Civil procedures case digest

I.Civil Procedure Noli Alfonso, et al. vs. Sps. Henry and Liwanag Andres, G.R. No. 139611, October 4, 2002 Mariano L. Gumabon, et al. vs. Aquilino T. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001 Tung Chin Hui vs. Rufus B. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571, September 21, 2000 William P. Chan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 138758, July 6, 2000 Perla S. Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 138137, March 8, 2001 General Provisions — Jurisdiction of Courts The rule is that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute. Lourdes E. Bengzon vs. Amado G. Inciong, G.R. No. L-48706, June 29, 1979 Latchme Motoomull, et al. vs. Joffre dela Paz, et al., G.R. No. L-45302, July 24, 1990 PNB vs. Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr., G.R. No. 173615, October 16, 2009 A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness. Renald F. Vilando vs. HRET, et al., G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011 The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) there is an exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 1 Courts will decide a question, otherwise moot and academic, if it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The question on Limkaichong's citizenship is likely to recur if she would run again, as she did run, for public office, hence, capable of repetition. Renald F. Vilando vs. HRET, et al., G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011 It may also be pertinently stressed that "jurisdiction" is different from the "exercise of jurisdiction." Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein. Accordingly, where a court has jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants and the subject matter, as in the case of the courts a quo, the decision on all questions arising therefrom is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment, which does not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest the court of the jurisdiction over the case. Bernabe L. Navida, et al. vs. Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 125078, 125598, 126654,127856 & 128398, May 30, 2011 The rule is that the active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or administrative body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction. Megan Sugar Corp. vs. RTC of Iloilo, Branch 68, et al., G.R. No. 170352, June 1, 2011, citing Marquez v. Secretary of Labor, 253 Phil. 329, 336 (1989) The law governing jurisdiction is Section 19 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 . . . Conformably with the provision, because an action for reconveyance or to remove a cloud on one's title involves the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, exclusive original jurisdiction over such action pertained to the RTC, unless the assessed value of the property did not exceed P20,000.00 (in which instance the MTC having territorial jurisdiction would have exclusive original jurisdiction). Determinative of which regular court had jurisdiction would be the allegations of the complaint (on the assessed value of the property) and the principal relief thereby sought. Heirs of Sps. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. Sps. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores, G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011 Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts must refrain from determining a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. Rosito Bagunu vs. Sps. Francisco & Rosenda Aggabao, G.R. No. 186487, August 15, 2011 It may not be amiss to reiterate the prevailing rule that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 2 where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice. Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012 Corollary to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court, in a long line of cases, has held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, it is a pre-condition that he avail himself of all administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be exhausted first before the court's power of judicial review can be sought. The premature resort to the court is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case may be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case. Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012 True, the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are subject to certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings. Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012 The resolution of conflicting claims of ownership over real property is within the regular courts' area of competence and, concededly, this issue is judicial in character. However, regular courts would have no power to conclusively resolve this issue of ownership given the public character of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 3 no formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides. and special proceedings. People of the Philippines. except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. vs. Sec. Raul Risos. Usually. in special proceedings. In special proceedings. 2008 An action is a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. August 28. August 15. G. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules of civil procedure apply to all actions. it says that the rules of civil procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases. However. The term "special proceeding" may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party. in relation to Executive Order No. 138855. even in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction. Regional Trial Courts are not precluded from conducting hearings on matters on which the parties need to be heard. Sps.R. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 4 . G. G. we find no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise. De Manguerra.the land. In effect.In what courts applicable The Rules of Court apply to all courts. No. the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion. civil or criminal.R. Concepcion Cuenco Vda. the disposition and management of public lands fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director of Lands.. Francisco & Rosenda Aggabao. Inc. 141.R. No. It is the method of applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. Rosito Bagunu vs. Inc. 2002 Rule 1. through the Bureau of Lands. and Accesslaw. Sec. Court of Appeals. October 2. cdasia Lamberto Casalla vs.A. et al. since under C. et al. it is likewise true that the criminal proceedings are primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 adequately and squarely covers the situation in the instant case. subject to review by the DENR Secretary. No.R. 3 . While the powers given to the DENR. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 133000. October 29. or a particular fact. Patricia Natcher vs. 2 . 186487.Cases governed Section 3. G. et al. 2011 Rule 1.. the respondents' complaint-in-intervention does not simply raise the issue of possession — whether de jure or de facto — but likewise raised the issue of ownership as basis to recover possession. to alienate and dispose of public land do not divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants (to protect their respective possessions and occupations). No. 152643. 192. R. vs. March 2. a right. have the force and effect of law. 124320. No." It means that the provisions in the Rules of Court will be made to apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable rule. 172110 & 181804.R. and those involving elective barangay officials. et al. 2001 The failure of the extant election laws to reproduce Section 218 of the Election Code of 1971 does not mean that execution of judgment pending appeal is no longer available in election cases. et al." especially because the application of said Rules would not be "practicable and convenient. and Accesslaw. which is now Section 4. July 27. G. March 6. 1999 It is axiomatic that the Rules of Court. Sec. 4 . G. Only strong considerations of equity will lead us to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice. Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay. vs. Comelec. G.. et al." Gelacio P. G. Because of this difference. et al. Inc. Inc. Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative.. or certain proceedings taken. Gementiza vs. Roy S. which are cognizable by courts of limited jurisdiction. a civil action is defined as "one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. People of the Phil. More importantly.R. In election contests involving elective municipal officials. promulgated by authority of law. Del Rosario.R. or the prevention or redress of a wrong" while a special proceeding is "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status. August 1." It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right." Suppletory is defined as "supplying deficiencies. 180291. Minda Villamor vs. Dinnah Villaviza. Nos. execution of judgment pending appeal under Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court are permissible pursuant to Rule 143 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 3. No. GSIS. 2011 Rule 1.The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. et al. which are cognizable by courts of general jurisdiction. Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. 140884. or a particular fact. 2010 It should be underscored that the nature of an election protest case differs from an ordinary civil action.In what cases not applicable. the Rules of Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot apply to election cases even "by analogy or in a suppletory character. No... Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 5 . are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. suppletory character It is true that Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules can be applied in a "suppletory character. G. While procedural rules are liberally construed. there are recognized exceptions to the strict observance of procedural rules. like all rules. The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with. indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays. (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default. 1998 Rule 1. Viewed in this light. the rules were established primarily to provide order to. Labao vs. No. there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault.R. et al. (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case. accident. Inc. Evangeline C. G. Ramas. February 10. (c) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. No.. 2010 Saint Louis University. G. they are required to be followed.Construction Time and again. et al. such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons. our judicial system. Francisco A. liberty. and Accesslaw. Francisco A. 187104. Whether a case involves an exceptionally meritorious circumstance can be tested under the following guidelines: Aside from matters of life. (5) the merits of the case. and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.R. Flores. 187984. et al.Roberto D. Thus. Labao vs. November 15. 6 . et al. the other elements that should be considered are the following: (a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances. (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.R. August 3. Flores. vs. (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. vs. (d) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. Inc. Inc. (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances. No. we have stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants. and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights.. and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Comelec. 187984. and enhance the efficiency of.R. G. Lolito N. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 6 . Sec. November 15. honor or property which would warrant the suspension of the Rules of the most mandatory character and an examination and review by the appellate court of the lower court's findings of fact. Lolito N. the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied. (12) importance of the issues involved. (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play. 130831. 2010 The strict enforcement of the rules of procedure may be relaxed in exceptionally meritorious cases. Cobarrubias. (b) the merits of the case. No.. 2010 However. (9) fraud. 146224. August 19. liberty. Landex Development Corp.. 165952. They should be liberally construed so that litigants can have ample opportunity to prove their claims and thus prevent a denial of justice due to technicalities. 1998 Solar Team Entertainment. September 29.. G. No.R. Sps. Jose Renato Lim. 154243. Court of Appeals. G. No. Court of Appeals. NLRC. G. 173127. 147575. G. Ma. et al. 2004 Ma. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides for a liberal construction of the rules in order to promote their objective of securing a just. et al. G. et al. technical sense and are used only to help secure substantial justice.R. Aneco Realty and Development Corp. August 13. Soriano vs. 2003 Susan Fronda-Baggao vs. 2004 Section 6. No. 132426. Caoibes. G.(e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.R. . "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 7 . vs. vs.R.R.R. et al. Helen Bautista Ricafort. Inc. rules of procedure should be used to promote. Emelinda Papiona. No. G.R. not frustrate justice. Arsenio Z. .R. People of the Phil. 2003 As expressed in Alberto vs. 2007 Virginia Real vs. 128004.. Jose F. 185567. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.R. Mendoza vs. Nissan Lease Phils. their aim would be defeated. honor or property on technicalities. 152766. No. January 26. citing Sanchez v. vs. Asayo. December 10. 151785. 132007. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made. 133542. No. Ricardo and Rosalina Galit. . Teresa O. Locsin vs.. Roberto Lastimoso. December 4. No. Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just. G. No. Court of Appeals. Marcelo R. et al.. October 22. Court of Appeals. the same can not be used as a vehicle to ignore the Rules at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. G. 1998 While Section 6. Belo. November 27. December 10.R. (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. July 28. G. Jose J. Their strict Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. No. and Accesslaw. No. No. No. October 20. Sisenando H. 2000 Public Estates Authority vs.R. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. 2008 Dee Hwa Liong Electronics Corp. Escueta. Inc. Inc. 2007 Teresita B. G... Beth David. vs.R. No. 156228. September 23.. June 20. 2007 Prudential Guarantee and Assurance. Indeed. 146559. No. Inc.R. G. et al. G. January 29. 2004 Systems Factors Corp. 143789.R.R. vs. 1999 Marcelino Tan. August 5. Teresa Vidal vs. G. 156295. Inc. vs. 2003 The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid. 2010. October 17. No. G.R. v. et al. No. 2007 Francisco Dee vs. March 20. 2010 Indeed.R. Inc. As an exception to the exception. vs. COMELEC. . No. 2003 Rules of procedures are intended to promote. 2001 It is now settled that rules of procedure apply even to cases already pending at the time of their promulgation. G.. Liberal Party vs. nor arise from. 144074. vs. and Accesslaw.. nor is it constitutionally objectionable. No. No. 174238 July 7.R. 140713.R. et al. We have been strict when the issues are solely confined to the parties' private interests and carry no massive ripple effects directly affecting the public. Sandiganbayan. No. as well as questions on locus standi. No. which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. while the Rules are liberally construed. 152154. but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. as a general rule. G. we have recognized exceptions to the threshold issues of ripeness and mootness of the petitions before us. novelty or weight as precedents deserve the Court's attention and active intervention. William and Tessie Sy. substantial justice and. not to defeat.. We have also brushed aside procedural technicalities where the issues raised. they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. procedural laws. Thus. G. Sps. G.R. 2001 Medina Investigation vs." Rosa Yap Paras. May 6.R. but have viewed with liberality the technical and procedural threshold issues raised when grave public interests are involved. vs. Also. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 8 .R. No. G. in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it. 2000 Unity Fishing Development Corp. no vested right may attach to. 2009 We have indicated many times in the past that a primary factor in considering technical and procedural objections is the nature of the issues involved. No. Our liberality has even gone beyond the purely technical and procedural where Court intervention has become imperative. et al. we have relaxed the procedural technicalities introduced under A. Inc.M. It is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. Teodora Buenaflor. 2001 Republic of the Phil. G. Court of Appeals. July 15. February 2. 145415. vs. 191771. because of the paramount public interest involved and their gravity. Ismael O. the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights does not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. G. March 8. must always be eschewed. No.R. 07-7-12-SC in order to serve substantial justice and safeguard strong public interest. Anita Cheng vs. et al. Court of Appeals. November 29. 142021. these rules have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. The reason for this is that. Court of Appeals. et al.and rigid application. The exception is that. . therefore. It is a well-settled principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. Baldado. Heber and Charlita Edillo vs." Jovina Dabon Vda." this does not mean that "[they] are to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 9 . which discretion must be exercised soundly and in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play. NAPOCOR. "[procedural rules] are required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed. Sps. Poverty is not a justification for delaying a case.. Mangontawar M. must always be eschewed. This line of rulings is based. vs. 167415. 2008 We cannot allow a patently wrong judgment to be implemented because of technical lapses. taking into account the circumstances of the case. No.R. In deciding a case..R. 168111. Henry and Liwanag Andres. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding. G. which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. CA. Norberto and Desideria Dulpina. if not a miscarriage of justice. No. et al. rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties. vs. June 13. with the objective of securing for the parties a just. July 29. G. G. we recognize nonetheless that the right to appeal is an essential part of our system of judicial processes.R. Inc. de Mendez vs. Their strict and rigid application. the appellate court has the discretion whether or not to dismiss the same.R. 2012 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. July 4. no less. G. Sps. February 26. et al. giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay. free from the constraints of technicalities. It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice. CA. Sps. February 29. 166236. 188360. Noli Alfonso. and courts should proceed with caution in order not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. Inc. No. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. G. No." Just like any other rule. mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard. Gubat vs. on the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal construction of its provisions. 189191.attainment of justice. Both parties have a right to a speedy resolution of their case. et al. G. 174937.R. 2010 But while we have so ruled. 2010 Poverty cannot be used as an excuse to justify petitioners' complacency in allowing months to pass by before exerting the required effort to find a replacement lawyer. 2010 While the court has the power to relax procedural rules "for persuasive and weighty reasons. Mid-Islands Power Generation Corp. No. This ratiocination is in keeping with the policy to secure a just. No. 2012 citing Tan v. January 21. Ballena. We invariably made this recognition due to our overriding concern that every party-litigant be given the amplest opportunity to ventilate and secure the resolution of his cause. The law and jurisprudence grant to courts — in the exercise of their discretion along the lines laid down by this Court — the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character. we have repeatedly stressed that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. and Accesslaw. In this line of rulings. or. at the trial. No. Evidently. No. 143482. failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading. et al.R. Inc. if such motion is warranted.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 10 . The remedy in the first is to move for dismissal of the pleading. April 13. hence reference to Sec. and The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 2011 Failure to state a cause of action is different from failure to prove a cause of action. Dolores Adora Macaslang vs. but lack of cause of action may be raised at any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of the stipulations. The correlative obligation of the defendant. Dolores Adora Macaslang vs.Ordinary civil actions. by timely objection to its deficiency. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. May 30. namely: (a) (b) (c) The legal right of the plaintiff. Santiago. vs. the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. 156375. Pedro T. 1 .R. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.Rule 2 . or evidence presented. basis of A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action. G. If the allegations of the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements. Inc. 2011 Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other. G. Sps. admissions. Renato and Melba Zamora. The procedure would consequently be to require the pleading to state a cause of action. 2007 Rule 2. May 30. while the remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence. Renato and Melba Zamora. G. and Accesslaw. it is not the lack or absence of a cause of action that is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint but the fact that the complaint states no cause of action. No. On the one hand. On the other hand. lack of cause action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. 156375. Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of an action through a motion to dismiss.Cause of Action Conrado Pineda. et al. to file a demurrer to evidence. Sps. Sec.R. and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. Philip Turner. Inc. Volume 1.R. Remedial Law Compendium.R. G. it does not stand in the way of the former action.. G. et al.R. if otherwise. November 24. Inc. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. 2 . Goodland Co. 156375. 2012 Subject to certain qualification. p. a cause of action is defined in Section 2. Sps. 157479. the former recovery is a bar. and why people who are in no default and against whom there is as yet no cause of action should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer complaints which are groundless. Inc. May 30.. (2005). giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. vs. Harris.R. Renato and Melba Zamora. defined A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.Cause of action. perhaps no exception. 163827. August 17. Castillo. November 24. 2011 With respect to identity of cause of action. 2010. et al. the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending. This Court has laid down the test in determining whether or not the causes of action in the first and second cases are identical. vs. Philip Turner. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 11 . No. It is a rule of law to which there is. a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element. Ninth Revised Ed. 68 Phil 113 (1939) Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sec. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. et al. and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible. G. No. and Accesslaw.. either in law or in equity. G. 182 Rule 2. An action prematurely brought is a groundless suit. citing Surigao Mine Exploration Co. 157479.Dolores Adora Macaslang vs. Asia United Bank. 2011. Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at the time his action is commenced.. There are reasons of public policy why there should be no needless haste in bringing up litigation. Inc. Silverio Q. to wit: would the same evidence support and establish both the present and former cause of action? If so. and except as otherwise provided by law. Rule 2 of the Rules of Court as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. The essential elements of a cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff. 195546 & 195561. vs. and (c) an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant. et al.. v. No. Nos. citing Regalado. The fact that the cause of action accrues after the action is commenced and while the case is pending is of no moment. G. No. that to recover at all there must be some cause of action at the commencement of the suit. Although the first two elements may exist. an action commenced before the cause of action has accrued is prematurely brought and should be dismissed. (b) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right. March 14.R. 2010 DBP vs.. No. 157616. vs. or when the two primary rights are each broken by a separate and distinct wrongs. vs. No. The rule was aimed at preventing repeated litigations between the same parties in regard to the same subject of the controversy and to protect the defendant from Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. Todaro. et al. Inc..R.R. (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. Inc. October 31. Antonio D. 2005 A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and the rest. effect of (Section 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court) proscribes a party from dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions based on it.Splitting a single cause of action. 4 .Section 2. However. Court of Appeals.R. Inc. Del Rosario. No. 123555. 2003 Progressive Devt. in either case. September 18. transaction or state of fact may be sued separately. Sec. No.R. if only one right may be violated by several acts or omissions. 2007 Kenneth O. 154830. as amended. Far East Bank and Trust Company. and. Court of Appeals. vs. or if the single primary right should be violated by two distinct and separate legal wrongs. there would only be one cause of action. G. A single act or omission may be violative of various rights at the same time. Ernesto C. recovery on one being no bar to subsequent actions on the others. 2007 Splitting a single cause of action consists in dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions therein. The violation of each of these rights is a cause of action in itself.R. G. two causes of action would result. such as when the act constitutes a violation of separate and distinct legal obligations. defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. if two separate and distinct primary rights are violated by one and the same wrong. Otherwise stated. July 22. 1999 Rule 2. Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. G. Corp. January 22. G. although arising out of the same contract. Isidro Perez vs. et al. in another. June 8. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided so as to be made the subject of two or more different actions. 150134. and Accesslaw. (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right. City of Cebu. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 12 . Pioneer Concrete Phil.. 149627. Causes of action which are distinct and independent. A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created.. et al. No. Nadela vs. Corp. June 23. 1999 Bank of America vs. Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No.unnecessary vexation. No. American Realty Corp. Dasmariñas Village Assn.R.R. Sec. irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. No. December 3. 123555. G. January 22. 140746. to comply with its duty. 5 .R.Joinder of causes of action United Coconut Planters Bank vs. among others. Inc. August 17. 2005 The above provision presupposes that the different causes of action which are joined accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved. vs. the second case filed should be abated under the priority and time rule. not only a legal right of the plaintiff and a correlative duty of the defendant but also "an act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right." Pantranco vs. that "where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties. 129 which states. 2007 Well-settled is the rule that since a cause of action requires. the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action. expressly or impliedly. Samuel and Odette Beluso. 159912. the other action or actions filed may be dismissed by invoking litis pendentia. as essential elements. Accordingly. 1(e). No. for this is a declaration of public policy against multiplicity of suits. a cause of action on a written contract accrues only when an actual breach or violation thereof occurs. No. G. It bears stressing that it is only when the last element occurs that a cause of action arises. China Banking Corp vs.. Standard Insurance.R. This paragraph embodies the "totality rule" as exemplified by Section 33 (1) of B. 153267. 133876. This is in relation to Section 4. G. March 16. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. therefore. Blg. It can not Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. vs. As a general rule. 127276. embodied in the same complaint. Sps. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 13 . 2005 Multiplicity of suits should be avoided if the filing of a separate and independent action to recover a claim would entail proving exactly the same claim in an existing action. Court of Appeals. G. Inc. 1998 Rule 2. 