +eri)ication and)orum s-opping are in Sec [ ; o) Rule 7 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt.

5e -old t-at a liberal construction o) t-e rules on +eri)ication and )orum s-opping are inorder. Ueri)ication is simply intended to secure an assurance t-at t-e allegations in t-epleading are true and correct and not t-e product o) t-e imagination or a matter o)speculation/ and t-at t-e pleading is )iled in good )ait-.L ean,-ile/ t-e purpose o) t-e


26/34

a)oresaid certi)ication is to pro-ibit and penaliCe t-e e+ils o) )orum s-opping. 5e see nocircum+ention o) t-ese ob0ecti+es by t-e +ice presidentEs signing t-e +eri)ication andcerti)ication ,it-out e:press aut-oriCation )rom any e:isting board resolution.

BPI is an indispensable party to t-e contro+ersy/ considering t-at its inclusion is necessary)or t-e e))ecti+e and complete resolution o) t-e case.&-e )act t-at respondent union

commenced t-e case against BPI and iar in a single $omplaint is an indication o) t-eindispensability o) bot- parties to t-e action.

Second Issue' Res Judicata3n>uestionably/ any ruling on t-e issue o) res 0udicata ,ould a))ect t-e )inal determinationon t-e merits o) t-e $omplaint. &-is determination ,ill/ in turn/ a))ect iar/ ,-ic- is notimpleaded as a party in t-e present appeal. ence/ it ,ould not be proper )or t-is $ourt toresol+e t-e issue o) res 0udicata ,it-out iar as a party be)ore it/ in +ie, o) t-e pendency o)t-e appeal. $ase remanded

onato v. CA

Petitioner onato )iled a complaint )or )orcible entry and unla,)ul detainer against ?

named de)endants and


27/34

is a resident o) 112; Sout- Je))erson Street/ Roanoe/ Uirginia/ 3.S.A. ,ere -e to personallyaccomplis- and sign t-e certi)ication.5e )ully agree ,it- petitioner t-at it ,as p-ysicallyimpossible )or t-e petition to -a+e been prepared and sent to t-e petitioner in t-e 3nitedStates/ )or -im to tra+el )rom Uirginia/ 3.S.A. to t-e nearest P-ilippine $onsulate in5as-ington/ .$./ 3.S.A./ in order to sign t-e certi)ication be)ore t-e P-ilippine $onsul/ and)or -im to send bac t-e petition to t-e P-ilippines ,it-in t-e 1;#day reglementary period.

&-us/ ,e )ind t-at petitioner -as ade>uately e:plained -is )ailure to personally sign t-ecerti)ication ,-ic- 0usti)ies rela:ation o) t-e rule.4O8NG 3S. SENG

%acts' Respondent Jo-n eng Seng a..a. Jo-n Sy )iled a complaint )or Waccounting o)general agency/ in0unction/ turning o+er o) properties/ and damages/E ,it- t-e Regional &rial$ourt o) Bacolod $ity Branc- ;?/ against petitioner 4milio oung and -is ,i)e. &-e pri+aterespondent subse>uently )iled an Amended $omplaint ,it- t-e same $ourt. &-e spousesoung/ )or t-eir part/ )iled a otion to ismiss t-e case )or lac o) cause o) action.$onse>uently/ R&$ issued an order dismissing t-e case. Respondent )iled an R o) t-e ordero) dismissal. R&$ denied said R. Jo-n eng Seng )iled anot-er complaint )or accountingand damages ,it- t-e Regional &rial $ourt o) Bacolod $ity Branc- against t-e -erein

petitioner 4milio oung. oung )iled a otion to ismiss t-e case on t-e ground t-at t-eKcomplaint )ails to state a good/ +alid andQor ,ort-,-ile cause o) action against t-ede)endant.L R&$ denied t-e otion to ismiss.

&-e petitioner )iled a otion )or Reconsideration o) t-e a)oresaid order based on t-e)ollo,ing grounds' 1 t-at t-e complainant )ailed to state a good/ +alid andQor ,ort-,-ilecause o) action as against t-e de)endant and 2 t-at t-e plainti)) -ad )atally )ailed tocomply ,it- t-e rule against )orum s-opping/ as -e -as in )act deliberately submitted a )alsecerti)ication under oat- as contained in t-e complaint in t-e present suit. Branc- grantedR/ dismissing case. Petitioner contends t-at t-e $A s-ould -a+e ordered t-e dismissal o)t-e Second $ase. Allegedly/ respondent ,as guilty o) )orum s-opping ,-en -e deliberatelyand ,ill)ully certi)ied )alsely under oat- t-at -e -ad not commenced any ot-er action or

petition be)ore any court/ tribunal or agency in+ol+ing t-e same issue. *n t-e ot-er -and/respondent claims t-at petitioner ,ai+ed t-is ground by )ailing to raise it in -is otion toismiss be)ore t-e trial court.