1999 If a party-litigant splits his single cause of action. G. Progressive Devt. The issue of whether respondents' claims shall be lumped together is determined by paragraph (d) of the above provision.R. G. Rule 2 which provides for the cause and effect of this practice. December 29. and Accesslaw.R. CA. pursuant to Sec." the cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses. Court of Appeals.P. No. Rule 3) has two requirements: 1) to institute an action. Inc.R. she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person. the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence. vs. Nos. Solidbank Corp. to name the proper party defendant to his cause of action. June 4. 2000 Rule 3. vs.however. and no suit can be lawfully prosecuted save in the name of such a person. G.. 2000 Manuel Silvestre Bernardo vs. and a proper party plaintiff is essential to confer jurisdiction on the court.. 2004 The afore-quoted rule (Section 2. In a suit or proceeding in personam of an adversary character. plaintiff and defendant Gloria Santos Dueñas vs. Sec. Militante. 149351. The plaintiff in an action is the party complaining. March 17. Stefan Tito Miñoza vs. G.Who may be parties. G. 1999 There can be no legal duel in court when the one who demands satisfaction from the alleged offender is not even the offended party. the plaintiff must be the real party in interest. the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2004 Marcopper Mining Corp. No. Asset Privatization Trust vs. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice. No. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 14 .R. and Accesslaw. October 5. It is incumbent upon a plaintiff. No. Inc. 63145. G. 134049. Sec. Court of Appeals. June 8. It has even been held that the question of the legal personality of a party defendant is a question of substance going to the jurisdiction of the court and not one of procedure. Court of Appeals. June 17. 2011 Rule 3. 111715 & 112876. 1 . he.R. that is. Court of Appeals.. No.R. be avoided when the cause of action in the two complaints are distinct and separate from each other.Parties in interest Speed Distributing Corp. G. 05plpe The rule is no different as regards party defendants. when he institutes a judicial proceeding. 2 . Sulpicia Ventura vs. Necessarily. 2004 Parties may be either plaintiffs or defendants. the court can acquire no jurisdiction for the purpose of trial or judgment until a party defendant who actually or legally exists and is legally capable of being sued. et al. Francis J. G. 81024. April 13.R. 149417. and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.. 170914. G. February 3.R. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Asso. is brought before it. et al.R. Cesar Tomas Lopez. G. Rayo vs. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 15 . July 31. No. G. 2006 The established rule is that a real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment. 2008 Sps. 176226 & 176319. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or a mere incidental interest. December 10.R. Stated differently. and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds. as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. As a general rule. and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds. July 31. the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right. 161298. Eduardo L. 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits. 171304. The word "interest". San Miguel Corp. 2007 Rule 3. Rural Bankers Association of the Phil. the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action. one who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. Metropolitan Bank. therefore. Interest within the meaning of the Rules means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action. Macroasia Corp. 2007 In Re: Reversion / Recall of Reconstituted Titles in Tarlac Registry of Deeds. 151983-84. and Accesslaw.R.R. et al. means material interest or an interest in issue and to be affected by the judgment. Nos.. contingent. Ma. pursuant to sound public policy.actions by persons without any right or title to or interest in the case. Ortiz vs. of the Rules of Court provides explicitly that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.. title or interest in the case. or one entitled to the avails of the suit. October 4. Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corp. Necessarily. 175020. the rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future. 2007 This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action. G. 169080. G. 151983-84. Anthony and Percita Oco vs." Every action. subordinate. Section 2. G. No. October 10. can only be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest.R. as contemplated by the Rules. December 19. Inc. the plaintiff must be the real party in interest. No. Nos. 2008 The rules of court define a real party-in-interest as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.R. January 31. pursuant to sound public policy. San Miguel Corporation. 172936. 165142. and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Jose Max Ortiz vs. Jose Max S. Inc. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest. vs. or consequential interest. 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits. No.R. G.R. Nos. Rosario Tanghal-Salvana. G.. Victor Limbaring. 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 16 . subordinate. G. 161298. No. Victor Limbaring. Samahang Magsasasaka ng 53 Hektarya vs. means material interest or an interest in issue and to be affected by the judgment. No. Inc. Teresa Vidal. et al. No.. the real parties-in-interest." as contemplated by the Rules. No. Ma. 156228. The action must be brought by the person who. or a mere incidental interest. Leah M. one who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action." Stefan Tito Miñoza vs. G. G. Inc. 2007 Joel G. contingent. 161166-67. No. a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. This means that the action must be brought by the person who. contingent. 2005 Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest.R. February 3. 2011 The party-in-interest applies not only to the plaintiff but also to the defendant. G. by substantive Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Mayor Dagadag vs.R.R. he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced. or a future.Sps.. Stated differently.R. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. Tongnawa. Teresa O. vs. 170914. January 31. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. G. vs. or consequential interest.. as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future. Nazareno. As a general rule. The word "interest. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. or a mere incidental interest. and Accesslaw. Anthony and Percita Oco vs. or one entitled to the avails of the suit. Wilfredo G. December 10. Cesar Tomas Lopez. the rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy. must be parties to the said contract. 143540. or a mere incidental interest. Miranda vs. G. 2007 The established rule is that a real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment. Escueta. G. or consequential interest. either as plaintiff or as defendant. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. April 11. et al. Antonio C. 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest." "To qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted. No. Mosquera. March 22. 152430. et al. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or a mere incidental interest. Carreon. subordinate. et al.R. in an action upon that contract. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other. et al. possesses the right sought to be enforced. 168484. July 12. 2003 "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest. April 13. Ma. A real party in interest is one who has a legal right. City of Dumaguete.R. "Interest" within the meaning of the rules means material interest. 2006 Real party-in-interest is a concept in civil procedure and is expressly defined in the Rules of Court.R. No. 2003 According to Sec. by substantive law. Inc. Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court. therefore. August 7. Carreon. Villar. It bears stressing that "a taxpayer's suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds from taxation. to sue in the public interest. No. B. May 3. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Alvin Tan vs. Nos. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved." Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of official acts done by the government. a suitor must show that he has sustained or will sustain a "direct injury" as a result of a government action. 127210.R. Reynaldo A. Villar." "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest. Dennis A. G. has waived. 2) For voters. 2003 Even as a taxpayer. thusly: 1) For taxpayers. such as concerned citizens. there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early. 171409. a real party in interest is defined as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. or have a "material interest" in the issue affected by the challenged official act. The rule on locus standi is after all a mere procedural technicality in relation to which the Court. 2003 To have legal standing. G. 2006 Under Rule 3. taxpayers. 171483. the Court has time and again acted liberally on the locus standi requirements and has accorded certain individuals. No. not otherwise directly injured. 192791. or with material interest affected. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 17 . 171485. April 24. Macapagal-Arroyo.R.R. Funa vs. albeit they may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act. G. or relaxed. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. and 4) For legislators." Joel G.. 2012 The Court laid out the bare minimum norm before the so-called "non-traditional suitors" may be extended standing to sue. No. or a mere incidental interest.R. possesses the right sought to be enforced.law. et al. 171400. by a Government act. April 24.R. Funa vs. 2012 citing David v. standing to sue provided a constitutional issue of critical significance is at stake. Dennis A. 171396. there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question. Reynaldo A. voters or legislators. 3) For concerned citizens. and Accesslaw. there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators. B. thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs. G. April 11. 171489 & 171424. 143540. Court of Appeals. No. However. there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional. petitioner does not stand "to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit. Miranda vs. G. The interest of the party must also be personal and not one based on a Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. in a catena of cases involving a subject of transcendental import. Antonio C. 192791. Inc. 121159. 2002 A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future." This means that the action must be brought by the person who. subordinate or consequential interest. Court of Appeals. 127347. 2001 Rule 3. G. G. No. a complaint filed against such a person should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.R. 2001 Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Rule 16). vs. et al. 1999 Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real party in interest in the case cannot be executed.R. Court of Appeals. possesses the right sought to be enforced and not necessarily the person who will ultimately benefit from the recovery. Comelec. G.R. 138493. Eduardo Balagtas vs.desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. February 19. G. as distinguished from a mere expectancy. No. 143377. No. G. 135996. December 16. contingent. 2000 Teofista Babiera vs. 131680. contingent. 2000 Philippine Trust Co. November 25. December 15. 1999 If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. And by real interest is meant a present substantial interest. 1(g). No. Gilda C. No. February 2.R. a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the Complaint states no cause of action (Sec.R. or a future. June 15. a suit filed by a person who is not a party in interest must be dismissed. September 30.R. Aguila vs.R. Alfredo N. al. by substantive law. Catotal. Angela C. Lim vs. subordinate. No. contingent. 2000 Eliseo Fajardo. 1999 The purposes of this provision are: 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. 1999 By real interest is meant a present substantial interest. G. February 20. 1999 Clearly. Inc. Real interest. VSC Commercial Enterprises vs. as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future. on the other hand. No. G. or consequential interest. Emiliano R. Jr. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 18 . and Accesslaw. Justiniano Cezar.R. Court of Appeals.. Inc.R. September 14. 131277. G. October 20. 124658. G. G. Patricia Lim-Yu. Shipside Incorporated vs. G. subordinate. Presentacion B. "Boy" Caruncho III vs. No. August 1. Court of Appeals. Tankiko. Freedom to Build. Court of Appeals. et. et al. Universal International Group of Taiwan. vs.R.R. 138343. 134692. No. Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every action "must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. 109073. Hence. No. or consequential interest. vs. No. means a present substantial interest. hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action. 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action. No. and Accesslaw. 165109. May 4. February 16. a taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to challenge its validity. Mamba. vs. a law is violated or some irregularity is committed and (2) the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act. Inc. Atienza. 2010 citing David v. et al. or will sustained. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. et al. title or interest in the case. No. pursuant to sound public policy Allan C. No. A person suing as a taxpayer. 164703. Allan C. 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits. 171396.R. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person. In other words. the plaintiff. G. et al. asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. Go vs. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Macapagal-Arroyo. 2010 A taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed. In light of the foregoing. Lara. Edgar R. May 3. vs.. Inc. Mortimer F. two requisites must be met: (1) public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so. or that the public money is being deflected to any improper purpose..R. May 4. In other words. As long as taxes are involved. Jose L. for a taxpayer's suit to prosper. COMELEC." or as a "citizen" or "taxpayer. Cordero. Mortimer F. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. G. however. Cordero. must show that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. 2009 [L]egal standing in suits is governed by the "real parties-in-interest" rule under Section 2. G. and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 19 . 2010 A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest. et al.any right.R.R. He must also prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury because of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. G. people have a right to question contracts entered into by the government. G. it is apparent that contrary to the view of the RTC." In public suits. or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law." Thus. taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. 164703. and could be suing as a "stranger. This states that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. 188920. No. or that Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Go vs. December 14. No. the plaintiff's standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. representing the general public. "the rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained.R. 2006 Anent locus standi. Manuel N." And "real party-in-interest" is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. No. Young. Secretary of Public Works. Rioferio vs. No. Rule 3 and Section 2. 2001 Rule 3. 6 . the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. 110 Phil. 3 . Sec. G. In fact. 131889. Inc. No.public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Lawyers against Monopoly and Poverty vs. et al. Sec. namely Section 3. 164987. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Lawyers against Monopoly and Poverty vs.R. this Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties of the decedent under administration pending the appointment of an administrator.R.. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2004 For the protection of the interests of the decedent. April 24. Secretary of Budget and Management. Richard G. November 19. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 20 . April 24. 342-343 (1960) Rule 3. Gochan vs. Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation. Virginia O. G. the general rule is that not only persons individually affected. Court of Appeals.R. but also taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys. this Court has in previous instances recognized the heirs as proper representatives of the decedent. 331. Young. No. in the case of Gochan vs. et al. 164987. No. and Accesslaw.Permissive joinder of parties Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs.. 148560. 2012 In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute. Inc. March 12.Representatives as parties Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced. even when there is already an administrator appointed by the court.R. January 13. 2012 citing Pascual v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of the Philippines. G. 129008.R. Secretary of Budget and Management. Teodora A. G. 2007 Marcelino Arcelona vs. Victoria Regner vs. National Tobacco Administration. 2003 Republic of the Phil. G. October 2. 102900. No. defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions. vs. et al.Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties Ma. Domingo vs. 2007 Section 7. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Cynthia R. Court of Appeals. 2004 Drianita Bagaoisan. 2003 A person who is not a party to an action may be impleaded by the defendant either on the basis of liability to himself or on the ground of direct liability to the plaintiff. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 21 . or if the final determination of the controversy in his absence will be inconsistent with equity and good conscience. Sandiganbayan. if the decree will have an injurious effect upon his interest. vs. their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. vs. 152845. 168747. August 5. 2001 Rule 3. Inc. No. January 29. There are two essential tests of an indispensable party: (1) can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the presence of the other party? and (2) can the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the other party? There is. et al. July 20. G. Section 7 of the Rules of Court. July 15.. 120176. 1997 An indispensable party has been defined as one: [who] must have a direct interest in the litigation. No. Sec. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants.. G. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer. et al.R.R. No. the joinder of all necessary parties where possible. G. if the court cannot render justice between the parties in his absence. 2004 Andrea D. No. et al. however. Lourdes Manliquez.Rule 3. Court of Appeals. no fixed formula for determining who is an indispensable party.R. 7 . and Accesslaw. Speed Distributing Corp. vs. No. 155785. Valentina Santana-Cruz vs. October 19. Logarta. G. G. Inc. Court of Appeals. of course. 154745.R. As such. and if this interest is such that it cannot be separated from that of the parties to the suit. defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. 149351..R.R. No. Simplicio Galicia. et al. April 13.R. March 17. 152154. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires the joinder of all necessary parties where possible and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions. As such. G. G. they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. No. this can only be determined in the context and by the facts of the particular suit or litigation. Sec. 146594. Leonis Navigation Co. CA-01-32. Reyes vs. A. 2002 Rule 3. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp.R. January 23. No. the right to act in a case. Robles. No. June 10. Pascual vs.R. 9 . G. Demetria. so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence. Cabutihan vs. et al. G. September 10.R. Section 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those who are parties in interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. Inc. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the plaintiff's/petitioner's failure to comply therewith.L. No. 2001 Rule 3. Catalino U. Rene B. 2002 It is clear that the presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. 141970. Mercedes M. not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Cabutihan vs. Inc. 146594. Villamater. A party is indispensable if his interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably intertwined with the other parties' interest.Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. G.China Banking Corporation vs. 2002 Metropolitan Bank vs. Sec. Alejo. and Accesslaw. Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just.R. December 15. G.. If petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. June 10. 2010 Rule 3.R. 179169. March 3.. No. October 3.R. which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause. G.M. vs. because of that court's want of authority to act. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. Jaime M. G.Necessary party Rebecca T. No. Inc.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 22 . They are those parties who possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights..." The absence of indispensable parties renders all subsequent actuations of the court null and void. 2010 Heirs of Jose B. Oliver. 182645. No. No. 8 . 05plpe Rebecca T. et al. Justice Demetrio G. 135796. Floro T. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just. either motu proprio or upon the motion of a party. vs. Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed. 2002 China Banking Corporation vs. parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. No. If the plaintiff ordered to include the indispensable party refuses to comply with the order of the court. 2002 Republic of the Phil. G.Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties Union Bank vs.Unwilling co-plaintiff Ramon Ramos vs. may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties.R. Inc. The court. Court of Appeals. G. 146594. Sr. April 25.R. Sec. August 1. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 23 .R. G. 135796. No.. et al.R. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Ignacio Arcega. G. G. G. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. 2003 Under Rule 3.R. No.R. G. February 3. and Accesslaw. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. October 3. 2005 Rule 3. that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order. March 20. 1998 Ma. 2002 Rebecca T. No. 140848. Linda T. the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion. No. G. Sec. neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. August 3.The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. July 15. Almendras vs. 2002 Mabayo Farms vs. Section 11 of the Rules of Court. 11 . Sandiganbayan. 110067. G. Inc. 131729. vs.R. No.. June 10. thus: The proper remedy is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action. Heirs of Honorio Ramos. 152154. No. 159121.. May 19. Oliver. et al.R. 106615.. Court of Appeals. 140058. No. 2002 Rule 3. 10 . Mercedes M. Eligio and Marcelina Mallari vs. Pamplona Plantation Co. Cabutihan vs. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. Tinghel. No. Court of Appeals. 1998 Sps.R. Alfaro Fortunado. 139306. 12 . and Accesslaw. et al. et al. 2008 Rule 3. Risos. et al. et al. 80390. 2003 Rule 3. G. Catalino U. August 29. Inc. Amalia R. G. No. et al. G. 2010 Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. G. 173401. 1999 Maria Mercedes Nery. No.Class suit In order that a class suit may prosper. August 28. Republic of the Phil. June 4.. January 28. Nos.. 139284. G.R. the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the petitioner's/plaintiff's failure to comply. 1998 Ang Kek Chen vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 24 . (2) that the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court. vs. Andrade. No. 170505. 152643.. vs. et al. MVRS Publications vs. March 27. Gabriel Leyson.. 2004 Asuncion Macias. Heirs of Ignacio Bonete. 2010 Misjoinder of parties does not warrant the dismissal of the action. et al. Littie Sarah a. vs. 173355-56. namely: (1) that the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons.Leonis Navigation Co. 178779 & 178894. Inc. 164436.Death of party.R. Mariano Lim.. G. Villamater.R. 2000 The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of every party to the litigation who may be affected by the intervening death.R. Sec. the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. 16 . No.. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. AM RTJ-99-1504. January 15. on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. 144891. 173563-64. May 27. duty of counsel Ramon A. et al.R. 2004 City Sheriff. The deceased litigant is herself or himself Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Mamindiara P.R.. G. Sec. 170375. No. No. Parties may be added by order of the court. In such a case.R. vs. vs. De Manguerra v. G.R. citing Vda. et al. July 7. vs. 2010.R. et al. November 16. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires the concurrence of three (3) essential elements.. Inc. Gonzales vs. Islamic Da'wah Council. Phil. No. et al. Agdeppa. 135306.. Mangotara. 179169. G. No. Section 12. and (3) that the action be maintained by parties who will fairly and adequately represent the class. March 3. Amusement and Gaming Corp. R. 002.E. No. Thus. in cases where the widow is not a real party in interest. Thus. Severino Landicho. Similarly. Inc. No. Norberto and Susan Dingco. However. Sps. 2007 Rule 3. Commission on Elections.R.R. Mencias. Antonio C. No. June 18. April 4. Crisologo C. Diosdidit and Menendez M. citing Bonilla v. In the causes of action which survive. 2005 The death of a client immediately divests the counsel of authority. we struck down the claim of the surviving spouse and children of the protestee to the contested office for the same reason. 170015. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 25 . Norberto and Susan Dingco. Domingo Carabeo vs. de De Mesa v. Even in analogous cases before other electoral tribunals.. we denied substitution by the wife or heirs. 190823. L-41715. Sps. G. had not been substituted as a party after his death. In Vda. It can be gleaned from the citation of this rule that movant/intervenor seeks to appear before this Tribunal as the legal representative/substitute of the late protestant prescribed by said Section 16. it bears reiteration. G. Inc. March 29. Sps. No. we have every time ruled that a public office is personal to the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon death. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 1976 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 149787. Domingo Carabeo vs. 2011 The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. G. G. August 29. The trial court's decision had thereby become final and executory. P. Literato. Section 16 is the rule on substitution in the Rules of Court. petitioner's counsel of record had no personality to act on behalf of the already deceased client who.R. the injuries to the person being merely incidental. we recognized substitution upon the death of the protestee but denied substitution by the widow or heirs since they are not the real parties in interest. we consistently rejected substitution by the widow or the heirs in election contests where the protestant dies during the pendency of the protest. Ronald Allan Poe vs. 190823. et al. G. 2008 Failure of a counsel to comply with the Section 16 of Rule 3 is a ground for disciplinary action. 2011. in the later case of De la Victoria v. the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and property rights. and Accesslaw.. involving substitution by the widow of a deceased protestant. Domingo vs. Case No. No. the property and rights of property affected being incidental. no appeal having been perfected. Barcena. the injury complained of is to the person. April 4. This rule allows substitution by a legal representative. in our application of this rule to an election contest. et al.protected as he/she continues to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. while in the causes of action which do not survive. Sumaljag vs. June 18. in filing a Notice of Appeal.R.T. Ruiz..R. G.Transfer of interest State Investment House vs. et al. Solidbank Corp. G. Jorge Valdez. January 31.Rule 3. 2001 Rule 4 . 2000 Natalia Realty vs. People of the Phil. 106795. No. Intestate Estate of the Late Nimfa Sian vs. No. et al. vs. et al. G. 2000 Rule 3.Notice to the Solicitor General Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. February 7. 150107 & 150108.. 2008 Teofilo Martinez vs. November 16. 2004 Section 19 of Rule 3 of Rules of Court uses the word "may" to denote that the substitution of parties on account of transfer of interest from the original party to another is discretionary. Sec. G. June 28.R. 2002 Melencio Gabriel vs.R. Inc. 21 .R. 22 . 132852.Action on contractual money claims Vivencio M.R. Nelson Bilon. 2007 Rule 3.R. Philippine National Bank. 168882. G. Sec. 146989. 144942.R. 116909. G. No. 1999 Purita Alipio vs. Court of Appeals.. Nos. February 25. G. November 12.R. 2007 Rule 3. No. Court of Appeals. 1999 Marcopper Mining Corp. G. June 17.R.. Sec. No.Indigent party Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. Sec. 20 . 19 . La Suerte Cigar. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 26 . No. and Accesslaw. 126462.. Inc. September 29. No. 134100. January 28. et al. G. vs.R. vs. No. Court of Appeals. G. Inc.Venue of Actions Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. 134049. May 31. Court of Appeals. No. or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. G. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. at the election of the plaintiff.R. Balindong. Restrictive stipulations are in derogation of the general policy of making it more convenient for the parties to institute actions arising from or in relation to their agreements. supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. the basic principles of freedom to contract might work to the great disadvantage of a weak party-suitor who ought to be allowed free access to courts of justice. Inc. Sec.While stipulations regarding venue are considered valid and enforceable. such that even those not related to the enforcement of the contract should be subject to the exclusive venue. G. No. Expanding the scope of such limitation on a contracting party will create unwarranted restrictions which the parties might find unintended or worse. and Accesslaw. et al.. 2006 Exclusive venue stipulation embodied in a contract restricts or confines parties thereto when the suit relates to breach of the said contract. or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found. 1 . is one that affects title to or possession of real property.Venue of real actions Sections 1 and 2. 2007 Rule 4. et al. 166920. or a portion thereof. All other actions are personal and may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides.R. Otherwise. No. Inc. all other actions (personal actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper courts where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. Yahya M. Thus. March 29. venue stipulations in a contract do not. No. Luis Esteban Latorre. under Sec. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 27 .R. Klaus K. 2010 citing Orbeta v. Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide an answer to the issue of venue. Such actions should be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved. Rasad G. as a rule. February 19. the stipulation designating exclusive venues should be strictly confined to the specific undertaking or agreement.R. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. Pacific Consultants International Asia. No. G. Orbeta. 2010 A real action. 1. vs. Generosa Almeda Latorre vs. On the other hand. November 27. 182434. or an interest therein. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein (real actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property is situated. 183926. Schonfeld. the restriction should be strictly construed as relating solely to the agreement for which the exclusive venue stipulation is embodied. Inc. arbitrary and oppressive. is situated. March 5. But where the exclusivity clause does not make it necessarily all encompassing. Tomawis vs. 166837. G. vs. 1.. 148568. Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Generosa Almeda Latorre vs. 183926. June 10. venue stipulation should be deemed merely permissive. et al. Monasterio. G. as provided for in Section 1. hence. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. June 30. under Sec. 156228. Teresa O. G.R. No. An action for the enforcement of a settlement is not one of those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure in civil cases. the rules on regular procedure shall apply. SMC vs. more specifically so as to who. Sec. G. Mariano L. the rules mandated by the Rules of Court should govern. Aquilino T. G. is one that affects title to or possession of real property. No. or an interest therein. Luis Esteban Latorre.R. 2003 Rule 4. 2002 Atlantic Erectors vs. between the contending parties. and that interpretation should be adopted which most serves the parties' convenience. Ma. November 27. This is regardless of the nature of the complaint before the Lupon. et al. On the other hand. since convenience is the raison d'etre of the rules on venue. as amended. and where the relief prayed for cannot be granted without the court deciding on the merits the issue of ownership and title. Larin. Escueta. 2 . Ma. March 29. 151037. No. Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 2003 Real actions. No.Venue of personal actions Sections 1 and 2. G. the case can only be but a real action. an action for the enforcement of the settlement should be instituted in the proper municipal or city court. Where a contrary claim to ownership is made by an adverse party. are those which affect the title to or possession of real property.R.R. Teresa Vidal. Gumabon. G. or a portion thereof. Inc. 2001 Rebecca T. 146594. would have a better right to the property. all other actions (personal actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper courts where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. 2005 By express provision of Section 417 of the LGC. vs. December 10. Such actions should be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved. and Accesslaw. No. March 20. The venue for such actions is governed by Rule 4. Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide an answer to the issue of venue.R.R. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp.Moreover. 2010 A real action. Cabutihan vs. is Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and the relief prayed for therein. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein (real actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property is situated. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 28 . as amended. as so opposed to personal actions. Inc. 142523. No. Contrawise. Herbal Cove. finds no application where the parties. Davao Light vs. No. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. April 19. Inc. G. Jr. vs. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court… The rule. Herbal Cove. G. Auction in Malinta. Tomawis vs. American Express Int'l Inc. G. August 9. November 27. 159507. March 20.. or the place where plaintiff resides. 171456. 2006 The general rule on the venue of personal actions. Alexander M. 2007 The Rules of Court provide that parties to an action may agree in writing on the venue on which Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2001 Rebecca T. 166837. Cruz. 146594. vs. February 12. to validly agree in writing on an exclusive venue. August 12.R. 2002 Anita Mangila vs. No. Yahya M. No. Cabutihan vs.November 27. at the election of the plaintiff. Inc. 182434. section 2 of the Rules of Court. as in a case for damages. 142523. 2001 Mariano L. 171456. Aniceto Saludo. have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. he is limited to that place. 2010 citing Orbeta v. Orbeta.R. Aquilino T. G. No. The option of plaintiff in personal actions cognizable by the RTC is either the place where defendant resides or may be found. 2006 An action for damages being a personal action. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 29 . 173979. No. 4 . vs. 2003 Rule 4. Inc. before the filing of the action. however.. Inc. Larin. G.R. August 9. Rasad G. Warren Embes Luyaben. March 5. No. Court of Appeals. Balindong. G. vs. or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found. No. If plaintiff opts for the latter.R. No. is designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice. Gumabon. et al.R. vs. or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. like other procedural rules. 125027. Inc. before the filing of the action. June 10. G.When Rule not applicable Section 2 of Rule 4 is.R. et al. 2007 Uniwide Holdings. is embodied in Section 2.R. and Accesslaw. Court of Appeals.R. Cruz. 111685.situated. No. however. or the impartial and evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding.R. et al. 2002 Atlantic Erectors vs. 148568. 2007 The choice of venue for personal actions cognizable by the RTC is given to plaintiff but not to plaintiff's caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. G.R. qualified by Section 4 of the same rule which allows parties.R. No. Uniwide Holdings. venue is determined pursuant to Rule 4. The rule on venue. Alexander M. G. G. Sec. August 20. G. All other actions are personal and may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides. an action should be brought. 124062. they should be considered merely as an agreement on additional forum. Teresa O. 5 . Ma. as long as jurisdictional requirements are followed. et al. People of the Phil. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 30 . while considered valid and enforceable. His presence at another place at the time of the commission of the crime. 2002 Rule 5 . vs. et al.. Sec. courts will allow the filing of a case in any venue. 125027. Cometa vs. Court of Appeals. However. 2. a mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. G. G.R. August 24. Cleofe V.. do not as a rule supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. No. January 21. Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs. for alibi to overcome the prosecution's evidence. Moreover. Sec. 184960. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive.Uniform procedure Ma. Meer. absent words that show the parties' intention to restrict the filing of a suit in a particular place. and The physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. this is true only if the accused's alibi strictly meets the following requisites: 1. Venue stipulations in a contract.R. et al.Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts Sps. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. No. 146845. However. 2003 Rule 6. Inc. No.R. No.R. G. Humberto D. Anita Mangila vs. and Accesslaw. Inc. Court of Appeals. vs. Escueta. 2002 Rule 5. 1 . Baroquillo. December 10. Thus. July 2. August 12. No.R. 1999 Alibi is indeed a good defense and could certainly exculpate a person accused of a crime.Defenses Reynaldo T. G. 156228. Teresa Vidal. 2011 This Court has ruled consistently that alibi is an inherently weak defense and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution. not as limiting venue to the specified place. the defense must successfully prove the element of physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene at the time of the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. R. Bihag. but more importantly. Victor Rondina vs. Fourth. Alfredo. June 13. vs. and Accesslaw. and Hilot. Cleofe V. consistent and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter. May 19. G. 2004 Alibi becomes more unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused himself and his or her relatives. et al. vs. they cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime.R.R. if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. December 15. G. Inc. 289 (2000) It is well-settled that since alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated. vs. Two. 188560.. People of the Phil. No. It is settled in this jurisdiction that the defense of alibi. 2011. No. No. friends. Denial. 2010 In light of the positive identification of appellant by the prosecution witnesses and since no ill motive on their part or on that of their families was shown that could have made either of them institute the case against the appellant and falsely implicate him in a serious crime he did not commit. No. and Hilot.perpetration of the offense. 184960. G. August 24. 175781. By physical impossibility. Inc. 153538.R. March 13. we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed. Fifth. 2011. citing People vs. it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the crime. 179059.R. Molina. the accessibility between these points. et al. 289 (2000) Jurisprudential rules and precepts guide this Court in assessing the proffered defense.R. citing People vs. Baroquillo. . 2009 It is elementary that the defense of denial is outweighed by a positive identification that is categorical. Jr. . No. vs. alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses. 2012 citing People v. citing People vs. Bihag. for alibi to prosper. 184960. G. One. like alibi. Jr. G. alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses. 184173. . is negative and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 31 . cannot prevail over the clear and positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. March 20. alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being weak. 2011. 193188. the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed. Juanito Apattad. People of the Phil. August 24. being inherently weak. Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was. No. Francisca Talaro.. G..R. No. Three. appellant's defense of alibi must necessarily fail. Cleofe V. August 10. G. 2012 citing People vs. 396 Phil. Baroquillo.R. No. et al. Estoya. and comrades-in-arms and not by credible persons. but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. and the assessment made by the trial court — unless patently and clearly inconsistent — must be accepted. G. People of the Phil. People of the Phil. People of the Phil.. 396 Phil. Transway Sales Corp. Premiere Development Bank vs.R. G. mandatory upon pain of waiver. Baldomar. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 32 .R. April 11. G. 106770. 7 . and Accesslaw. It is an independent action. October 22. Lima. Sec. 2008 Administrative Circular No. June 10. Estherlita Cruz-Agana vs. Antonio L. 139018. No.R. A respondent has no choice but to raise a compulsory counterclaim the moment the plaintiff files the complaint. 1999 Rule 6. G. 6 .Compulsory counterclaim A counterclaim is compulsory when its object "arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction". To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not... which gave rise to it. Inc. 04-94 does not apply to compulsory counterclaims.R. respondent waives the compulsory counterclaim. Otherwise. No. Inc. vs. No. separate and distinct from the original complaint. et al. In short. G.R. Sec. People of the Phil. et al. No.Counterclaim Felipe Yulienco vs. A compulsory counterclaim set up in the answer is not an "initiatory" or similar pleading. vs. February 29. 197043. Aurora Santiago-Lagman. G. 175339. 2005 A compulsory counterclaim cannot be the subject of a separate action but it should instead be asserted in the same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence. the compulsory counterclaim is a reaction or response. It partakes of the nature of a complaint or cause of action against the plaintiff. The initiatory pleading is the plaintiff's complaint.. we have devised the following tests: (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim? and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 1999 A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. et al.self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. et al. Court of Appeals. 131692. Flores. Alfredo C. 2012 Rule 6. to an initiatory pleading which is the complaint. December 16. The circular applies to initiatory and similar pleadings. No. Johnny K. 1999 Rule 6. G. But if he opts to set up his compulsory counterclaim. cdasia Felipe Yulienco vs.Cross-claim The Rules of Court defines a cross-claim as any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim. 8 . or is necessarily connected with. No. the counterclaim is improper and it must dismissed. August 7. It may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant. if the dismissal of the main action results in the dismissal of the counterclaim already filed. he may still plead his ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer. 131692. In other words. (b) it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. August 17.Affirmative answers to the above queries indicate the existence of a compulsory counterclaim. In other words. Leticia P. A counterclaim is compulsory if (a) it arises out of. where there is no claim against the counterclaimant. No. more so where the complaint is dismissed at the instance of the counterclaimant. Needless to state. G. No. he will lose his compulsory counterclaim. Inc. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss. vs. A counterclaim presupposes the existence of a claim against the party filing the counterclaim. 133119. 2000 A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party. June 10. Hence. and (c) the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Sec.R. Thus. G. Financial Building Corp. In the event that a defending party has a ground for dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at the same time. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 33 . the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. Court of Appeals. and Accesslaw. Inc.R. 1998 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 127683. Ligon vs. a compulsory counterclaim cannot be made the subject of a separate action but should be asserted in the same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence giving rise to it. the filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support therefrom. until the principal issue between the plaintiff and the defendant cross-claimant shall have been heard and determined. it would be premature to decide the cross-claim . Forbes Park Association. he must choose only one remedy.R. The answer then to the cross-claim is meant to join the subsidiary issues between the co-parties in relation to the opposing party's claim against the cross-claimant. it stands to reason that the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the counterclaim. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. that the party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to the action. the requisites for a third-party action are. 2000 Rule 6. fourthly. Sec. thirdly. and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. April 12. 162733. 2008 A third-party complaint is actually a complaint independent of. etc. 11 . Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 34 . et al. The trial court is vested with discretion whether or not to allow the defendant to file a third-party complaint.)-party complaint A third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may. indemnity. Veluz vs. that the claim against the third-party defendant must belong to the original defendant. Section 11 of the Rules of Court.R. Inc. Mendoza. file against a person not a party to the action. Sec. Except in cases where the answer alleges the defense of usury in which case a reply under oath is required otherwise the allegation of usury is deemed admitted. October 17.R. G. any new matter alleged by way of defense in the answer (or comment as in this case) is deemed controverted should a party fail to file a reply thereto.R. in respect of his opponent's claim. Were it not for Rule 6. et al. and Accesslaw. G. 152122. No. for contribution. vs. G. Inc. As such. such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party defendant. Rosa D. Seaoil Petroleum Corp. secondly. 2005 Accordingly.China Airlines vs. Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Ramon M. 164326. the defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against him by Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. July 30. No. No. G. Daniel Chiok. or is based on an actionable document in which case a verified reply is necessary otherwise the genuineness and due execution of said actionable document is generally deemed admitted. with leave of court. called the third-party defendant. Erasmo Tayao vs... November 23.Reply Under Section 10. the claim of the original defendant against the third-party defendant must be based upon the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant. 10 . 2003 Rule 6.R. firstly. No. Autocorp Group. subrogation or any other relief.Third (fourth. The purpose is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set of facts. the defendant has no vested right to file a third-party complaint. the filing of a reply is merely optional as the new matters raised in the answer are deemed controverted even without a reply. and. 139951. Philtranco Service Enterprises... No. G.. Hellera.R. No. Philtranco Service Enterprises. et al. et al. Sec.R. to wit: The third-party claim need not be based on the same theory as the main claim. For example. Impleader also is proper even though the third party's liability is contingent. As the foregoing indicates. June 27. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 35 . 2012 Paras' cause of action against Inland (breach of contract of carriage) did not need to be the same as the cause of action of Inland against Philtranco and its driver (tort or quasi-delict) in the impleader. was derived. 2000 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Indeed. April 25. Inc. et al. Inc.the original plaintiff. vs. supra. et al. It is settled that a defendant in a contract action may join as third-party defendants those who may be liable to him in tort for the plaintiff's claim against him. Section 1 of the Rules of Court states that the names of the parties shall be indicated in the title of the original complaint or petition. there are cases in which the third-party claim is based on an express indemnity contract and the original complaint is framed in terms of negligence. 1 . vs. In addition. G. et al. Wright. Linton Commercial Co. No. Sec. Inc.. 163147.. there need not be any legal relationship between the third-party defendant and any of the other parties to the action. et al. G. 2007 Rule 7. the substantive law on which the right of Inland to seek such other relief through its third-party complaint rested were Article 2176 and Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Inc. and technically does not come into existence until the original defendant's liability has been established. vs. G. Inc.. Prof. 161909. the claim that the third-party complaint asserts against the third-party defendant must be predicated on substantive law.Caption Rule 7.Signature and address Antonio (Antonino) Samaniego. Similarly. Vic Alvarez Aguila. the words 'is or may be liable' in Rule 14(a) make it clear that impleader is proper even though the third-party defendant's liability is not automatically established once the third-party plaintiff's liability to the original plaintiff has been determined. vs.R. No. Felix Paras. observed so. Alex A. Felix Paras. Here. 3 . April 25. commenting on the provision of the Federal Rules of Procedure of the United States from which Section 12. 2012 Rule 7.R. and Accesslaw. et al. October 10. or even directly to the plaintiff. 161909. 125567.. an indispensable party is a party-in-interest. Allowing two different minority stockholders to institute separate derivative suits arising from the same factual background. Santiago Cua. 169706. Inc. This is specially true before the HLURB where the proceedings are summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in the courts of law and where the pertinent concern is to promote public interest and to assist the parties in obtaining just. The non-inclusion of one or some of the names of all the complainants in the title of a complaint. Sec. is tantamount to allowing the corporation. and to be affected by the decree. alleging the same causes of action. Sps. resulting in the violation of the rules against a multiplicity of suits and even forum-shopping. Santiago Cua. December 4. Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights. "Interest. to file the same suit twice. William and Rebecca Genato vs. and Accesslaw. Rita Viola. but merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on the record. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Section 3 of the Rules of Court.R. Miguel Ocampo Tan. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 36 . However. vs. Nos. and praying for the same reliefs. application or other proceedings. vs. The inclusion of the names of all the parties in the title of a complaint is a formal requirement under Section 3. Under Rule 7. because it is to look beyond the corporation and to give recognition to the different identities of the stockholders instituting the derivative suits. provided there is a statement in the body of the complaint indicating that such complainant/s was/were made party to such action. et al. et al. 2009 It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that are controlling. 181455-56 & 182008. directly in issue. 181455-56 & 182008. so that the court cannot proceed without their presence. Nos. 4 . Miguel Ocampo Tan. a nominal or pro forma party is one who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant. is not fatal to the case. 2009 With the corporation as the real party-in-interest and the indispensable party. speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. February 5... it is the corporation that is the indispensable party...Verification Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. It is also in disregard of the separate-corporate-entity principle. No. not because such party has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded." within the meaning of this rule.R. December 4. et al. G. the rules of pleadings require courts to pierce the form and go into the substance. the real party-in-interest. without whom no final determination can be had of an action without that party being impleaded. 2010 Rule 7. Jr. should be material. while the suing stockholder is just a nominal party.R. G.[I]n a derivative suit. any ruling in one of the derivative suits should already bind the corporation as res judicata in the other. Inc. G. On the other hand. Jr. as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved. et al. The certification of counsel renders the petition defective. and (18) petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages as well as petition for summary proceedings under the Family Code. No. 149634. Court of Appeals. prohibition. KCD Builders Corp. Section 1. G. No. (11) petition for certiorari against the judgments. May 30. Section 1. J. Section 2. (16) all complaints or petitions involving intra-corporate controversies under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies. Examples of pleadings that require verification are: (1) all pleadings filed in civil cases under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Section 1. (2) petition for review from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court raising only questions of law under Rule 41. lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. Section 4. vs. and mandamus under Rule 65. 173181. June 3..R. G.. 175512. (4) petition for review from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. G. (10) application for support pendente lite under Rule 61. Section 1. 2004 A pleading is verified by an affidavit that an affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct as to his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. Section 5. Section 1. Inc. The party does not need to sign the verification. final orders or resolutions of constitutional commissions under Rule 64. (17) complaint or petition for rehabilitation and suspension of payment under the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation. Sections 1 to 3. It is intended simply to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation. Inc. A party's representative. vs. Section 1. (7) complaint for injunction under Rule 58. G.R. Vallacar Transit. the requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requisite.Loreta Torres vs. July 6. A party's representative. and that the pleading is filed in good faith. (5) petition for review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The party need not sign the verification. Section 4.R. (8) application for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order under Rule 58. The certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by the party. a pleading need not be verified. (15) petition for indirect contempt under Rule 71. Specialized Packaging Dev't. 146364. 2004 As a general rule.. Corp. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 37 . No.R. Section 4.V. or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. 2011. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils. (6) petition for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions under Rule 47. all from the 1997 Rules of Court. Inc. 2010 A party's failure to sign the certification against forum shopping is different from the party's failure to sign personally the verification. and not by counsel. lawyer. No. March 3. (13) petition for quo warranto under Rule 66. Jocelyn Catubig. (12) petition for certiorari. (3) petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals under Rule 42. Section 2. Section 4. and Accesslaw. citing Pajuyo v. On the other hand. (14) complaint for expropriation under Rule 67. unless there is a law or rule specifically requiring the same. (9) application for appointment of a receiver under Rule 59. or submission of defective. as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. PNB. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 38 . Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective." The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case. Inc. 154704. et al.. verification and certification against forum shopping: 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification. G. Traveno v. 174224. As to certification against forum shopping. for reasonable or justifiable reasons. J.. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.R. the Rule dictates that a pleading may be verified under either of the two given modes or under both. No. however. As to verification. those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. May 30. Marcial Aparece vs. the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule. the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on. G. and Accesslaw. unlike in verification.Vallacar Transit. G. et al. however. 175512. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. the party-pleader is unable to sign. he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. 2011. Finally. Jocelyn Catubig. September 3..R.R. de Formoso. the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader. G.R. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein. No. not by his counsel. otherwise. is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof. October 17. vs. unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons. and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. 2011 For the guidance of the bench and bar. Inc. citing Oldarico S. and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping. et al. Marketing Corp. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances. If. vs. Nellie Vda. 164205. as it is intended to secure an assurance that the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. June 1. Inc. 2008 The verification requirement is significant. 2009 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) As worded. No. No. R. et al. G. as warranted. and Accesslaw.R. 2005 Loreta Torres vs. No. February 12. January 25. G. No. 2011 Marilyn Valdecantos vs. September 27. needless to state. 2003 Shipside Incorporated vs. August 24. No. and that the pleading is filed in good faith. 2006 Section 4 of Rule 7 indicates that a pleading may be verified under either of the two given modes or under both. the court may order its correction if verification is lacking. No. Eun Won Choi. G. 151900. Workers Assn. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. not jurisdictional. 2007 Franklin P. or are true and correct.R. G. 193247 & 194276. G. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation. 149634. 158786. Monter. 165496. The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either one's own personal knowledge or on authentic records. Sergio I. Carbonilla. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 39 .allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation. hence. 2007 Christine Chua vs. not merely speculative. October 19. or act on the pleading although it Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. April 30. 2000 The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal. No. People of the Phil. The use of the preposition "or" connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification and. G. No. et al. et al.R. No. G. 2004 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. 159653. Nos. 163745. National Labor Relations Commission. No. Court of Appeals.. 2001 Under Section 4. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified. Court of Appeals. vs. Court of Appeals. Non-compliance with such requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. 2007 LDP Marketing. August 30. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation. February 20. 148852. 2006 The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith. July 6. Hun Hyung Park vs. 143377. Fernando Go vs. a pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.R.R. Inc. Sandiganbayan. September 14.R. Inc.R. if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.. et al. the concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient. May 12. Inc. Jorge Torres. Bautista vs. G. vs. Corp. the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Toyota Motor Phil.R. Board of Airlines Representatives. G. 146923.R. Nos. G. vs. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading. or both.R. 136082.. No. 158789 & 158798-99... G. et al. G. Erneliza Z. as in the present case.R. Rodriguez vs. Willie and Julie L. as this practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure. Antonio I.. G. not mere speculations. Evangelista. 141307. et al. April 10. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 40 .is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.. 2003 Verification is intended to assure that the allegations in the pleading have been prepared in good faith or are true and correct. CSC.R.R. et al. Sec. Mamaril vs. No. the Court has relaxed. vs. No. et al. lack of verification is merely a formal defect that is neither jurisdictional nor fatal. Verification is merely a formal and not a jurisdictional requisite which does not affect the validity or efficacy of the pleading.R. No. Estrella. et al. April 30. G. a defective verification. August 31. and that the pleading is filed in good faith. 2002 City Warden of the Manila City Jail vs. No.R. Navarro vs. under justifiable circumstances. G. However. G. No. December 5. 143389. 2001 Pfizer Inc. 2006 Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation.. May 25. No. although it is Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Edwin V. No. 2003 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.. No. et al. Inc.R. October 23." Jesus Dela Rosa. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Inc. 2001 Verification based on the affiant's own knowledge and information is sufficient under the circumstances. Galan. March 28.R. Sps. Therefore. 147549. G. Purto J. 153947. 141211.R. November 27. does not render the pleading or the petition invalid and the Court of Appeals did not err in giving due course to the petition. Generally. 5 . Raymond S. The court may order the correction of the pleading or act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice. the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that. 164929. Court of Appeals. and Accesslaw. 2002 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. 2001 Rule 7. 146923.Certification against forum shopping Basis for the Requirement of Certification of Non-Forum Shopping The requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora. 146553. Court of Appeals. G. or the jurisdiction of the court. Santiago Carlos. Caparoso. No. Court of Appeals. However. in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue. Patricia A. Teresa Gabriel. No. 6377. it is not jurisdictional. Inc. Court of Appeals.R. December 15. 175512. Roxas. et al. Nelson P. Collantes vs. 2010 All complaints. A. 173326.. G. et al.R.R. Failure to comply with the requirement shall be cause for dismissal of the case. Pfizer. vs. March 6. G. it can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance. first prescribed by Administrative Circular No. Vallacar Transit. Inc. South Cotabato Communications Corp. January 31. No. should there be any pending action or claim before any court.R. Inc. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 41 .. 167715. G. 2007 Rule 7.C. a liberal application of the rules is proper where the higher interest of justice would be served. August 8. No. October 11.. Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal party.. Inc.. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that. 169604.. Not being jurisdictional.R. Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. vs. 2007 Section 5. 125509.obligatory. et al. a complete statement of its status should be given. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency. In Sy Chin v. et al. 04-94. No. Inc. petitions. Composite Enterprises. et al. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. et al. 2007 This circumstance — of being surprised by the discovery of another pending claim with another court or quasi-judicial agency — is the very situation contemplated by letter (c) in the first paragraph of Section 5. vs. Court of Appeals. Rule 7. Phil Pharmawealth. 2011 What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. vs. 1994. No. the Rules of Court provides that the plaintiff or the principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading the requirements as mandated under Section 5. March 12. 149909. Sto. et al. 159919.R. Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Court. we ruled that while a Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2007 Regarding the certification against forum shopping. then later on by Rule 7. Jocelyn Catubig... which took effect on April 1. Inc. and Accesslaw. May 30. does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with prejudice. November 17. No. Gonzalez. vs. 2010 Public Interest Center. G. Rufa C. G.R. Emilio M. vs. No. et al. Inc. and other initiatory pleadings must be accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping. Vicente Q. et al. applications. Tomas. 2007 Failure to comply with the non-forum shopping requirements in Section 5. Suan vs. G. Ricardo D. et al. essential facts and circumstances. 163707. and raise identical causes of action. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 42 . Executive Secretary. November 18. Michael C. and Accesslaw. 171562. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. the physical act of signing may be performed. on behalf of the corporate entity. In the case of natural persons.petition may have been flawed where the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party. after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court. Gordon. vs.. or (2) if. et al. it has been held that there is forum-shopping — (1) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum. Richard J. only by specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that corporations. and issues. et al. the Rule requires the parties themselves to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. July 27. either simultaneously or successively. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. et al. Phil. a certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition. cannot personally do the task themselves. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better than anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. Inc. as artificial persons. September 15. No. It cannot be gainsaid that obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom. Guy vs.R. 2006 The requirement that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed and signed by the plaintiff or principal means that counsel cannot sign said certification unless clothed with special authority to do so. et al vs. However. Heirs of Carolina P..R. 134171. a party files another before the Court of Appeals since in such case he deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed. No. No. Public School Teachers Ass'n. subject matter. G. Inc. Iligan. in the case of the corporations. CA. 2006 Forum-shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action." or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain the same from the original court. another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open.. this procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. Still another test of forum shopping is when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another — whether in the two or more pending cases. there is an identity of (a) parties (or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions). So it is in the present controversy where the merits of the case and the absence of an intention to violate the rules with impunity should be considered as compelling reasons to temper the strict application of the rules. Hence.R. 1998 Forum shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. G. Thus. No. and Accesslaw.R. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same.R. G.R.R. Inc. § 5 that the certification should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal means that counsel cannot sign the certificate against forum-shopping. Claudius G. Santiago Eslaban vs.. et al. No. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better than anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. International Exchange Bank. November 15. David Levy. 110914. March 17. June 28. 2000 Allen Leroy Hamilton vs. Election contests are subject to the Comelec Rules of Procedure. No. August 15. Loquias. 2000 Apolinario vs. G. Hence.R. 2001 Forum shopping is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum. NLRC. Efren O. G. 2000 Alexander T. vs. G. Barroso vs. et al. Office of the Ombudsman. 139283. 139495. November 16. De Onorio. et al. No. a certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition. et al. Nos. 2001 The requirement in Rule 7. Court of Appeals. 2000 MCIAA vs.R.(b) rights or causes of action. etc. G. April 19. Inc. August 10. The most important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the "vexation caused the courts and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2001 Alfredo Canuto. Nos. The language of the Supreme Court circular (now the above-quoted Section 5. 146062. G. 2011 The Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not apply to election cases. Rule 7. Clarita Vda. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) distinctly suggests that it is primarily intended to cover an initiatory pleading or an incipient application of a party asserting a claim for relief. 139396. No. Rule 35 does not require that the petition contesting the election of any municipal official be accompanied by a certification or any statement against forum shopping. 1999 Section 5.R. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 43 .. 112872 & 114672. Francisco S.. other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari. They apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. Ty vs. and (c) reliefs sought. Jr. Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court. or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. No. Ampig. Court of Appeals. November 27. Metrobank vs.R. G. 176008 & 176131. June 28. No. 138218. G. Rule 35 thereof governs election contests involving elective municipal officials before the Regional Trial Courts. Court of Appeals.R. Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. vs. G. 123686. 45. No. Manuel and Rosemarie Wee vs. 146923. Barnes vs.M. 2003 Sps. 2004 Origin of the Concept of Forum Shopping The determination of whether there is identity of parties rests on the commonality of the parties' interest. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendencia are present. The issue of whether the additional parties are indispensable parties or not acquires real significance only when considering the validity of the judgment that will be rendered in the earlier case. Court of Appeals. G. No. Francisco G. et al. 2002 Tomas R. 2002 Spouses Elanio C. No. 142572.R.R. No. This is so. Ong vs. August 11. Rosario D. Occidental Mindoro with Civil Case No. Rodriguez vs.. G. No. Ma. then no valid judgment can be rendered against them in the earlier case in which they did not participate. 2003 Agapito Cruz Fiel vs. Young vs.. Galvez. Court of Appeals. Barcelona vs.R. G. Inc..R. April 3. 2003 Diana M. G. No. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. it has been held that a party cannot be said to have sought to improve his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action where no unfavorable decision has ever been rendered against him in any of the cases he has brought before the courts.R. 2003 Jimmy L. Inc. 139337. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). 155875.R. Kris Security Systems. regardless of whether they are indispensable parties or not.R.R.. 2003 Prudencio Bantolino. Paxton Development Corp. September 23. John Keng Seng. No. No. August 31.R. Reyes. G. No. Supnet. September 24. 144533. February 20. Court of Appeals. June 10. G. et al. 2001 Request for Consolidation of Civil Case No. R-1692 RTC BR. Roxas vs. 153947.parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. Carminia C. G. 00-7-299-RTC. Court of Appeals and Emma A. 2001 Republic vs. G. December 5." Since a party resorts to forum shopping in order to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action. Inc. Cabanatuan City. 151081. Garamay Ong. 153660. 49. Top Rate Construction vs. and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. 2003 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. and this will foreclose the application of res judicata which requires the existence of a final judgment.R. No. 2003 Emilio S. April 30. August 15. G. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. September 11. Carmel Development. RTC-BR. Teresita C. No. No. because if the additional parties are indispensable parties. 147394. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 44 .R. 143464. March 5. AM MTJ-02-1433. 130087. A. vs. July 5. 144581. San Jose. G.R. 2003. and Accesslaw. 3640. Leonidas vs. February 21. No. 2002 Antonio I. G. the litigant actually shops for a forum of his action. G. 2[b]). And this necessitated or had given rise to the formulation of rules and canons discouraging or altogether prohibiting the practice. G. aggrieved parties. vs. litigants. however. It had created extreme inconvenience to some of the parties to the action. or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides. No. In the Philippines. culpa aquiliana or culpa criminal — each remedy being available independently of the others — although he cannot recover more than once. forum shopping has acquired a connotation encompassing not only a choice of venues. or to select a more friendly venue. as it was originally understood in conflicts of laws.. through the encouragement of their lawyers.Sps.R. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils. 2008 First Philippine International Bank v. file their actions in all available courts. To combat these less than honorable excuses. This practice had not only resulted to (sic) conflicting adjudications among different courts and consequent confusion enimical (sic) to an orderly administration of justice. "Thus. Heirs of Dominga Lustre. "In either of these situations (choice of venue or choice of remedy). to avoid overcrowded dockets. No. 'forum-shopping' had acquired a different concept — which is unethical professional legal practice. Sofronio and Natividad Santos. and Accesslaw. are given a choice of pursuing civil liabilities independently of the criminal. Court of Appeals. 2008 Forum shopping originated as a concept in private international law. This was the original concept of the term forum shopping. July 31. Inc. 159323. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 45 . Inc.R. 115849. where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses. for example. simultaneously or successively. but also to a choice of remedies. Sec. all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances. including to secure procedural advantages. et al. the Rules of Court. arising from the same set of facts. allow a plaintiff to commence personal actions "where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found." What therefore started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate device for solving problems has been abused and misused to assure scheming litigants of dubious reliefs. and all raising substantially the same issues either Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. As to the first (choice of venues). 151016. January 24. at the election of the plaintiff" (Rule 4.). the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court. instead of actually making a choice of the forum of their actions. August 6. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual. in conflicts of law cases. vs. et al. No. may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. "Eventually. or invoke all relevant remedies simultaneously. for example. Social Security Commission. G.R. to annoy and harass the defendant. 1996 Forum Shopping Construed Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who "repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts. Inc. As to remedies. Inc. March 14." Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. then in another.R. regardless of which party is successful.. so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.R. Nephtali Solilapsi. 2012 Rationale for Rule Against Forum Shopping The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts as it constitutes abuse of court processes. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits.. to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court. amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.R. and adds to Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.] and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars[. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. regardless of which party is successful. 2012 Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. which tends to degrade the administration of justice." Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. Inc. 154187. would amount to res judicata in the other case. Asia United Bank. 2004 T'Boli Agro-Industrial Development. Inc. et al. G. and Accesslaw. the reliefs being founded on the same facts. Jorge Valdez. Inc. either simultaneously or successively. it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. 2008 Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corp.pending in.] (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. Litis pendentia is a Latin term. March 14. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties. Asia United Bank. Nos. No. April 14. 150107. et al.C. No. (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. G. vs. G. wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 46 .R.. No. Nos. Inc.. vs. 195546 & 195561. through means other than by appeal or certiorari. A. vs. and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases... Goodland Co. 4766. said requisites [are] also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens.] such that any judgment rendered in the other action will. or already resolved adversely by some other court . et al. 150107. . Goodland Co. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action. Jorge Valdez. such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case. G. or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions[. December 27. which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant.R. United Coconut Planters Bank. vs. v. January 28. or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions. Inc. the relief being founded on the same facts[. either simultaneously or successively. vs. .. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. 2002 There is forum shopping when the following elements are present: "(a) identity of parties." The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action.. G. No. January 28. 195546 & 195561. et al. Inc. 2008 It is "the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. vs. July 31. and a petition or motion for the issuance of the writ under Section 7 of Act No. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. as amended. G. Manuel Lacson. Lilia J. 2004 George S. et al. May 5. Hence. G. The ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by the respondent is not an initiatory pleading.R. et al.. 159130. vs.R. G. Salvador Abad Santos. December 15. vs. but to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it.. Nos. No. 2008 The certification against forum shopping is required only in a complaint or other initiatory pleading. No. G. The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation. such as representing the same interests in both actions.R.R. et al. 2010 The test to determine identity of causes of action is to ascertain whether the same evidence Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sps. 2008 A certificate of non-forum shopping is required only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings. G. Galvez.R. 2008 Coca-Bottler (Phils. Henson-Cruz. Inc. August 11. Manuel Lacson. G. et al. and (c) the identity of the two cases. Jorge Valdez. G. vs. 2008 Sps.R. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy. a motion. 141508. Metrobank vs. August 22. 167280. Rosario D. Manuel and Rosemarie Wee vs. April 30. No... 2010 The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. or at least. G. and Accesslaw. et al. is not a complaint or an initiatory pleading.R. 157867. No. 159323.the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. An application for a writ of possession is a mere incident in the registration proceeding. nonetheless. Inc. No. Benedicto.. although it was denominated as a "petition. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 47 .. such that judgment in one. Jorge Valdez. the relief being founded on the same facts. Benedicto. Bance. Inc. 2008 Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. would amount to res judicata in the other. in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons. but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. No. Inc.. et al. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once.. 150107 & 150108. but rather its purpose.R.. Social Security Commission. vs. regardless of which party is successful. 147394. it is. No. vs. Although the private respondent denominated its pleading as a petition. Roberto S. 2009 The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties. No.. Roberto S. et al. et al. Inc. A motion is not an independent right or remedy. Briones vs. 141508. 3135. G. January 28. Elmor and Rosario J. 150107." it was in substance merely a motion. January 28. et al. et al. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.R.). May 5. (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. May 5. even if the forms or the nature of the two (2) actions are different from each other. This method has been considered the most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar in subsequent proceedings between the same parties.R. and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.V. to the best of his knowledge. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 48 2) 3) 4) Copyright 2012 . the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on.. 2010 [A] certification of non-forum shopping is a certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading. a complete statement of the present status thereof. et al. It has even been designated as infallible.. 141508. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils.. KCD Builders Corp. No. vs. thus. March 18. et al. clear that the counsel is not the proper person to sign the certification against forum shopping. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. he shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. the two (2) actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action. Inc. No. vs.R. otherwise. March 3. As to verification. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. As to certification against forum shopping. no such other action or claim is pending therein. 173181. that (a) he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court. Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs. unlike in verification. Benedicto. G. (b) if there is such other pending action or claim. and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending. If. for any reason. et al. 178989. or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith. the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification. Court of Appeals. Roberto S. Manuel Lacson.R. 2010 It is. or submission of defective. is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction CD Technologies Asia. Inc. and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping. No. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both. and Accesslaw. 2010 For the guidance of the bench and bar.necessary to sustain the second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. it is not. asserting a claim for relief. J. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and. G. G. verification and certification against forum shopping: 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification.. the principal party cannot sign the petition. No. on the matter of capacity to sue. Edward T.R. the general rule is that subsequent compliance with the requirements will not excuse a party's failure to comply in the first instance.R. as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. Sandiganbayan. et al. et al. Marcelo. de Formoso. 2012 citing Philippine Public School Teachers Association v. but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. 4 . June 1. 122947. Inc. the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule..Capacity Clearly. Finally. a plain. et al. No. however. for reasonable or justifiable reasons. Indeed. PNB. Iligan.R. If. citing Oldarico S.In general Timoteo Baluyot vs. et al. vs. 2007 Rule 8. No. a foreign arbitral award should be respected not because Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Nellie Vda.. 168208.R. vs. not by his counsel. he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. G. No. G. G. et al." 5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case. 2009 6) The lack of certification against forum shopping is not curable by mere amendment of a complaint. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. Mar Fishing Co. 164205. however. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 49 . 528 Phil. September 3. 156605. Court of Appeals. July 22. unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons. G. 1197 (2006) Rule 8. 2011.thereof. Ramirez. the party-pleader is unable to sign.. otherwise. concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense". the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader. 154704. Inc. vs. 1 . Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances.R. Vivian T. 1999 The Rules of Court require every pleading to "contain in a methodical and logical form. Sec. G. et al. Inc. No. June 13. those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. and Accesslaw. The Heirs of Carolina P.. August 28.. Traveno v. Sec. namely: 1) by specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint. condition of the mind Sto.R. August 17. Jose J. G. 133284.R. 2007 Rule 8. 2000 Felix Uy Chua vs. 2002 Republic of the Phil. and whenever practicable. 161957 & 167994. et al. G.R. 9285 has certainly erased any conflict of law question. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 50 . Court of Appeals.. vs. Inc. setting forth the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support his denial.R. July 2. G.. G. G. No. et al. the truth of which the defendant does not admit.R. G. January 22. 1999 Claro Ponciano. Nos. Court of Appeals. 8 . Jorge Gonzales. Inc. 1998 Ernesto R. Philippine Kingford. No. No. 185582.Specific denial Three (3) modes of specific denial are contemplated by the above provision. Cometa vs. 129718. Inc. Court of Appeals. mistake. July 15.. Cesar Antonio Y. Tuna Processing. and Accesslaw.R.R. Tomas University Hospital vs.. October 23. Efren and Zosima Rigor vs.Fraud. Sec.it is favored over domestic laws and procedures.. December 29. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that in all averments of fraud. 121438. Consolidated Orix Leasing and Finance Corp. 2012 Rule 8. G. Inc. vs. G. August 20. 1999 Reynaldo T. May 9. 5 . 134090. Court of Appeals. G. (2) by specifying so much of an averment in the complaint as is true Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. November 12. No. Climax Mining Ltd. Cruz vs. Parentela. 2000 Sec. No. 152154. This is to enable the opposing party to controvert the particular facts allegedly constituting the same.. February 29. No. 10 . 2003 Filipinas Textile Mills vs. No. 2003 Rule 8. 124062. vs.R. et al. Sandiganbayan. G. No. et al.How to contest such documents Sps. 5.R.R. Surla. but because Republic Act No. et al. the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. 119800. Sec. Sec. 136423. Inc. No. which has the effect of a denial. July 15. 2008 Agrifina Aquintey vs. it has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted. 152154.R. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 51 . 2003 A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. G. Ramon J. what is denied. G." When the matters of whether the defendant alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. Thus. Felicidad and Rico Tibong. A general denial does not become specific by the use of the word "specifically. G. et al. et al. Napoleon and Evelyn Gaza. vs.. Sandiganbayan. an alleged "ignorance or lack of information" will not be considered as a specific denial. December 20. 