Issues' 5-et-er petitioner can still raise t-e alleged +iolation o) t-e rule on non#)orums-opping/ e+en i) -e )ailed to cite it as a ground in -is otion to ismiss t-e Second $ase,ai+er

eld'Section 1 o) Rule 9 o) t-e Rules o) $ourt pro+ides t-at de)enses and ob0ections not pleadedin a motion to dismiss or in an ans,er are deemed ,ai+ed. o,e+er/ courts s-allnonet-eless dismiss t-e claim ,-en it appears )rom t-e pleadings or t-e e+idence on record

t-at 1 t-e court -as no 0urisdiction o+er t-e sub0ect matter/ 2 t-ere is anot-er actionpending bet,een t-e same parties )or t-e same cause/ ? t-e action is barred by prior0udgment/ or t-e statute o) limitations -as been crossed. &o determine ,-et-er a party+iolated t-e rule against )orum s-opping/ t-e most important )actor to as is ,-et-er t-eelements o) litis pendentia are present/ or ,-et-er a )inal 0udgment in one case ,ill amountto res 0udicata in anot-er. *t-er,ise stated/ t-e test )or determining )orum s-opping is,-et-er in t-e t,o or more cases pending/ t-ere is identity o) parties/ rig-ts or causes o)action/ and relie)s soug-t. &-e certi)ication o) non#)orum s-opping made in t-is case isinaccurate because it does not disclose t-e )iling o) t-e )irst case ,it- Branc- ;?. ad t-is


28/34

+iolation been appropriately broug-t up in t-e otion to ismiss/ it could -a+e resulted int-e abatement o) t-e second case ,it- Branc- . *54U4R/ t-e )irst case ,as dismissedbecause o) lac o) cause o) action. It ,as t-us a dismissal ,it-out pre0udice respondent,as not barred )rom )iling a ne, suit against petitioner in+ol+ing t-e same )acts/ but raisinga cause o) action arising t-ere)rom. In )act/ respondent actually )iled t-e Second $ase/ e+eni) -e )ailed to disclose in -is certi)ication t-at -e -ad commenced t-e %irst $ase against t-e

same de)endant/ -erein petitioner. %urt-ermore/ ,e must bear in mind t-at/ ,-ene+erpossible and )easible/ procedural rules s-ould be liberally construed to ensure t-e 0ust/speedy and ine:pensi+e disposition o) actions and proceedings on t-eir merits.

OS) S,ippin: P,ilippines& In/. vs. NLRC

%acts'%ermin (uerrerro )iled a complaint be)ore t-e !8R$ against *S and its principal P-ilippine$arrier S-ipping Agency Ser+ices $o. P$#SAS$* )or illegal dismissal and non#payment o)salaries/ o+ertime pay and +acation pay. e ,as -ired by *S in be-al) o) -is principal/ P$#SAS$* as a aster ariner )or a contract period o) 1" mont-s. o,e+er/ -e ,as not paidany compensation at all and ,as )orced to disembar t-e +essel. espite t-e ser+ices -erendered/ no compensation or remuneration ,as e+er paid to -im.

&-e 8abor Arbiter rendered a decision in )a+or o) (uerrero and ordered *S and P$#SAS$*to pay (uerrero -is unpaid salaries and allo,ances/ accrued )i:ed o+ertime pay/ +acationlea+e pay and termination pay. &-e !8R$ &-ird i+ision a))irmed t-e 8AEs decision ,it- amodi)ication o) t-e amount o) liability. *S )iled a Petition )or $ertiorari ,it- t-e $A but ,asdismissed )or )ailure to comply ,it- t-e re>uirements o) Section ? Rule 6 )or *S onlyattac-ed a mere mac-ine copy o) t-e 8AEs decision and not a duplicate original or certi)iedtrue copy.

Issue' 5Q! t-e $A erred in dismissing *SEs Petition.

eld'

Section ? Rule ; does not re>uire t-at all supporting papers and documents accompanyinga petition be duplicate originals or certi)ied true copies. 4+en under Rule 6; on certiorari andpro-ibition/ petitions need to be accompanied only by duplicate originals or certi)ied truecopies o) t-e >uestioned 0udgment/ order or resolution. *t-er rele+ant documents andpleadings attac-ed to it may be mere mac-ine copies t-ereo). Since t-e 8AEs decision ,asnot t-e >uestioned ruling/ it did not -a+e to be certi)ied. 5-at -as to be certi)ied ,as t-e!8R$ decision. And indeed it ,as.

But since t-e case is no, in its nint- year since its inception/ its remand to t-e $A ,ill onlyunduly delay its disposition. In t-e interest o) substantial 0ustice/ t-e S$ ,ill determine 5Q!petitioner is liable )or t-e unpaid salaries o) (uerrero. Petitioner ,as liable.