2003 A denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. et al. the answer should be so definite and certain in its allegations that the pleader's adversary should not be left in doubt as to what is admitted. No. Sec.. No. vs. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. 126863. Wilson Cham vs.R. vs." When matters of whether the defendant alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief are plainly and necessarily within the defendant's knowledge. January 14. PNB vs. Eva Paita-Moya.R. Lim. G. Sps.. 2006 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Napoleon and Evelyn Gaza. No. are plainly and necessarily within the defendant's knowledge. 152154.R. Inc. et al. No. vs. January 16. 11 .. G. 7494.C.R. 2003 A denial is not made specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. A. (3) by stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint. et al. et al. 126153. July 15. June 27. A general denial does not become specific by the use of the word "specifically. 166704. Ramon J. 2004 Rule 8.and material and denying only the remainder. G. Court of Appeals. Section 11. No. Lim. and what is covered by denials of knowledge as sufficient to form a belief. his alleged ignorance or lack of information will not be considered as a specific denial. Sps. and Accesslaw. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied. Rule 8 of the Rules also provides that material averments in the complaint other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Sandiganbayan.R.Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted Sps. 2003 Republic of the Phil. January 16. 126863. Republic of the Phil. 2010 Procopio Villanueva vs.R. Logronio vs. it also allows courts to dismiss cases motu proprio on any of the enumerated grounds — (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. November 15. Roberto Taleseo. Inc. 2002 Elidad C. 2010 Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils. No.R. and basic is the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity.R. 2002 Mariano L. October 17. G. Aure. 2003 Spouses Elanio C. 2004 Emilio S. Librada M. No. February 15. April 14.R. 1999 Citibank vs. G. 143464. Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court that failure to raise defenses and objections in a motion to dismiss or in an answer is deemed a waiver thereof. December 15. Ong vs. No. Court of Appeals and Emma A.R. Court of Appeals. 153567. No. G. Aquino vs. and (4) prescription — provided that the ground for dismissal is apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record.R.. Reinerio (Abraham) B. 153567. Heirs of Domingo Valientes vs.R. Librada M. Register of Deeds.R. 61508. Aquino vs. vs. No. Court of Appeals.R. G. (3) res judicata. No. Larin. Garamay Ong. No. et al. March 5. G. there is no room for construction or interpretation. 143286. No. 2008 Failure to raise defenses and objections in a motion to dismiss or in an answer is deemed a waiver thereof. February 18. G.. 143990. March 9. 113564.R.Defenses and objections not pleaded The second sentence of this provision does not only supply exceptions to the rule that defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. March 17. 2001 Maria L. there is no room for construction or interpretation. Inc.R. No. Anido vs. Ernest S. No. No. Court of Appeals. Filomeno Negado and The Honorable Court of Appeals. Jr. G. June 20. G. Young vs. 2001 Inocencia Yu Dino vs. G. 144581. 1999 It is clear and categorical in Section 1. vs. Aure. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 52 . 2000 Ramona T. Court of Appeals.). et al. vs. Gumabon. John Keng Seng. 2002 Saturnino Salera. et al. 115758. No.. Aquilino T. G. 141238.R. 134602. February 18. 133240. 2008 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. (2) litis pendentia. Ramas.R. No. No. August 6. No. G. Inc. 1 .Rule 9.R. Kho vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 2001 Rudolf Lietz Holdings vs. and basic is the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity. 157852. Inc. and Accesslaw. G. November 27.R. 157594. 142523. A-1 Investors. G. March 19. July 5. Ernest S. G. G. Sec. . Verily. be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the record.R. and unless it clearly appears that the reopening of the case is intended for delay. as where no statement thereof is found in the pleadings. or even if the ground is alleged after judgment on the merits. Register of Deeds of Quezon City. The prospect of a protracted litigation between the parties annuls the very rationale of every litigation to attain justice. or an answer which sets up such ground as an affirmative defense. et al. 2010 We have ruled that trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred . without resort to technicality. 153142.. .R. October 2. No. or delay the implementation of an already final and executory judgment. May 30. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. . What is essential only. the parties and their counsel are enjoined to present all available defenses and objections in order that the matter in issue can finally be laid to rest in an appropriate contest before the court. 144568. Without the rule. Nos. 171805 & 172021. Merelo B. 3 . G. Inc. et al. March 29. G. borne by necessity. Sabilas. as in a motion for reconsideration.Default. Guillerma and Pascual Lumanas vs. et al.R.In every action. G. is that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period. citing Feliciano v. PNB vs. Aznar. it is best that both parties be given every chance to fight their case fairly and in the open. 172651. indeed.R.. No. vs. 2007 Well settled is the rule that the court should be liberal in setting aside orders of default for judgment by default is frowned upon. The rule is a wise and tested one. Inc. defeat. to repeat.. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and it may do so on the basis of a motion to dismiss. September 1. or otherwise established by the evidence. G. there must be an end to litigation. there will be no end to a litigation. and can surely contribute to the unwarranted clogging of court dockets.. July 3. 161746. Canoza. The endlessness of litigation can give rise to added costs for the parties. No. et al. Esterlita S. 2010 Rule 9. Sps. either in the averments of the plaintiffs complaint. declaration of United Overseas Bank of the Phils.. 2007 Three requirements must be complied with before the court can declare the defending party in default: (1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default. or even if the defense has not been asserted at all. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 53 . or where a defendant has been declared in default. 2011. (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default and (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rules of Court. because the dissatisfied litigant may simply raise "new" or additional issues in order to prevent.R. Sec. Catalina Balais-Mabanag vs. and Accesslaw. G. 113150. vs. vs. No. Court of Appeals. March 4. G. 1999 Heirs of Fabela vs. Petitioner still has the available remedy of filing with the Regional Trial Court a motion for new trial or an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals from the trial court's default judgment. et al. Note that petitioner admits that she was "properly declared in default. August 9. Philippine National Bank vs. No. or even if the trial court properly declared a party in default. Erlando and Norma Rodriguez. Vicente A. No. 100812. October 13. et al. if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration. Court of Appeals. et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel C. 149617.R.R. and the remedy of filing a special civil action for certiorari has been effectively foreclosed on petitioner. 1999 Francisco Motors Corp. Humberto and Carmencita DeLos Santos vs. No. Ancheta vs. No. Court of Appeals.R. Sps. September 11.R. September 26. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. 2003 Sps. G. 2003 Section 3 (b) Phil. there are three requirements which must be complied with by the claiming party before the court may declare the defending party in default. No. 2006 A petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is also available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default. Inc. Carpio. March 29.R.. G. there is no question of any improvident or improper declaration of default by the trial court. 2004 Section 3 (d) Rule 9. (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default. G. No. No. 127469. only so much as has been alleged and proved. October 4.. 2004 Failure to file an answer is a ground for a declaration that defendant is in default.R. Sps. vs. (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rule. 144662. et al. Banking Corp. Rodolfo S. No. The filing of the present petition is clearly not the proper remedy to assail the default judgment rendered by the trial court. 2001 Mariano Joaquin S. 2008 Clearly. Margie Corpus Macias. January 15.. G.R. 153696. Court of Appeals. G. Court of Appeals. 2007 Section 3 (e) Marietta B." Thus. and Accesslaw. Section 3 (d) of the Rules of Court defines the extent of the relief that may be awarded in a judgment by default. 161657. to wit: (1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default. 170325. Ancheta. No.R.e.. Inc. Macias vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 54 . G. September 3. 145370. Hidalgo. Efren and Digna Mason.Henry Tanchan vs. G. G. June 25. 142546.R. G. i. Maranan vs. 1 .R. 2 . This only means that prior to the filing of an answer.R. a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. she came directly to this Court via petition for review on certiorari. G. 172315. . a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. without setting forth substantial reasons why the ordinary remedies under the law should be disregarded and the petition entertained.Amendments in general Jovito Valenzuela vs.Amendments as a matter of right Under the Rules of Court. 2007 Section 2. et al.R. No. August 28. Manila Banking Corp. or in the case of a reply.. Inc.R. Josephine B. Ng. and thereafter. or when amendments would result in a change of cause of action or theory of the case.. 149132. the plaintiff has the absolute right to amend the complaint whether a new Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 55 . August 28. No. Sec. Marcelo and Maria Fe Soco. Sps. G. Africa. regardless of whether a responsive pleading has been served. as amended. No. Sec. substantial amendments . 2005 Rule 10. 2002 Rule 10.Her only recourse then is to file an ordinary appeal with the Court of Appeals under Section 2(a). Alicia C. Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court explicitly states that a pleading may be amended as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served. or would be inconsistent with the allegations in the original complaint. 157232. Crisologo vs. No. Globe Telecom. 2001 The Court has invariably held that amendments are not proper and should be denied when delay would arise.. Republic of the Philippines vs.R. Inc. No. at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. Andres L. May 9. No. and Accesslaw. vs. 167631. Instead. only upon leave of court. G. may only be made upon leave of court. NAMAWU vs. G. . March 30. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. G. December 16. 131175. Court of Appeals. 2007 It is clear from Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 10 that once a case has already been set for hearing. 2007 Under Section 2 of Rule 10. et al. 164398. G. et al. Adelina Calderon-Bargas. December 10. and Accesslaw. Court of Appeals. when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense. 3 . No. as a matter of right. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. the defendant has not presented any defense that can be altered or affected by the amendment of the complaint in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 10. Were we to conclude otherwise. because any material change in the allegations contained in the complaint could prejudice the rights of the defendant who has already set up his defense in the answer. The defendant still retains the unqualified opportunity to address the allegations against him by properly setting up his defense in the answer. Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 56 .Amendments by leave of court The clear import of such amendment in Section 3. The reason for this rule is implied in the subsequent Section 3 of Rule 10. In such an event. since all that a defendant has to do to foreclose this remedial right is to challenge the adequacy of the complaint before he files an answer. No. G." This should only be true. amendment of pleadings is favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice in order to determine every case as far as possible on its merits without regard to technicalities. The right granted to the plaintiff under procedural law to amend the complaint before an answer has been served is not precluded by the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other proceeding contesting its sufficiency. Sec. This principle is generally recognized to speed up trial and save party litigants from incurring unnecessary expense. 2001 Remington Industrial Sales Corp. Moreover. vs. Inc. vs. Conversely.cause of action or change in theory is introduced. Court of Appeals. Rule 10 is that under the new rules. however. Rule 10 will be rendered nugatory and ineffectual.R. the right to amend a pleading under Section 2. August 28. Under this provision. 133657. and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just. G. G. Court of Appeals. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. May 29. May 29. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding." Jovito Valenzuela vs. it cannot be said that the defendant's rights have been violated by changes made in the complaint if he has yet to file an answer thereto. Considerable leeway is thus given to the plaintiff to amend his complaint once. 131175. 133657.R. substantial amendment of the complaint is not allowed without leave of court after an answer has been served. No.R. the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice. 2002 Rule 10. so that a full hearing on the merits of every case may be had and multiplicity of suits avoided. "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense. prior to the filing of an answer by the defendant. . 131175. 158401. Court of Appeals. Sec." This should only be true.R. Ports Authority vs. Rita Viola. February 5. No. Philippine Trust Co. William and Rebecca Genato vs. No.R. The clear import of such amendment in Section 3. however. William Gothong & Aboitiz. et al. and Accesslaw. Sps.Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. 4 . Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. 5 . Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that the phrase "or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered" was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense. 2008 Phil. No. 4. G. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. vs. 2010 Rule 10. Ports Authority vs. Inc. Rule 10 is that under the new rules.R. Sec. 2008 Jovito Valenzuela vs. The clear import of such amendment in Section 3. January 28. William Gothong & Aboitiz Inc.R. January 28. Rule 10 is that under the new rules. Section 3.Amendment of pleadings may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense Interestingly.R. however when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense. G." Phil. G. "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense. 158401.Formal amendments The error or defect is merely formal and not substantial and an amendment to cure such defect is expressly authorized by Sec. G. March 28. Inc. "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 57 . Ligaya Biglang-Awa.. Inc. 2001 Section 3. the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice. No. No. the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice.. 169706. and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just. August 28. and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just. 2008 Rule 10. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding". Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that the phrase "or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered" was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. 158998." This should only be true. 133876. 108369. March 9. No. 123498. DBP. 130699. 1998 If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues raised by the pleadings. Cervantes vs. BPI Agricultural Dev't. Phil. G..Materrco. 114942. Eugene L. January 7. No. or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation or. Marina Enriquez Vda. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Rule 10.R. Inc. Court of Appeals. No. 2010 Rule 10. 1999 Cindy & Lynsy Garment vs. 152438. No. G. January 13..R. otherwise the objection will be considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible evidence. at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings. Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. May 12.R. Court of Appeals. 109840. City of Urdaneta. and Accesslaw. G. 2008 Indeed. 6 . 120384. G. Bank.Supplemental pleadings The rule is a useful device which enables the court to award complete relief in one action and to avoid the cost of delay and waste of separate action. November 28. any objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility becomes apparent. March 2. No.R. January 21. November 23. 2007 Lolita R. No. G. Ayson vs. a supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter. September 23. vs.R. No. vs.R. No. No. Chua vs. No. vs. et al. G.R. December 29.. G.R. 175687. First Landlink Asia Development Corp. 2004 Phil. as provided in Section 5. 125138. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 58 .R. Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows the amendment of the pleadings in order to make them conform to the evidence in the record. Inc. De Carpio. G. 179230. G.R. Infrastructures. 2007 BPI Family Bank vs. 1999 It need not be underlined that jurisdiction over an issue in a case is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed by the parties. et al. Lim vs. 2004 Maunlad Savings and Loan Assn. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. Court of Appeals. Amado Franco..R. No. Jose L. Thus. Sec. 1999 Nicholas Y. et al. 2000 Bank of America vs. G. G. No. the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. November 27. 162525. Asean Pacific Planners. vs.R. Inc. 2000 Bernardo Mercader vs. June 17. G. American Realty Corp. NLRC. including supplemental complaints. The purpose of the supplemental pleading is to bring into the records new facts which will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 2001 Intramuros Administration vs. No.. G.Sps. G.R. and is thus not obliged to do so. 81024 February 3. et al.. and it is discretionary upon the court or tribunal to allow the same or not. a supplemental pleading must state transactions. but remains in the sound discretion of the court.. et al. October 1. No. No. Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc.R. April 15. No. G. 131136. et al. any supplemental facts which further develop the original right of action. 169551. but not to introduce new and independent causes of action. and Accesslaw. No. or extend to vary the relief. Planters Dev't Bank vs. 2003 A supplemental pleading states the transactions. vs. Orlando and Carmelita C. a supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or adds something to the primary pleading. Lambino vs. hence. However. De Rama vs.R. enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original complaint. It does not replace that which it supplements.R. May 5.R. 2000 The admission of supplemental pleadings. vs. are available by way of supplemental complaint even though they themselves constitute a right of action. In Leobrera v. Inc. occurrences or events which took place since the time the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. Court of Appeals. the Court ruled that when the cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint is different from the causes of action mentioned in the original complaint. is clear that the court only "may" admit the supplemental pleading. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify. a supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the issues joined with the original pleading remained an issue to be tried in the action. The parties may file supplemental pleadings only to supply deficiencies in aid of an original pleading. 152576. No. January 24. G. LZK Holdings and Dev't Corp. does not arise as a matter of right on the petitioner. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 59 .R. et al.. Inc. 2005 Supplemental pleadings must be with reasonable notice.R. occurrences or events which took place since the time the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. Court of Appeals. A supplemental pleading is meant to supply Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. 138919. Moreover. Conrado L. 2007 Shoemart. a broad definition of causes of action should be applied. the court should not admit the supplemental complaint. 153777. Yvette Contacto. Far East Bank and Trust Co. 86956. Secondly. No.. Presiding Judge. February 28. G. governing supplemental pleadings. 1990 Asset Privatization Trust vs. which is well within its right to deny the admission of the pleading. 2006 As its very name denotes. Court of Appeals. G. It is but a continuation of the complaint. Section 6. Court of Appeals. May 2. A supplement exists side by side with the original. R. Jose Feliciano Loy. Mahinay.. 119511-13. Makilito B. G. November 28. but assumes that the original pleading is to stand. Nos. G. 155688. 150918. Nos. 171736 & 181482.R. Court of Appeals. vs. Nos. 2009 As a general rule. Negros Merchants Enterprises. The original complaint is deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record. et al. an amended complaint supersedes an original one. occurrences or events which took place since the time the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. Makilito B. Supplemental pleadings must state transactions. Breva. and Accesslaw. and founded on the same cause of action. such being the office of a supplemental pleading. G. No. leave will be granted to a party who desires to file a supplemental pleading that alleges any material fact which happened or came within the party's knowledge after the original pleading was filed. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 60 . It is the policy of the law to grant relief as far as possible for wrongs complained of. G. Pentacapital Investment Corp. G. 121662-64. 2004 Vlason Enterprises Corporation vs. Jr. G. July 5. 164886. Sec. vs. broaden the scope of the issues in an action owing to the light thrown on it by facts. Rules of Court. 2010 Rule 10. China Banking Corp. SMCEU-PTGWO. and bring into record the facts enlarging or charging the kind of relief to which plaintiff is entitled. Rule 10. Natividad Figuracion. The application of the rule would ensure that the entire controversy might be settled in one action. No. July 6. Pentacapital Investment Corp. August 17. Nos. 2010 The supplemental pleading must be based on matters arising subsequent to the filing of the original pleading related to the claim or defense presented therein. et al.deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter. No. 1998 Section 8.R.R. It does not supersede the original. vs. Inc. November 11. Verzosa vs. No. November 24. Mahinay. 8 . Inc.R. 1999 Wilfredo P.R. 3G. 171736 & 181482. events and occurrences which have accrued after the filing of the original pleading.Effect of amended pleadings Under Section 8. avoid unnecessary repetition of effort and unwarranted expense of litigants.. 147937.R. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that an amended complaint supersedes the complaint that it amends. Sps. vs. July 5. Court of Appeals. G.R. Cresenciano and Amelita Libi. vs. et al. growing out of the same transaction and thus put an end to litigation. Inc. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2007 The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company vs. November 24.. defined Equitable PCI Bank vs.. 143783. 152576. 9 . Sarraga vs. 2003 Rule 11.. Inc. Esterlita S. No. G. No. G. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 61 . Yvette Contacto. 2 . 2001 Sps. 2000 Sps. et al. March 26. G. Sps.When applied for. 144576. 8 . Sec. No. January 23. Sec. G. 2000 Rule 11. Sabilas. G. May 28.. et al. November 23. 2002 PCI Bank vs.R. 126640. 142023. Court of Appeals. et al. No.R. Sunrise Manning Agency. May 5.Rule 11. Sec. July 19. Court of Appeals. vs. Guillerma and Pascual Lumanas vs.Filing and service. 1 . 2004 The Rules of Court provides for discretion on the part of the trial court not only to extend the time for filing an answer but also to allow an answer to be filed after the reglementary period.R.R. Sec.R. 144568. No. Marcelo and Anita Arenas vs. June 15. 142950. No. Banco Filipino.R. No. December 9.R. Court of Appeals. No. 2007 Rule 12. G. G. et al. Nimfa Divina Mercader. Court of Appeals. G. 2001 Rule 13. No.R. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sec. purpose Jose Baritua.R. Ampelquio vs.Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer Intramuros Administration vs. and Accesslaw. 124243.R. July 3. 2001 Ginete vs. June 21. 11 . Payongayong vs.Extension of time to plead Sps. 114951. No.Existing counterclaim or cross-claim Sps. Rosita Ku. 136048. Inc. G. Notice to the client and not to his counsel of record is not notice in law. July 4. Sps. Ports Authority vs. either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. this error on the part of the secretary of the petitioners' former counsel amounts to negligence or incompetence in record-keeping. G. G. De la Cruz vs. et al. but also as such. Hernandez. G. 2005 Rule 13. 3 . No. G.Phil. 2010 Norma Santos vs. Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) vs. Balubar. September 17. No. et al. If the date stamped on one is earlier than the other. none applies in this case. Not only is the former considered as the official record of the court. AM P-02-1556.R. Notice or service made upon a party who is represented by counsel is a nullity. that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented. service upon him shall be made upon his counsel unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. 2004 Phil. Corp. 2008 Rule 13 Section 2 of the Rules of Court merely defines filing as "the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court. February 4. Sargasso Construction & Dev't.R.. 146478. P-04-1767. Jr. Heirs of Benjamin Mendoza. vs. Inc. Further. 168914. the former commands more weight." Since the signing of verifications and certifications against forum shopping is not integral to the act of filing. the service is deemed complete and effective upon actual receipt by the addressee as shown by the registry return card.R. et al. July 30. NLRC. Sec.R. February 22. Airlines.. 170247.M. this may not be deemed as necessarily included in an authorization merely to file cases. A. vs.R. Margarita A. between the registry return card and said written note. Ramiscal. While this rule admits of exceptions. which is not an excuse for the delay of filing. No. No. Joyce Trinidad A.Manner of filing The date of filing is determinable from two sources: from the post office stamp on the envelope or from the registry receipt. which is often self-serving and easily fabricated. it is presumed to be accurate unless proven otherwise. and Accesslaw.. 137882. the former may be accepted as the date of filing. GSIS vs. This presupposes. 180045. August 12. Thus. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 62 . unlike a written note or record of a party. Inc.. Inc. No. November 17. No. Court of Appeals. such as when the court or tribunal orders service upon the party or when the technical defect is waived. 2004 If any party has appeared by counsel. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2007 It is a rule generally accepted that when the service is to be made by registered mail. Adala. however. G. et al.. strictly. Sec. December 1. Venancia Baroro. Nos.C. A.R. No. et al. 2003 Rule 13. Helen Bautista Ricafort. 4 . 138518. Domingo. and Accesslaw.R. Angel T.. Fernandez vs. et al. Ty vs. Inc. 173379.R. December 11. Afdal. 2000 Rule 13. No.Service of judgments. 2003 Marcelina Gacutana-Fraile vs. 2003 Nancy L.R. August 5. vs.. 2010 Luthgarda F. 5623. July 8. 132007. Sec. December 15. Failure to faithfully. 9 . Romeo Carlos.Papers required to be filed and served Teodora and Rodolfo Capacete vs.R. Inc. and fully comply with the statutory requirements of substituted service renders such service ineffective. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 63 .Substituted service The requirements for substituted service are indispensable because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. No. Cabrera II. et al.Service by mail Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank. 5 . No. Inc.Rule 13. Sec. 7 . Sec. G. G. Abubakar A. final orders or resolutions Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 154184. G.. February 13. G. Sec.Modes of service Solar Team Entertainment. et al. 149797-98. No. 1998 Rule 13. 154037. G. It is an extraordinary method since it seeks to bind the defendant to the consequences of a suit even though notice of such action is served not upon him but upon another whom the law could only presume would notify him of the pending proceedings. vs. G.R. No. 8 . Fidel M. April 30. 2004 Rule 13. No. G. 2008 The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. Jose and Evangeline Aguilar vs. No. Sec. Elizabeth Balising. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 64 . 192084. September 14.Fidel M. Jerryco C. and received by. G.R. March 31. 132624. The mailman may also testify that the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and (2) constructive service the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster. G. G. 2000 Section 9 in relation to Section 10 The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service. February 12. Court of Appeals. The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from the postmaster. Not only is it required that notice of the registered mail be issued but that it should also be delivered to and received by the addressee. et al. the addressee. and (2) constructive service. et al. Court of Appeals. Inc. the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. March 13. September 12. Philemploy Services and Resources.. which is deemed complete upon expiration of five (5) days from the date the addressee received the first notice from the postmaster. the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is not applicable in this situation. 166547. 157040. Rivera vs.. 2006 Umbra M. Inc. 142950. No. 132624. October 13. March 13. 2000 Equitable PCI Bank vs. Abrajano vs.R. G. and Accesslaw. 2001 Service by registered mail is deemed completed upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five (5) days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster. 1999 Fidel M. No. Tomawis vs. July 19. et al. PBA. Inc. 2007 Rule 13. Bañares II. who should certify not only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to how. et al. It is incumbent upon a party who relies on constructive service to prove that the notice was sent to. 120972. Court of Appeals. Elizabeth Balising. et al. vs.R.R.R. when and to whom the delivery and receipt was made. 120787..R. 10 .R.R. there must be conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster to the addressee. 2000 Carmelita G. No. No. vs. G.Completeness of service Sps.. et al. Jose Mel Bernarte vs. No. G. whichever date is earlier. Bañares II. No. G. 2011 Insofar as constructive service is concerned.R. Rosita Ku. Tabao-Caudang. No. vs. Rodriguez. 152616. Nora M. March 26. Notably. notice was actually delivered. Jose Mel Bernarte vs. PBA, et al., G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011 The Postmaster's Certification does not sufficiently prove that the three notices were delivered to and received by respondents; it only indicates that the post office issued the three notices. Simply put, the issuance of the notices by the post office is not equivalent to delivery to and receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. Thus, there is no proof of completed constructive service of the Labor Arbiter's decision on respondents. Jose Mel Bernarte vs. PBA, et al., G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011 Rule 13, Sec. 11 - Priorities in modes of service and filing E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. vs. Herminio I. Benito, et al., G.R. No. 136426, August 6, 1999 Public Estates Authority vs. Jose F. Caoibes, et al., G.R. No. 132426, August 19, 1999 Castilex Industrial Corp. vs. Vicente Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266, December 21, 1999 Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000 Security Bank and Trust Company vs. Rodolfo M. Cuenca, G.R. No. 138544, October 3, 2000 Marcelina Gacutana-Fraile vs. Angel T. Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 138518, December 15, 2000 Perla S. Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 138137, March 8, 2001 Pfizer Inc. et al. vs. Edwin V. Galan, G.R. No. 143389, May 25, 2001 MC Engineering vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 142314, June 28, 2001 Deogracias Musa, et al. vs. Sylvia Amor, G.R. No. 141396, April 9, 2002 Jimmy L. Barnes vs. Teresita C. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 144533, September 23, 2003 Aquilina Estrella, et al. vs. Nila Espiridion, G.R. No. 134460, November 27, 2003 Sps. Payongayong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144576, May 28, 2004 The rule that a pleading must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally is mandatory. Martin Penoso, et al. vs. Macrosman Dona, G.R. No. 154018, April 3, 2007 Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Helen Bautista Ricafort, et al., G.R. No. 132007, August 5, 1998 The requirement under Section 11 is mandatory. Any violation of this Rule may be cause for the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 65 court to consider the paper as not filed. However, such discretionary power of the court must be exercised properly and reasonably, taking into account the following factors: (1) "the practicability of personal service;" (2) "the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein;" and (3) "the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11". The affidavit of service is a substantial compliance with the requirement under Section 11. It bears stressing that petitioners' procedural lapse in not appending such affidavit to their petition did not in any way thwart the laudable objective of Section 11 as stated in Solar, i.e., to quell the lawyers' unethical practice of deliberately resorting to delays in the filing and service of pleadings, motions and other papers. Indeed, the evil sought to be prevented by the new rule is absent here. Also, there is absolutely no indication from petitioners' omission that they demonstrated their contempt for the Rules and our directive in Solar, as claimed by respondents. Luciano Ello vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141255, June 21, 2005 Personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Helen Bautista Ricafort, et al., G.R. No. 132007, August 5, 1998 Charles N. Uy vs. Nelida S. Medina, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1247, October 10, 2000 Roberto Fulgencio, et al., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 141600, September 12, 2003 Pursuant . . . to Section 11 of Rule 13, service and filing of pleadings and other papers must, whenever practicable, be done personally; and if made through other modes, the party concerned must provide a written explanation as to why the service or filing was not done personally. . . . Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious reasons. Plainly, such should expedite action or resolution on a pleading, motion or other paper; and conversely, minimize, if not eliminate, delays likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail, considering the inefficiency of postal service. Likewise, personal service will do away with the practice of some lawyers who, wanting to appear clever, resort to the following less than ethical practices: (1) serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch opposing counsel off-guard, thus leaving the latter with little or no time to prepare, for instance, responsive pleadings or an opposition; or (2) upon receiving notice from the post office that the registered parcel containing the pleading of or other paper from the adverse party may be claimed, unduly procrastinating before claiming the parcel, or, worse, not claiming it at all, thereby causing undue delay in the disposition of such pleading or other papers. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 66 If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set of adjective rules requiring personal service whenever practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the first place. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily, consider the practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause "whenever practicable." We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. This Court cannot rule otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation introduced by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate delay in the administration of justice. Marcelino Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169122, February 2, 2010 citing Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge Ricafort, 355 Phil. 404 (1998) City of Dumaguete vs. Phil. Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011 Rule 13, Sec. 13 - Proof of service Public Estates Authority vs. Jose F. Caoibes, et al., G.R. No. 132426, August 19, 1999 Ace Navigation Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140364, August 15, 2000 MC Engineering vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 142314, June 28, 2001 Lutgarda Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002 Betty T. Chua vs. Absolute Mngt. Corp., et al., G.R. No. 144881, October 16, 2003 Republic of the Phil. vs. Josefina B. Vda. De Neri, G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004 Rule 13, Sec. 14 - Notice of lis pendens Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 67 of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently. Jr. Jose L. vs. December 30.M.Clerk to issue summons Producers Bank vs. et al. Wabe vs. Rolando Sy. Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 . 1999 Joel R. Nos. Bionson. Aguilar vs.. et al. October 9. No. G. Rolando C.Return Harry Ang Ping vs. 1 . How. 125468. and (2) to bind a purchaser. No. Inc. Heirs of Jose Sy Bang. RTJ-03-1783. et al. Sabio. or (2) when the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded. A. 2000 Noel G. Court of Appeals. Inc. 114217 & 150797. AM P-03-1760.R. et al. 2009 The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment in order to prevent the final judgment from being defeated by successive alienations. Rolando Sy. 2002 Rule 14. Luisita P. et al.R.R. Sec. G. and Accesslaw. October 13. August 29. July 15. 4 . January 23.R. 126947. Sec.M. Talion vs. Court of Appeals. 140244. Heirs of Jose Sy Bang.As provided in Section 14. et al. October 13. bona fide or not. Sec. Nos. G. 2003 Rule 14. 2000 Christopher V.. No. No. G. G. A. a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled on two grounds: (1) when the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party. Ayupan.. vs. No. Umandap vs. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.By whom served Giselle G. Esteban P. 114217 & 150797. July 31... Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 68 .R. 2009 Rule 14. P-01-1529. 149380. A. et al. Lazaro vs. Jr. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. 2007 Section 6 in relation to Section 7 Personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service. No. G. or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business. How. Raon. 2003 Sps. 147369. G. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 69 . such as petitioner in this case. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. November 15. Madrigal vs. G. 6 . must be personally served with summons as provided under Sec. Inc. Court of Appeals.. et al. Leonor B. Inc. 5 .R. July 31. 131482..Rule 14. November 26. et al. No. strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective. October 8. August 29. Sabio. 139895. Inc. July 3. G.Service in person on defendant Sps. February 8. et al.. 2003 A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court. October 2. Madrigal vs. 140244. Helen and Romeo Boyon. October 23.Issuance of alias summons Sps. Gutierrez. Only if the former cannot be made promptly may the process server resort to the latter. David Levy. Herminio A. Sec.R. Pablito M.R. 2003 Henry S. 2000 Maria Victoria Cano-Gutierrez vs. Court of Appeals. No. G. 139283. 1999 Christopher V. The failure to comply faithfully. July 3.. 2000 Allen Leroy Hamilton vs.R. Oaminal vs. Umandap vs. Sps.. Countryside Rural Bank. Ma. 2002 Regalado P. 2002 Cipriano M. 2000 Federico S. of the defendant. G.. Moreover. No. G. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan). et al. No. and Accesslaw. 6. No.R.R. G.R. 129955. Patrick and Rafaela Jose vs. No. (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant. No. Phil. No. and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address.R. No. 129955. 1999 Joel R. 138584. 152776. the proof of service of summons must (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time. 2003 Rule 14. Rolando C.R. 161417. Aguilar vs. It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return. Theresa Chaves Biaco vs. August 15.M. November 26. G. Jose L..R. Samartino vs. Sec. G. Castillo. RTJ-03-1783. Sandoval II vs. G.R. 2009 Rule 14. G. Court of Appeals. G. G. personal service of summons or. Inc. Castillo. 2003 Fortunato Gomez vs. 2007 In an action in personam. G. 163287.. Willie and Julie L. No. Jr. and it is only when the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to substituted service. Sec. 149380.Air Materiel Wing Savings. 2002 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.R. vs. and Accesslaw. No. 2000 Maria Victoria Cano-Gutierrez vs. 127692. Jose L.R. or (2) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. August 15. Pascual vs. is essential for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court.. 138584.. G. November 15. No. Manay. Sabio. Pascual. No. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to. No.. Pablito M.. Kalfam Enterprises.R.R. Cynthia R. No. et al. July 3. October 2.R. if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served. August 29.R. October 8. No. Umandap vs. David Levy.R. 146593.R. Logarta. Gutierrez.R. G. G. 2001 Federico S. substituted service. G. Orion Security Corp.Substituted service Joel R. Ongpin. November 27. Roberto V. 146553.R. October 9.. March 10. April 27.R. Lourdes S. Sps. 139283. 2007 If a resident defendant cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time. 2002 Cipriano M. October 19. Inc.. No. G.R. et al. vs. Sandoval II vs. Lazaro vs.R. Victoria Regner vs. 171916. 168747. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 70 . No. Inc. substituted service may be effected (1) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. et al. et al. et al. G. et al. October 26. 2004 As a rule. summons should be personally served on the defendant... 2007 [P]ersonal service of summons should and always be the first option. Herminio A. No. 7 . et al. as provided in Section 7. G. 139895. 140244. No. Luvin S. Constantino A. No. G. 2000 United Coconut Planters Bank vs. et al. Inc. 2000 Allen Leroy Hamilton vs. 2003 Henry S. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan). 152776. December 4. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. 175338. Oaminal vs.. G. Evangelista. et al. especially for actions in personam. and Accesslaw. Theresa Chaves Biaco vs. having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss. 2006 The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service.thereof in accordance with Sec. The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer's Return. August 16. but upon another whom the law could only presume would notify such party of the pending proceedings. or the plaintiff asks the sheriff to make the return of the summons and the latter submits the return of summons. Failure to comply with this rule renders absolutely void the substituted service along with the proceedings taken thereafter. Section 8. et al. The Sheriff's Return provides data to the Clerk of Court. conveniently. is made to answer for the consequences of the suit even though notice of such action is made. No. "reasonable time" means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month. No. one month from the issuance of summons can be considered "reasonable time" with regard to personal service on the defendant. this Court held that the impossibility of personal service justifying availment of substituted service should be explained in the proof of service. is essential for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. It bears stressing that since service of summons. 2006 In a long line of cases. To the sheriff. FEU-NRMFEA-AFW. when the court. 161417. the service of summons has no set period. February 8. The underlying principle of this rigid requirement is that the person. Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. clerk of court. otherwise. to whom the orders. Court of Appeals. Inc. No. Rule 14 provides that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a "reasonable time" to serve the summons to the defendant in person. 2007 Substituted service derogates the regular method of personal service. the resort to a substituted service must be duly justified. the substituted service cannot be upheld. Inc." Under the Rules. if any[. it is a practice for the branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for service. October 16. Imelda M. but no specific time frame is mentioned. Countryside Rural Bank. faithfully and fully observed. "reasonable time" means no more than seven (7) days since an expeditious processing of a complaint is what a plaintiff wants. then the validity of the summons lapses. However. G. Thus.R. Phil. 130974. It is therefore required that statutory restrictions for effecting substituted service must be strictly. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. 7. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 71 . what the contract or duty requires that should be done.R. FEU-NRMF. notices or summons are addressed. "Reasonable time" is defined as "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do. G. Ma.R. which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases to be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within the first ten (10) days of the succeeding month. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a personal service in order to demonstrate impossibility of prompt service? To the plaintiff. 168362.] to the other party. Ma. The plaintiff may then ask for an alias summons if the service of summons has failed. Manotoc vs. G.. why efforts exerted towards personal service failed. vs. not upon the party concerned. Section 8. when the court. Rule 14 provides that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a "reasonable time" to serve the summons to the defendant in person. the sheriff must be resourceful. No. to the other party. G. Helen and Romeo Boyon.R. or the plaintiff asks the sheriff to make the return of the summons and the latter submits the return of summons. Inc. Thus. Inc. if any.R. the service of summons has no set period. which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases to be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within the first ten (10) days of the succeeding month. On the other hand. July 3. Court of Appeals. canny. persevering. Madrigal vs. "Reasonable time" is defined as "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do. and diligent in serving the process on the defendant. "reasonable time" means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month. and Accesslaw. there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one month] which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service.R. November 26. 147369. they are enjoined to try their best efforts to accomplish personal service on defendant. clerk of court. having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss. preferably on at least two different dates. Samartino vs. "reasonable time" means no more than seven (7) days since an expeditious processing of a complaint is what a plaintiff wants. 2003 [R]equirements to effect a valid substituted service: (1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service. since the defendant is expected to try to avoid and evade service of summons. 2002 Sps. October 23. 129955.Administrative Circular No. 131482. 1999 Regalado P. For substituted service of summons to be available." Under the Rules. Thus. the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 72 . utmost diligence. then the validity of the summons lapses. but no specific time range is mentioned. Raon. In addition. conveniently. Sps. G. what the contract or duty requires that should be done. and reasonable promptness and speed so as not to prejudice the expeditious dispensation of justice. To the sheriff. However. G. The plaintiff may then ask for an alias summons if the service of summons has failed. No. "Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted. Sheriffs are asked to discharge their duties on the service of summons with due care. it is a practice for the branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for service. What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a personal service in order to demonstrate impossibility of prompt service? To the plaintiff. one month from the issuance of summons can be considered "reasonable time" with regard to personal service on the defendant. 59 was precisely issued by this Court to stress the importance of strict compliance with the requisites for a valid substituted service. Patrick and Rafaela Jose vs. Leonor B. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. The Sheriff's Return provides data to the Clerk of Court. (2) Specific Details in the Return The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. 171916.R. 5 dated November 9. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. No. Inc. the person must have the "relation of confidence" to the defendant. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons. G. the person on whom the substituted service will be made must be the one managing the office or business of defendant. Thus. its importance. (3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion If the substituted service will be effected at defendant's house or residence. Constantino A. Lourdes S. Inc. and Accesslaw. and the prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons. Pascual vs. Thus. and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action. it should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing therein. 2009 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia." A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons. right or wise may be presupposed". the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done. The date and time of the attempts on personal service. Again. and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. then it should be served on a competent person in charge of the place." which should be made in the proof of service. such person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the import of the summons. ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons. what the recipient's relationship with the defendant is. such as the president or manager. to be of sufficient discretion. The form on Sheriff's Return of Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the Handbook for Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial Academy requires a narration of the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact of failure. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 73 . December 4. though futile. Pascual. Thus. and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand the obligation of the defendant in the summons. these details must be contained in the Return. the inquiries made to locate the defendant. "Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful. (4) A Competent Person in Charge If the substituted service will be done at defendant's office or regular place of business. The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age. 1989 requires that "impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts. to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. 165273. 165273. assumes that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice thereof. Leah Palma vs. . Rule 14 of the Rules of Court . It is usual for such a man to leave at his home or with his business associates information as to where he may be contacted in the event a question that affects him crops up. L-22997.. L-22997.Service upon domestic private juridical entity Orion Security Corp. A man temporarily absent from this country leaves a definite place of residence. Sps.R. Islands vs. Long distance telephone calls and cablegrams make it easy for one he left behind to communicate with him. and a case comes up in court against him. Inc. Sec.. He cannot stop a suit from being filed against him upon a claim that he cannot be summoned at his dwelling house or residence or his office or regular place of business. Galvez. a dwelling where he lives. Danilo P. Maximo (G. and to communicate with him from time to time any incident of importance that may affect him or his business or his affairs. he leaves his affairs in the hands of one who may be reasonably expected to act in his place and stead.R. Leah Palma vs.. Galvez. April 27. Galvez. .R. 2007 Bank of the Phil. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 74 . No. G. the summons and complaint may be validly served on her through substituted service under Section 7. et al. G. March 15.R. Danilo P. therefore. 2010 citing Montalban v. No. March 10. 2010 Rule 14.R. Ireneo and Liwanag Santiago. Inc. et al.. 163287. 1968 Section 7 also designates the persons with whom copies of the process may be left.. No. we held that substituted service of summons under the present Section 7. so to speak. March 28. No. If he does not do what is expected of him. G. G. The rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and the defendant and. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. . a local base. Considering that private respondent was temporarily out of the country. 2010 . . G. to which any inquiry about him may be directed and where he is bound to return. No. Not that he cannot be reached within a reasonable time to enable him to contest a suit against him.R. Maximo. vs. 1968). March 15. and Accesslaw. . Leah Palma vs. Where one temporarily absents himself. 169116. 165273. he cannot just raise his voice and say that he is not subject to the processes of our courts. There are now advanced facilities of communication. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court in a suit in personam against residents of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom is the normal method of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over such defendant.In Montalban v. Inc. to do all that is necessary to protect his interests. Danilo P. No. et al. March 10. March 10. Kalfam Enterprises. et al. No. 11 . or.R. No. Benito. Thus. 1997 The Rules of Court provides that personal service of petitions and other pleadings is the general rule. and Accesslaw. limited and exclusive to the persons enumerated in Section 11. Court of Appeals. 1999 Kanlaon Construction vs.R. there must be attached to the pleading or paper. et al. personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is a mandatory mode. accepted. 163749. and the courts disregard when expedient. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. while a resort to other modes of service and filing is the exception. NLRC.R. November 23. 126625. 149909. No. And ordinarily.. G. upon receiving notice from the post office of the registered parcel containing the pleading or other papers from the adverse party. BPI. 144024. If another mode is employed. September 18. Under these exceptional circumstances the lack of written explanation may be excused and the pleading or paper served or filed. and to forestall the deplorable practice among some lawyers of serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch their opposing counsel off-guard.R. No.. No. so that they may be acted upon expeditiously. Villarosa & Partner Co. No. Julian. except when: a) on the face of the affidavit of service. vs.R. We designed it to serve a very real purpose: to ensure that pleadings. 136426. Margarito Tanque. not claim it at all .Sps. et al. Omission of a written explanation will give the court cause to expunge the pleading or paper not personally served or filed. Sps.B. 2007 When we crafted Section 11. No.. Inc.R. and c) the issue raised therein is of substantial importance. Efren and Digna Mason. especially when the peculiar circumstances of the case — such as the proximity of the office of a party's counsel to the court or to the office of the opposing party's counsel — make such mode practicable. et al. October 11. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 75 . motions and other papers reach the courts directly and promptly. b) there is prima facie merit in the pleading or paper expunged. 146553. or. No. Under said rule. 144662. G.. we did not intend it to be just some silly rule the parties can ignore when convenient. it is patent that personal service and filing is impractical. Sr. vs. G. a written explanation of such recourse. these lawyers leave the opposing counsel with little or no time to respond accordingly. Inc. 158073. Herminio I. vs. G. Court of Appeals. July 27. et al. 2003 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. vs. September 26. such exercise of discretion by the court will not be overruled on appeal. et al. worse. et al. Pedro Tagabi vs.R. August 6. et al. National Labor Relations Commission. G. G. Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Evangelista. G. and Leonila Santiago. No. G. November 27.and thereby cause undue delay in the disposition of such pleading or other papers. the latter may unduly procrastinate before claiming said parcel . Willie and Julie L. October 13. 2002 E. following the rule in Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. Alex M. 2008 Service of summons on a domestic corporation is restricted. 2007 Sps. et al. such as when the parties or their counsels live in different provinces. Cadornigara vs.. 2006 Teresa Gabriel. service of summons may be made upon: 1. 11-3-6-SC]. Inc. 2008 Rule 14.statutory construction that expressio unios est exclusio alterius. — When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines.R. c) service.R. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance.. August 17. 156848. Atiko Trans. et al. G. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance. Ltd. G. (Tropifresh Division) vs. Inc... 12. service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose. Guadiz. (G.Service upon foreign private juridical entity Elucidating on the above provision of the Rules of Court. or d) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct. Jr. No. 167545.. this Court declared in Pioneer International. if there be no such agent. 3. G. Inc. 2007) that when the defendant is a foreign juridical entity. and Accesslaw. with leave of court. Its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose.. The government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not have a resident agent. 167545. Any of the corporation's officers or agents within the Philippines. Inc. on the government official designated by law to that effect. No. No. v. Reinato G. No. or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.M. Atiko Trans. b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by-registered mail at the last known address of the defendant. et al. 2011 As amended [by A. October 11. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 76 . Inc. or. Inc. service may. vs. No.R. DOLE Phil. or. vs. 168723.R. 2. If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent. Quilala. said provision of the Rules of Court now reads: SEC. Sec. Inc. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. July 9.. be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following means: a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs. August 17. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. et al. 12 . et al.2011 Rule 14. vs. October 19. Logarta. No. Court of Appeals. Inc.Service upon public corporations EDI-Staffbuilders International.R.. 155488. 13 . Such service. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 77 . or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. that is. where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. like the first two. such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where defendant resides. Victoria Regner vs.Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown Anita Mangila vs. 145587. October 26. an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. must be made either (1) by personal service. G.R. 125027. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. 2002 Rule 14. 168747.Extraterritorial service Service of summons on a non-resident defendant must be in accordance with Section 15. Velayo-Fong vs. et al. 2007 Extrajudicial service of summons apply only where the action is in rem. No.R. G. October 13. 2003 Rule 14.. Inc. No. 144662. NLRC.R. et al. August 12.. The rationale for this is that in in rem and quasi in rem actions. when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. to be effective outside the Philippines. Sec. 14 . G. or in an action quasi in rem. must be made outside the Philippines. Sec. Sps. The third mode. et al. Inc. Cynthia R. Sec. December 6. G. No. 2006 As a rule.R. Court of Appeals. Raymond and Maria Hedy Velayo. Erlinda R. vs. G. 15 . Efren and Digna Mason. and Accesslaw. 2007 Sps. No. (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Galvez. Herminio I. also with leave of court. No. Court of Appeals. 18 . Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. 136426. 2008). G. 1999 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. G." it is not mandatory. Sec.. (2) personal service outside the country. Sec. No.R. On the other hand.Residents temporarily out of the Philippines Anita Mangila vs. Leah Palma vs. 2010 Rule 14. April 29. et al. (3) service by publication.R. and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. G.M. July 15.. 1999 Rule 14. 2003 Octavio Alvarez vs. actions in rem or quasi in rem are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world. 150656. Other methods of service of summons allowed under the Rules may also be availed of by the serving officer on a defendant-resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines. Thus.R.R. Augustus C. Diaz. G. 165016.Proof of service Harry Ang Ping vs. March 3. LAbelardo icaros. No. vs. with leave of court.R. or (4) in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 78 . But when the case is one of actions in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15. if a resident defendant is temporarily out of the country. et al. Actions in personam and actions in rem or quasi in rem differ in that actions in personam are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments. In such instances. 126947.person unless he voluntarily appears in court. et al. MTJ-00-1283. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res.. et al. Inc. 2004 Rule 14. Inc. Margarita Romualdez-Licaros vs. Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.B. No. 20 . June 17. March 10. 165273. we said that because Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words "may" and "also. Sec. August 12. Villarosa & Partner Co. Vasquez (G.R. any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in section 7 (formerly Section 8). August 6.. 125027. 2002 In Montefalcon v. 16 .Voluntary appearance E. Benito. No. and Accesslaw. Rule 14. No. G. Danilo P. A. Court of Appeals. Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd vs. Dakila Trading Corp., G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007 A defendant's voluntary appearance in the action is equivalent to service of summons. DOLE Phil., Inc. (Tropifresh Division) vs. Reinato G. Quilala, et al., G.R. No. 168723, July 9, 2008 Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority. A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court Allan C. Go vs. Mortimer F. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010 [A] defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance — the first sentence of the above-quoted rule — means is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. Edna Diago Lhuillier vs. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010, citing Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009 It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latter's voluntary appearance. Rapid City Realty and Development Corp. vs. Sps. Orlando and Lourdes Villa, G.R. No. 184197, February 11, 2010 Rule 15, Sec. 4 - Hearing of motion Clodualdo C. De jesus vs. Rodolfo D. Obnamia Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1314, September 7, 2000 Antonio M. Bangayan vs. Jimmy R. Butacan, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320, November 22, 2000 Dolores Fajardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140356, March 20, 2001 Re: Release by Judge Muro, A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ, October 17, 2001 Mahid M. Mutilan vs. Judge Santos B. Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1581, July 2, 2002 Winnie Bajet vs. Judge Vivencio S. Baclig, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1598, July 30, 2002 Republic of the Phil. vs. Marilyn A. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 150327, June 18, 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 79 Teodora and Rodolfo Capacete vs. Venancia Baroro, et al., G.R. No. 154184, July 8, 2003 A motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the Clerk of Court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. Federico Pallada v. Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1, G.R. No. 129442, March 10, 1999 KKK Foundation, Inc. vs. Adelina Calderon-Bargas, et al., G.R. No. 163785, December 27, 2007 The requirements in Sections 4 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court on notice of hearing and proof of service thereof to the adverse party, far from being merely technical and procedural, are necessary elements of procedural due process. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Augustine A. Vestil, A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-2030 & RTJ-07-2032, October 5, 2007 As may be gleaned (from Section 14 of Rule 15) and as held time and again, the notice requirement in a motion is mandatory. As a rule, a motion without a Notice of Hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading. Gliceria Sarmiento vs. Emerita Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, February 5, 2007 Annie Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130314, September 22, 1998 Rule 15, Sec. 5 - Notice of hearing Octavio Alvarez vs. Augustus C. Diaz, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283, March 3, 2004 Republic of the Phil. vs. Marilyn A. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 150327, June 18, 2003 Serena T. Bacelonia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 143440, February 11, 2003 Dolores Fajardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140356, March 20, 2001 A motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the Clerk of Court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. Federico Pallada v. Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1, G.R. No. 129442, March 10, 1999 KKK Foundation, Inc. vs. Adelina Calderon-Bargas, et al., G.R. No. 163785, December 27, 2007 Aneco Realty and Development Corp. vs. Landex Development Corp., G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008 Jurisprudence confirms that the requirements laid down in Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 80 Rules of Court that the notice of hearing shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory. If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro forma. As such, the motion is a useless piece of paper that will not toll the running of the prescriptive period. Yet, again, there were previous cases with peculiar circumstances that had compelled us to liberally apply the rules on notice of hearing and recognize substantial compliance with the same. Once such case is Philippine National Bank v. Paneda, (G.R. No. 149236, February 14, 2007) where we adjudged: Thus, even if the Motion may be defective for failure to address the notice of hearing of said motion to the parties concerned, the defect was cured by the court's taking cognizance thereof and the fact that the adverse party was otherwise notified of the existence of said pleading. There is substantial compliance with the foregoing rules if a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of herein private respondents. In the present case, records reveal that the notices in the Motion were addressed to the respective counsels of the private respondents and they were duly furnished with copies of the same as shown by the receipts signed by their staff or agents. Consequently, the Court finds that the petitioner substantially complied with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing jurisprudence on the requirements of motions and pleadings. City of Dumaguete vs. Phil. Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011 Rule 15, Sec. 6 - Proof of service necessary Republic of the Phil. vs. Marilyn A. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 150327, June 18, 2003 Lutgarda Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002 Mahid M. Mutilan vs. Santos B. Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1581, July 2, 2002 The requirements in Sections 4 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court on notice of hearing and proof of service thereof to the adverse party, far from being merely technical and procedural, are necessary elements of procedural due process. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Augustine A. Vestil, A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-2030 & RTJ-07-2032, October 5, 2007 Rule 15, Sec. 8 - Omnibus motion Rationale for Rule Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 81 R. PH Credit Corporation vs. March 5. 1 . and Accesslaw. It is always under the control of the court and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment. No. Bonifacio Construction Management vs. Young vs. No. Court of Appeals and Carlos M. Farrales. June 30. Ernest S.Motion to Dismiss The Order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. Librada M. No. 153567. 2003 The spirit that surrounds the foregoing statutory norm is to require the party filing a pleading or motion to raise all available exceptions for relief during the single opportunity so that single or multiple objections may be avoided. John Keng Seng. Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground. but leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. 2008 True. No.R. Sec.Grounds In General Forum non conveniens is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.The spirit that surrounds the foregoing statutory norm is to require the party filing a pleading or motion to raise all available exceptions for relief during the single opportunity so that single or multiple objections may be avoided. G. Inc. This proceeds from the court's inherent power to control its processes and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. Aquino vs. the Omnibus Motion Rule requires the movant to raise all available exceptions in a single opportunity to avoid multiple piecemeal objections. G. An interlocutory order does not terminate nor finally dispose of the case. Librada M. But to apply that statutory norm. 2005 Rule 16. 2008 Rule 16 . G. Aure.R. February 18. February 18. 2001 Emilio S. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 82 . Ernest S. 148174. G.R. Aquino vs. Inc.R. 109648. G. 143464. November 22. Aure. No. 153567. Bernabe. the objections must have been available to the party at the time the Motion was filed. Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. vs. No. even after an answer has been filed. Eduardo F. and Ligaya Montano. Rule 16.R. et al. 120135. (3) lack of cause of action. Obando. G. Inc. proceed to trial and await judgment before making an appeal. Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the trial court may dismiss a complaint on the ground that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's complaint has been paid..R. No. or to file a motion to dismiss raising any of the grounds set forth in Section 1. 134854. November 23. 149177. G. a motion to dismiss alleging improper venue cannot be entertained unless made within that period. Jesus V. and an action can be dismissed only on a ground authorized by this provision.R. G. March 31. 135042. Except for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction. it is generally considered waived under Section 1. Justiniano.R. Court of Appeals. September 23. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 83 . vs. Rule 16 of the Rules are procedural options which are not mutually exclusive of each other. No. 2002 The period to file a motion to dismiss depends upon the circumstances of the case. (2) litis pendentia. the Court has allowed a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction. Thus. 2007 It is a well-settled rule that the order denying the motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of petition for certiorari. January 18.. G.R. 1999 The option of whether to set the case for preliminary hearing after the filing of an answer which raises affirmative defenses. October 16. If a particular ground for dismissal is not raised or if no motion to dismiss is filed at all within the reglementary period.R. a motion to dismiss should be filed within the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading. and Accesslaw. The grounds for dismissal are exclusive to those specifically mentioned in Section 1. No. This ground essentially admits the obligation Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and (4) discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal. Felizardo S. Court of Appeals. et al. No. 2000 Accordingly. Sps. Inc. Minoru Kitamura. March 19. et al. 115758. 166383. Associated Bank vs. G.Kazuhiro Hasegawa. Quitain. waived. Rule 9 of the Rules. Petitioners should have filed an answer to the complaint. G. abandoned. Elidad C. 2009 Section 1. et al. in general. Section 1 of the Rules of Court does not consider as grounds for a motion to dismiss the allotment of the disputed land for another public purpose or the petition for a mere easement of right-of-way in the complaint for expropriation. vs. Sr. However. or otherwise extinguished. Robern Development Corp. No. 2003 A motion to dismiss shall be filed within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim. Bank of America vs. the grounds under Section 1 of Rule 16 may be waived. Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court requires that. Figueras. Kho vs. and (3) that the result of the first action is determinative of the second in any event and regardless of which party is successful. Corp. To constitute litis pendentia. G. not a prior pending action. it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. This situation is not present here. which determines priority in date. Dotmatrix Trading vs. (2) that there is substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. 2009 The "more appropriate action test" considers the real issue raised by the pleadings and the ultimate objective of the parties. in this case apparently by abandonment after respondent received partial reimbursement from [the seller] as a consequence of the cancellation of contract to sell between them. Floro P. October 26. Inc. vs. Cristina D. Legaspi. G.R. No. not the receipt of summons. the more appropriate action is the one where the real issues raised can be fully and completely settled. No. 180523. regardless of which party is successful. G. Doña Rosana Realty and Dev't. DBP vs. et al. not only must the parties in the two actions be the same. October 10. would amount to res judicata in the other. Dotmatrix Trading vs. Corp. 129313. 138567. Court of Appeals. G. 2001 For litis pendentia to lie as a ground for a motion to dismiss.R.R.set out in the complaint but points out that such obligation has been extinguished. which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. Rommel B. Neither is it required that the party be served with summons before lis pendens can apply. there must as well be substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought. 155622. G.R. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. the identity should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case. No. so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Molave Dev't. January 22. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. March 26. 2009 The rule on litis pendentia does not require that the case later in time should yield to the earlier case. 155622. what is required merely is that there be another pending action. No... No.R. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action. March 4. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 84 .R. 2005 Litis pendentia is a Latin term. and Accesslaw. Gatal. Alejo as Presiding Judge. Legaspi. the following requisites must be present: (1) that the parties to the action are the same. 123555. Hon. G. Further. Rommel B. Corp. 1999 Spouses Ma. it is the filing of the action. 2010 (e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause Progressive Devt. No. October 26. Inc. vs. Tirona and Oscar Tirona vs. Sps. Dotmatrix Trading vs. Rommel B. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009 In the "anticipatory test", the bona fides or good faith of the parties is the critical element. If the first suit is filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal, then the first suit should be dismissed. Dotmatrix Trading vs. Rommel B. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009 Under this established jurisprudence on litis pendentia, the following considerations predominate in the ascending order of importance in determining which action should prevail: (1) the date of filing, with preference generally given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties. Dotmatrix Trading vs. Rommel B. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009 (f), (h) and (i) Under Section 5 of Rule 16, dismissals under paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) of Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court constitute res judicata. Sps. Isidro and Lea Cruz vs. Sps. Florencio and Amparo Caraos, et al., G.R. no. 138208, April 23, 2007 (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action There is a distinction between a motion to dismiss for failure of the complainant to state a cause of action and a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action. The first is governed by Rule 16, Section 1 (g), while the second by Rule 33 of the Rules of Court. Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. Dakila Trading Corp., G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007 Manila Banking Corp. vs. University of Baguio, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 159189, February 21, 2007 Republic of the Philippines vs. Juan C. Tuvera, et al., G.R. No. 148246, February 16, 2007 Melissa Domondon vs. Percival Mandap Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1696, June 20, 2002 A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action is filed by the defendant after the plaintiff has presented his evidence on the ground that the latter has shown no right to the relief sought. While a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is based on preliminary objections which can be ventilated before the beginning of the trial, a motion to dismiss under Rule 33 is in the nature of a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented only after the plaintiff has rested his case. Melissa Domondon vs. Judge Percival Mandap Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1696, June 20, 2002 In a motion to dismiss due to failure to state a cause of action, the trial court can consider all the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 85 pleadings filed, including annexes, motions and the evidence on record. However in so doing, the trial court does not rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such documents in the hypothetical admission. Any review of a finding of lack of cause of action based on these documents would not involve a calibration of the probative value of such pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the facts and these supporting documents. Therefore, what would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law, and not questions of fact. China Road and Bridge Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 137898, December 15, 2000 (j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001 It is a settled rule that an Order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable, nor can it be subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be followed in that event is to file an answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. Roberto S. Benedicto, et al. vs. Manuel Lacson, et al., G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010 Rule 16, Sec. 2 - Hearing of motion Francisca L. Marquez vs. Simeon Baldoz, G.R. No. 143779, April 4, 2003 Spouses Horacio and Felisa Benito vs. Agapita Saquitan-Ruiz, G.R. No. 149906, December 26, 2002 Republic vs. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002 William Alain Miailhe vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108991, March 20, 2001 Heirs of Nepomucena Paez vs. Ramon Am. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 104314, February 2, 2000 Rule 16, Sec. 3 - Resolution of motion United Overseas Bank Phils. vs. Rosemoor Mining & Development Corp., et al., G.R. Nos. 159669 & 163521, March 12, 2007 Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes Nabua, G.R. No. 161309, February 23, 2005 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 86 Wolfgang O. Roehr vs. Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003 Intramuros Administration vs. Yvette Contacto, et al., G.R. No. 152576, May 5, 2003 Richard Teh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147038, April 24, 2003 Francisca L. Marquez vs. Simeon Baldoz, G.R. No. 143779, April 4, 2003 Republic vs. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002 William Alain Miailhe vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108991, March 20, 2001 California and Hawaiian Sugar vs. Pioneer Insurance, G.R. No. 139273, November 28, 2000 Erlinda C. Pefianco vs. Maria Luisa C. Moral, G.R. No. 132248, January 19, 2000 Rule 16, Sec. 5 - Effect of dismissal 246 Corp. vs. Reynaldo B. Daway, G.R. No. 157216, November 20, 2003 Rule 16, Sec. 6 - Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses 246 Corp. vs. Reynaldo B. Daway, G.R. No. 157216, November 20, 2003 Mariano L. Gumabon, et al. vs. Aquilino T. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001 Tourist Duty Free Shops vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107395, January 26, 2000 True, Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules, specifically provides that a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses may be allowed only when no motion to dismiss has been filed. Section 6, however, must be viewed in the light of Section 3 of the same Rule, which requires courts to resolve a motion to dismiss and prohibits them from deferring its resolution on the ground of indubitability. Clearly then, Section 6 disallows a preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses once a motion to dismiss has been filed because such defense should have already been resolved. California and Hawaiian Sugar vs. Pioneer Insurance, G.R. No. 139273, November 28, 2000 The rule is based on practicality. Both the parties and the court can conveniently save time and expenses necessarily involved in a case preparation and in a trial at large, when the issues involved in a particular case can otherwise be disposed of in a preliminary hearing. Associated Bank vs. Sps. Justiniano, Sr. and Ligaya Montano, et al., G.R. No. 166383, October 16, 2009 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 87 Rule 17 - Dismissal of Actions There are two ways by which an action may be dismissed upon the instance of the plaintiff. First, dismissal is a matter of right when a notice of dismissal is filed by the plaintiff before an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served on him by the defendant. Second, dismissal is discretionary on the court when the motion for the dismissal of the action is filed by the plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings other than before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. While the dismissal in the first mode takes effect upon the mere notice of plaintiff without need of a judicial order, the second mode requires the authority of the court before dismissal of the case may be effected. This is so because in the dismissal of an action, the effect of the dismissal upon the rights of the defendant should always be taken into consideration. Limaco vs. Shonan Gakuen Children's House Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 158245, June 30, 2005 Rule 17, Sec. 1 - Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010 Ma. Carminia C. Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001 It is mandatory that the trial court issue an order confirming such dismissal (upon notice of plaintiff) and, unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice and could be accomplished by the plaintiff through mere notice of dismissal, and not through motion subject to approval by the court. Dismissal is ipso facto upon notice, and without prejudice unless otherwise stated in the notice. Frederick Dael vs. Sps. Benedicto and Vilma Beltran, G.R. No. 156470, April 30, 2008 Rule 17, Sec. 2 - Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010 Mariano L. Gumabon, et al. vs. Aquilino T. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 88 . No. Navarro. The reliance is inattentive to both the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al.. July 30. et al. et al.]"As a prejudicial dismissal. and Accesslaw. November 27. Magsalin. vs. A plain examination of the December 16. Samuel A. 136228. Inc. vs. Jr.Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff Benedicta M. G. Procedurally. 2003 dismissal order is also deemed to be a judgment on the merits so that the petitioner's complaint in Civil Case No. 2005 resolution — i. Shimizu Phil. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 89 . Paguio. Pablo C. No.R. A. Vicoy vs. 138203. Sec. No. 2002 Mariano L. (4) where the plaintiff fails to appear when so required at the pre-trial. Olivares. Martinez vs. (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time. Geraldine C.. Leticia B. et al. 2003 dismissal order shows that it is an unqualified order and. No. Fiel-Macaraig. 93 Phil. 2002 Lilia J. January 30. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a ground for the dismissal of an action. 2007 The rules contemplate certain instances where the complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear during a scheduled trial. 142523. it is imperative that the dismissal order conform with Section 1. 6323. Efren Don L. 2012 The reliance on Joaquin [Joaquin vs. A. is deemed to be a dismissal with prejudice.R. G. G. 1999 Dismissals of actions for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute is authorized under Section 3. People of the Philippines. G.e. "Dismissals of actions (under Section 3) which do not expressly state whether they are with or without prejudice are held to be with prejudice[. that the pleading of undisputed facts is equivalent to a prohibited appeal. BPI vs. 2001 Failure to make a substitution pursuant to Section 17. Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. 257 (1953)] is misplaced as it is based on the conclusion the appellate court made in its April 8. 170026. No.R. especially on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief. 141834. Judge Orlando C.R. 02-488 can no longer be refiled on the principle of res judicata. Rodriguez. Aquilino T. No. Samson. when a complaint is dismissed for failure to prosecute and the dismissal is unqualified. Gumabon.R. et al. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court on the writing of valid judgments and final orders. vs. Larin. Section 3 of the Rules of Court.M. et al. vs. Rufus B. et al. No. Jardin. vs. 2007 Under Rule 17. December 27. Villalon. vs. as such. G. Court of Appeals. the December 16. the dismissal of a case for lack of interest to prosecute had the effect of an adjudication on the merits. No. G.. Inc.Rule 17. et al. 2010 Eduardo M. Contractors.R.C. As an adjudication on the merits. July 3. 117385. 166356.. April 13. February 2.R. Gallardo. the dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits. No. or. February 11. June 20. (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court. 2001 Emma Gallardo-Corro. 3 . Inc. MTJ 02-1419. Arsenio C. G. June 20. Shimizu Phil. Leticia B. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 90 . No. as already pointed out above. sound discretion demands vigilance in duly recognizing the circumstances surrounding the case to the end that technicality shall not prevail over substantial justice. et al. Magsalin. vs. This defeats the application of Joaquin. (b) Failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time. a ruling of dismissal may forever bar a litigant from pursuing judicial relief under the same cause of action. While it is discretionary on the trial court to dismiss cases.R. The operative legal principle in Joaquin is this: "[W]here a case is submitted upon an agreement of facts. Magsalin. under the circumstances. et al. vs. Hence. The repressive or restraining effect of the rule amounting to adjudication upon the merits may cut short a case even before it is fully litigated. (c) Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Rules of Court. 