*n be-al) o) its principal/ P$#SAS$*/ petitioner does not deny -iring Pri+ate Respondent

(uerrero as master mariner. o,e+er/ it argues t-at since -e ,as not deployed o+erseas/-is employment contract became ine))ecti+e/ because its ob0ect ,as allegedly absent.Petitioner contends t-at using t-e +essel in coast,ise trade and subse>uently c-artering itto anot-er principal -ad t-e e))ect o) no+ating t-e employment contract. 5e are notpersuaded. An employment contract/ lie any ot-er contract/ is per)ected at t-e moment 1t-e parties come to agree upon its terms and 2 concur in t-e essential elements t-ereo)'a consent o) t-e contracting parties/ b ob0ect certain ,-ic- is t-e sub0ect matter o) t-econtract and c cause o) t-e obligation .2? Based on t-e per)ected contract/ Pri+ateRespondent (uerrero complied ,it- -is obligations t-ereunder and rendered -is ser+ices on


29/34

board t-e +essel. $ontrary to petitioner=s contention/ t-e contract -ad an ob0ect/ ,-ic- ,ast-e rendition o) ser+ice by pri+ate respondent on board t-e +essel. &-e non#deployment o)t-e s-ip o+erseas did not a))ect t-e +alidity o) t-e per)ected employment contract.

L) PO?ER ENGINEERING CO. v. CAPITOL IN8STRIAL CONSTR8CTION GRO8PS

%A$&S'Petitioner 8 Po,er and Respondent $apitol entered into a Subcontract Agreement NSAO,it- an arbitration clause in+ol+ing electrical ,or at t-e &-ird Port o) Tamboanga. &-e SA-as t-e )ollo,ing arbitral clause'


30/34

$learly/ t-e resolution o) t-e dispute bet,een t-e parties re>uires a re)erral to t-epro+isions o) t-eir SA. 5it-in t-e scope o) t-e arbitration clause are discrepancies as to t-eamount o) ad+ances and billable accomplis-ments/ t-e application o) t-e pro+ision ontermination/ and t-e conse>uent set#o)) o) e:penses. &-e resolution o) t-e issues disputedby parties lies in t-e interpretation o) t-e pro+isions o) t-e SA.Being an ine:pensi+e/ speedy and amicable met-od o) settling disputes/ arbitration ## along

,it- mediation/ conciliation and negotiation ## is encouraged by t-e Supreme $ourt.$onsistent ,it- t-e policy o) encouraging alternati+e dispute resolution met-ods/ courtss-ould liberally construe arbitration clauses. Pro+ided suc- clause is susceptible o) aninterpretation t-at co+ers t-e asserted dispute/ an order to arbitrate s-ould be granted. Anydoubt s-ould be resol+ed in )a+or o) arbitration.

Tan vs. @aa76a% 0inan/e Corporation (BAIRI -'- SCRA #1!

%acts'

Petitioner &an ,as granted a loan o) P/"""/"""."" by pri+ate respondent aabay. Ascollateral/ a real estate mortgage on &anEs parcel o) land ,it- t-e impro+ements t-erein ,ase:ecuted. Petitioner )ailed to pay -is obligation. *n January ;/ 2"""/ petitioner )iled a

complaint )or eclaration o) !ullity/ In+alidity and 3nen)orceability or Annulment o) t-ePromissory !otes purportedly attac-ed to t-e Real 4state ortgage/ t-e usurious and +oidrates o) interest and ot-er )ees t-erein appearing/ and t-e eed o) Sale 3nder Pacto eRetro/ and damages/ ,it- prayer )or Preliminary In0unction andQor &emporary Restraining*rder against t-e pri+ate respondents. Petitioner t-en also )iled a !otice o) 8is Pendens ,it-t-e Registry o) eeds o) $alamba/ 8aguna. Respondents/ t-roug- t-eir ne, counsel/ )iledt-eir Ans,er 5it- $ounterclaim. &-ey also )iled a otion )or Admission o) $ounterclaim5it-out Payment o) %ees/ on t-e ground t-at t-eir counterclaim is compulsory in nature/-ence it may be admitted ,it-out payment o) )ees. &rial court granted t-e respondentsEmotion )or admission o) counterclaim ,it-out payment o) )ees. &-e $ourt o) Appeals up-eldt-e lo,er courtEs decision.

Petitioner alleged t-at -is complaint is based on t-e unaut-oriCed application o) usurious/unconscionable and e:orbitant rates o) interest and ot-er )ees by respondents aabay and8aCaro to petitionerEs loan ,it-out t-e latterEs no,ledge/ as ,ell as t-e appro+al and t-e)alsi)ication o) t-e promissory note supposed to be attac-ed to t-e Real 4state ortgage andt-e eed o) Sale 3nder Pacto de Retro. Since t-e e+idence to be presented by t-erespondents to support t-e genuineness and due e:ecution o) t-e >uestioned promissorynote and t-e eed o) Sale 3nder Pacto de Retro as a ground )or t-e speci)ic per)ormancet-ereo)/ is not t-e same as t-e e+idence to be presented by t-e petitioner as plainti)) in t-ecase belo, to support -is claim o) )raud employed by respondents/ petitioner asserts t-ecounterclaim cannot be deemed compulsory. e adds t-at since t-e respondents demandt-e payment o) t-e loan and t-e interests pursuant to t-e contract o) loan/ completelyinconsistent ,it- -is claim t-at sub0ect documents ,ere a nullity/ ,-at respondents -ad)iled is not a compulsory counterclaim.

*n t-e ot-er -and/ respondents contend t-at t-eir counterclaims are )

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chad-osorio
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Rem+Law+Review+2010+Assignment+1+Digest

Documents