2012 Rule 18.When conducted Benedicta M. Inc. Geraldine C. No. Contractors. to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief. G. the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. et al. are as follows: (a) Failure of the plaintiff.]" In this case. 170026. dismissals of actions should be made with care. the facts supposedly supporting the trial court's conclusion of non prosequitur were not stated in the judgment. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute. . or where all the facts are stated in the judgment and the issue is the correctness of the conclusions drawn therefrom. February 2.. Sec. Rule 17 of the Rules of Court for the motu proprio dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute. Contractors.. 2012 The grounds specified by Section 3.R. Leticia B. or (d) Failure of the plaintiff to obey any order of the court.averments of the subject appeal and to the text of the cited case. 170026. 2012 The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether. 1 . 170026. G. Magsalin. Inc. Samson. and Accesslaw. . et al. Leticia B.. without justifiable reasons. June 20. Inc. Shimizu Phil. vs. G. Contractors. Inc.R. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. No. Fiel-Macaraig. Inc..R. Shimizu Phil. vs. the question is one of law which [is properly subject to the review of this Court. June 20. 166356. No. R. September 30.). No. Mariano de Guia vs. April 4.Rule 18.Nature and purpose Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils. 3 .R. Court of Appeals. Ciriaco de Guia. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 91 . Nora E. and to enter into stipulations of facts and of documents. If served only on the counsel. G. Sec. Harry Ang Ping vs. G.C. it is obligatory upon both a party and her counsel to appear at a pre-trial conference. and Accesslaw. No. may cause her to be non-suited or considered as in default. July 15. and requires nothing less than that the representative should appear in a party’s behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement. The absence of such notice renders the proceedings void. Sec.R. the time and the place of the pretrial conference. May 27. A. Inc. 2003 The rules require that the party-litigant himself must appear for pre-trial but if he chooses to be represented thereat. No. vs.R. a notice of pretrial must be served separately on the counsel and the client. 1999 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 4 . 157594.Notice of pre-trial Under the pre-1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. 2004 Under Rule 18. 2001 Rule 18. G. Medina. G. The failure of a party to appear at pre-trial. 5854. Sec. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution. 126947. Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Court is a new provision. 2 . Miwa vs. 2010 Rule 18. the notice must expressly direct the counsel to inform the client of the date. given its mandatory character. Inc. and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally. 135384. 149908. Miguel "Mike" Magpayo. No. No.Appearance of parties Noteworthy is the fact that Section 4. United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Rene O. March 9. he should grant a special power of attorney to his counsel or representative. Inc. instead of defendant being declared "as in default" by reason of his non-appearance. and which read as follows: Sec. Sec. A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default. in the same book. Inc. its effects were retained. September 15. to wit: 1. G. Justice Regalado. As the rule now stands. Instead. G. BPI vs. thus: Failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period. and must be exercised soundly. nay gravely abused. Court of Appeals. February 11. Deferment of proceedings may be tolerated so that cases may be adjudged only after a full and free presentation of all the evidence by both parties. the trial court may allow the plaintiff to proceed with his evidence ex parte and the court can decide the case based on the evidence presented by plaintiff. This is a substantial reproduction of Section 2 of the former Rule 20 with the change that. 117385. 1999 Prior to the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. No. Justice Regalado clarified that while the order of default no longer obtains. 182075. except the failure to appear at a pre-trial conference wherein the effects of a default on the part of the defendant are followed. not appearance in court. vs. this section now spells out that the procedure will be to allow the ex parte presentation of plaintiff's evidence and the rendition of judgment on the basis thereof.R. and Accesslaw. explained the rationale for the deletion of the phrase "as in default" in the amended provision. Still. if the defendant fails to appear for pre-trial. and not failure to appear at the hearing. the purpose is one of semantical propriety or terminological accuracy as there were criticisms on the use of the word "default" in the former provision since that term is identified with the failure to file a required answer. the phrase "as in default" was initially included in Rule 20 of the old rules. in his book REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. is the sole ground for an order of default.R. It was however amended in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. While actually the procedure remains the same. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 92 . that is. No. 2.Effect of failure to appear Indeed the dismissal of a case whether for failure to appear during trial or prosecute an action for an unreasonable length of time rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. a default order is no longer issued. Philippine American Life & General Insurance Co. 5 . the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex parte and a judgment based thereon may be rendered against defendant.Rule 18. There must be sufficient reason to justify the dismissal of a complaint. Joseph Enario. But this discretion must not be abused. The propriety of dismissing a case must be determined by the circumstances surrounding each particular case. G. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 93 . Sec. The Rules also provide that failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.R. August 17. 156606. Rodriguez. i. Jacinto Saguid vs. and Accesslaw. 7 . Republic of the Philippines vs.. 170540. the failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.. Oleta. June 10. In addition. 2003 Republic of the Phil. Roberta L.M.R. July 15. RTJ-01-1640.. because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. October 15. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. mistake or excusable neglect.Record of pre-trial LCK Industries Inc. G. 2007 Under Section 6. Sec. No.Pre-trial brief The pre-trial brief serves as a guide during the pre-trial conference so as to simplify.. 170606. It is a devise essential to the speedy disposition of disputes. accident. de Agatep vs. pre-trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed. Planters Development Bank. 152154. 6 . 150611. G. Court of Appeals. Andres B. Soriano. No. vs. abbreviate and expedite the trial if not to dispense with it.R. Sandiganbayan. A. The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud. G. November 23. they should be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thought[less]ness in not complying with the procedure. Ildefonso T. Inc. 2007 Hermogenes Datuin vs. et al. G. October 28. No. and parties cannot brush it aside as a mere technicality. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates that parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party their pre-trial briefs at least three days before the scheduled pre-trial. Inc. et al. No.e. Like all rules. Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.2010 Rule 18. 2003 Rule 18. et al. 2009 Section 6. No. No. Eufemia Balatico vda. The motion need not really stress the fact that the defendant has a valid and meritorious defense because his answer which contains his defenses is already on record.R.R. August 10. Maximo D. Metrobank vs. Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations. et al. 176008 & 176131. 166984. International Exchange Bank. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 94 . Inc. 175989.R. No.R. 2011 CSMC's intervention should be treated as one pro interesse suo which is a mode of intervention in equity wherein a stranger desires to intervene for the purpose of asserting a property right in the res. 176008 & 176131. 1 . which entitles one to intervene. February 4. and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties. To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court..Rule 19 . Sec. International Exchange Bank. Court of Appeals. No. vs. Nos. Metrobank vs. and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties. G. G.R. and Accesslaw. Jr. G. Nos. Manuel H. GSIS vs. 2010 The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims. Nieto. G. must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. or thing.Who may intervene The legal interest which entitles a person to intervene must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of judgment. Nocom. The interest. and without acquiring control over the course of a litigation. Sison. G. February 16. without becoming a formal plaintiff or defendant. 2008 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. which is conceded to the main actors therein. Inc. nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.R. 185954. two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest on the matter in litigation. 2011 Rule 19.Intervention Rule 19 of the Rules of Court allows a person to intervene in a civil case. August 17. nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. Mariano A. 2007 To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. which is the subject matter of the litigation. Office of the Ombudsman vs. No. August 10. 1999 Fort Bonifacio Development Corp.R. what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation. G. February 4. Danilo L. 175989. G. 2003 Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted by the courts only when the statutory conditions for the right to intervene is shown. No. Inc. and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties. Under Section 1 Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Court. State Investment House. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 95 . or in the success of either of the parties.Elmar O. Inc. December 11.R. Inc. 2008 [A] motion for intervention shall be entertained when the following requisites are satisfied: (1) the would-be intervenor shows that he has a substantial right or interest in the case. but only optional and permissive. Thus. 141297. 162580.." Domingo R.. (3) or an interest against both. and (2) such right or interest cannot be adequately pursued and protected in another proceeding. California Bus Lines. G. Concepcion. nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. G.R.. Perez v. G. No. (2) or in the success of either of the parties. 127022 & 127245. two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. vs. Section 1 of the Rules of Court. or an interest against both. Mariano A.R. No. Court of Appeals. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Notably. 147950. October 6. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. (4) or when is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. and Accesslaw. 2001 Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted by the Courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. The present rules maintain the permissive nature of intervention in Section 1. Court of Appeals. No.R. 158997. June 26. As regards the legal interest as qualifying factor. 2008 GSIS vs. In determining the propriety of letting a party intervene in a case. Inc.R. the allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Nocom. Nos. 160727. G. No.R. G. Firestone Ceramics vs. No. or when he is situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. 2007 Intervention is not mandatory. Court of Appeals and Paic Savings And Mortgage Bank. Yllas Lending Corp. 2006 To warrant intervention under Rule 19. January 27. Manalo vs. Rule 12 of the then 1988 Revised Rules of Procedure uses the word 'may' in defining the right to intervene. this Court has ruled that such interest must be of direct and immediate character not merely contingent or expectant so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment. the tribunal should not limit itself to inquiring whether "a person (1) has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. Section 2. et al. September 2. October 8. vs. 134269. like all other Rules therein promulgated. vs. It does not constitute the thing itself which courts are always striving to secure to litigants.Time to intervene This section is derived from the former Section 2. 134440 & 144518." with one decision holding that said Motion may be filed up to the day the case is submitted for decision. G. which then provided that the motion to intervene may be filed "before or during a trial. vs. . et al.R. COMELEC. and Accesslaw. Quinto. Thus. Florita A. and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. interventions have been allowed even beyond the prescribed period in the Rule in the higher interest of justice. vs. Office of the Ombudsman vs. et al. G. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. 165416. G. The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. is simply a rule of procedure." Edna Collado.. No. the whole purpose and object of which is to make the powers of the Court fully and completely available for justice. the Court has recognized exceptions to this rule in the interest of substantial justice . In other words. et al. G. and much less.. the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court. . Rule 12. Inc. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. February 22. intervention is allowed "before rendition of judgment by the trial court. 2010 Rule 19.Eleazar P. July 7. when the petition for review of the judgment was already submitted for decision before the Supreme Court.." as Section 2. Learning Child. Interventions have been granted to afford indispensable parties." in line with the second doctrine above-stated. But Rule 12 of the Rules of Court. However. 2 . Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. This ambiguity was eliminated by the present Section 2. January 22. when even the Court of Appeals had rendered its own Decision on appeal. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. Court of Appeals and Republic of the Philippines. it is a means to an end.R. No. et al. Sec. 189698. Rule 19 expressly provides. Rule 19 by clearly stating that the same may be filed "at any time before rendition of the judgment by the trial court. Inc. It is designed as the means best adopted to obtain that thing. 2008 As a rule. 107764. It was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.R. The clear import of the amended provision is that intervention cannot be allowed when the trial court has already rendered its Decision. Nos. Inc. who have not been impleaded. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 96 .R. No. while another stating that it may be filed at any time before the rendition of the final judgment.. Ayala Alabang Village Association. 2010 We have ruled however that allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. Masing." Said former phraseology gave rise to ambiguous doctrines on the interpretation of the word "trial. et al. 1999 Henry C. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. No. Crisostomo Magat. 1999 [A]llowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. Seveses vs. G. G. vs. Francisco I.October 4. et al. interventions have been allowed even beyond the prescribed period in the Rule in the higher interest of justice. No. intervention may be granted only where its allowance will not unduly delay or prejudice the rights of the original parties to a case. No. and Accesslaw. After trial and decision in a case. 102696. 124582. Court of Appeals. 141297. Emilia T. October 13. G. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. 2000 Intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. More so. No. the motion for intervention should have been denied it appearing clearly and succinctly that a Compromise Agreement had already been entered into. et al. who have not been impleaded. it will be allowed "before rendition of judgment by the trial court". §2 expressly provides. The intervention unduly delayed and disrupted the smooth operation of the trial and prejudiced the adjudication of the rights of the principal parties. 130757. Certainly it cannot be allowed on appeal without unduly delaying the disposition of the case and prejudicing the interest of the parties. as Rule 19. Court of Appeals. No. July 5.. Boncodin vs.R. intervention can no longer be permitted. G. 130716. especially so since the intervenor's rights could be fully protected in a separate proceeding. 2001 Thus. Where the main action ceases to exist. et al. 2002 It is not appropriate for petitioner to intervene at the execution stage of the decision.. January 18. 135199.R. G. it is an interlocutory proceeding dependent on or subsidiary to the case between the original parties.. October 8. 2001 Alberto Looyuko. Interventions have been granted to afford indispensable parties. May 19. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 97 . et al. Manalo vs. 2002 Intervention is merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to the principal action. Inc. July 12.R. et al.R. Such right to intervene has lapsed.R. Domingo R. No. G. Court of Appeals. Chavez vs.R. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. Court of Appeals. Albert M. 2001 It was error for the trial court to entertain the motion for intervention when it was filed after the case had not only been submitted for decision but was in fact partially executed. Reggie Christi Limpo vs. Delizo. June 16. and not an independent proceeding.R. Thus. when the petition for review of the judgment was already submitted for decision before the Supreme Court. vs. there is no pending proceeding wherein the intervention may be based. G.. 102675. Generally. No. the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court. Court of Appeals and Paic Savings And Mortgage Bank.. et al. PCGG. Inc. Hence. vs. et al. Sec. Strategic Alliance Development Corp. Jr. Radstock Securities Limited. Thus.. a raffle must be conducted so that all branches of the court in that station or grouping shall receive more or less the same number of civil. No. Fineza vs.M. the assignment to the branch with the least number of cases will still have to be through a raffle and not on the basis of the preference of any judge. precisely to provide a uniform method of assignment of cases for more equitable distribution of cases. 134100. RTJ-07-2074. Rivera. RTJ-00-1545. 189698. August 6. et al. et al. 3 . when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court. In Lim v.Form and contents Purita Alipio vs. A.Assignment of cases The raffle of cases is vital to the administration of justice because it is intended to ensure impartial adjudication of cases and obviates public suspicion regarding assignment of cases to predetermined judges. Pacquing (310 Phil. Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties. operates Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. COMELEC. which inevitably occur due to vacancies or absences. the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court. We have set rules in raffling. Bayani S. 2008 Rule 21. Inc. Court of Appeals. No. Eleazar P.R.R. A. Quinto. and Accesslaw. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 98 . G.. including a subpoena duces tecum. 2 . Antonio J. Sec. No. February 22..R. the sala shall be assigned such number of cases as will equalize its caseload equitably with the rest of the other branches in the same station". 722 (1995)].and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. 2000 Under the Rules of Court. the motion for intervention filed by the Republic of the Philippines was allowed by this Court to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties. vs. G. when demanded by the higher interest of justice. In the event that there are inequalities. December 4. 2003 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ireneo Lee Gako. G. Inc. September 29. "once the vacancy is filled or the absent judge has returned. 2009 Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule. criminal and other kinds of cases. 178158 & 180428. October 24. No.M. the issuance of subpoenas. who have not been impleaded. Nos. and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. 2010 Rule 20. . Angeles.R. December 10. June 10. No. G.M. 116463. Thru the DPWH vs. A. For the production of documents to be reasonable and for the documents themselves to be relevant. be one that the Ombudsman can legitimately entertain. Office of the Ombudsman. the matter under inquiry should. University of Southeastern Phils. G. Samuel D. G. Court of Appeals. 4 . Serrano vs. August 15. Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 99 . 2010 Rule 21. G. not to punish him for contempt which requires a previous hearing. 1999 Rule 22. 10-1-13-SC. 2003 Republic of the Phil. A. Amante. in the first place. the issuance of subpoenas. G. Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum of Acting Director Aleu A. PIAB-C. No. 2001 Medina Investigation vs. No. Court of Appeals. Sec. The purpose is to bring the witness before the court where his attendance is required. For the production of documents to be reasonable and for the documents themselves to be relevant. investigate and rule upon. March 2.R. Pagdilao vs. Adoracion G. 1 . August 5.Compelling attendance A judge may issue a warrant of arrest against a witness simply upon proof that the subpoena had been served upon him but he failed to attend the hearing. 2010 Rule 21. 139420.How to compute time Rodolfo Alarilla. 139665. 144697. Amante. 8 . Sr. A.under the requirements of reasonableness and relevance. Sec. Ocampo. 144074.Quashing a subpoena Under the Rules of Court. Sec. No. No. investigate and rule upon. including a subpoena duces tecum. et al. 10-1-13-SC. PIAB-C. Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum of Acting Director Aleu A. Court of Appeals. vs. No. operates under the requirements of reasonableness and relevance. 2001 Ma. August 9. March 20. in the first place.M. 2003 Roberto R. Inc. No. and Accesslaw.R. March 2. RTJ-99-1467. the matter under inquiry should. Vilma S..R. Labad vs. No.R. Office of the Ombudsman.M. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. be one that the Ombudsman can legitimately entertain. Reynaldo C. 1998 Rule 24 . 139998.Depositions Pending Action While the taking of depositions pending trial is not expressly provided [for] under the Rules on Criminal Procedure. February 2. October 29.R.Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal Republic vs. January 29. 132577. G. August 17. [it] loses sight of the object of procedure which is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. Hubert Jeffrey P. vs. People of the Phil. and Accesslaw. 145415.R.R. 2001 Rule 22. 1999 Rule 23. Sec. No. To disallow petitioner to avail of the specific remedies provided under the Rules would deny him the opportunity to adequately defend himself against the criminal charge of rape with homicide now pending before the public respondent and. Webb. G. 112710. Sec. Inc. Webb. No. 1 .Depositions pending action. Court of Appeals. G. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 1999 Producers Bank vs. 2002 Rule 23 . Sandiganbayan. No.Unity Fishing Development Corp. May 30. Court of Appeals. No. August 17. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 100 . 132577. No.R. G. No. vs. vs. further. when may be taken People of the Phil.R. Inc. 110495. Court of Appeals. G. Hubert Jeffrey P. G.Effect of interruption PDIC vs.R. 2 . we find no reason for public respondent to disallow the taking of the same in the manner provided for under Section 1 of Rule 23 under the circumstances of the case. 1999 Rule 26. December 4. Sec. Sec.. 125383.R. 131466. No. Court of Appeals.Request for admission The purpose of the rule governing requests for admission of facts and genuineness of documents is to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. January 29. Duque vs.R. 2002 Cristina Diman. 1 . G.Rule 24. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. the determination of the sanction to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply with the modes of discovery rests on the same sound judicial discretion.Implied admission Fortunata N. et al. 110495. In the same vein. It is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Fortunata N. July 2. Co. if the request for admission only serves to delay the proceeding by abetting redundancy in the pleadings. No. et al. G. 125383. Webb. No. 118438. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 101 . Alumbres. 1998 This particular Rule seeks to obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or relevant matters of fact through requests for admissions to enable a party to discover the evidence of the adverse side thereby facilitating an amicable settlement of the case or expediting the trial of the same. No. 1 . August 17. Court of Appeals. July 2. Inc. November 27. However. Florentino M. vs. G.R. vs. Sec.R. G. and Accesslaw. No. Inc. 2 . Hubert Jeffrey P. 132577. Duque vs. 2002 Rule 26.R.Depositions before action petition Producers Bank of the Phils vs. No. the intended purpose for the rule will certainly be defeated. G. Allied Agri-Business Dev.Depositions pending appeal People of the Phil. G. Sec. vs. 1998 Rule 24. 1998 The application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the court.R. 7 . vs. No. G. Court of Appeals. Upon service of request for admission.R. Solidbank Corp.modes of discovery. 1 . Allied Agri-Business Dev. or within such further time as the court may allow on motion.R. 2008 Rule 27. the only limitation being that the documents.Motion for production or inspection. January 25. et al. the party served may do any of the following acts: (a) he may admit each of the matters of which an admission is requested. No. G. Comelec. vs. G. Sec.. No.. which must not be less than ten (10) day after service. vs. February 1. (c) he may file a sworn statement denying specifically the matter of which an admission is requested. 148218. he need not file an answers. or.R. Court of Appeals. 102390 & 102404. sought to be produced are not privileged. (b) he may admit the truth of the matters of which admission is requested by serving upon the party requesting a written admission of such matters within the period stated in the request. April 29. No. Alberto vs.R. G. Gateway Electronics Corp. in which case. Nos.. Court of Appeals. Inc. G. G. 2000 Roberto S. papers. bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice.R. order Carmelita S. etc. 118438. 1998 Rule 27 . Co. et al. the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. Santos. PNB. December 4. Inc. 1999 A more than cursory glance at the above text would show that the production or inspection of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and Accesslaw. that they are in the possession of the party ordered to produce them and that they are material to any matter involved in the action. July 27.. April 30. No. 2002 Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless within a period designated in the request which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof. Rey Lañada vs. 2002 Security Bank Corporation vs. or within such further time as the court may allow on motion and notice.R.Production or Inspection of Documents or Things Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court permits "fishing" for evidence. 135874. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 102 . et al. (d) he may file a sworn statement setting forth in the detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny the matters of which an admission is requested. 132242. 164805. 180906. 98-8-262-RTC. 2011 Section 5(f) The exercise of the court's discretion under the exception of Section 5 (f).Order of trial Under this rule.M. G.. Pennswell. October 7. so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty. March 21.documents or things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the Rules of Court may be availed of by any party upon a showing of good cause therefor before the court in which an action is pending. papers. No. 2 . G. equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. No. vs. A. 152375. Sec.R. or. G. surveying. 5 . Raymond Manalo. photographs. custody or control. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 103 . Sandiganbayan. et al. December 13. or personal hostility. Inc. Settled jurisprudence has defined this term as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. No. which are not privileged. Rule 30 of the Rules of Court depends on the attendant facts — i.R. Republic of the Phil.Adjournments and postponements Report on the Judicial Audit. et al. No. Matias vs. Sec. which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action. 2008 Rule 30. Inc. and Accesslaw. August 3. A. at the first instance. or to act at all in contemplation of the law.M.R. to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty. or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. measuring. and which are in his possession. vs. or b) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting. on whether the evidence would qualify as a "good reason" and be in furtherance of "the interest of justice. The court may order any party: a) to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any designated documents.." For a reviewing court to properly interfere with the lower court's exercise of discretion. Plan. the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion. et al. 172835. 2007 Secretary of National Defense. 2000 Leticia G. Inc. letters. accounts. Sergio A. No. MTJ-98-1159. Corp. 1998 Rule 30. the petitioner must show that the lower court's action was attended by grave abuse of discretion. all the evidence he relies upon and such evidence cannot be given piecemeal. Grave abuse of discretion goes beyond the bare and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. December 16. vs. Air Phil. objects or tangible things. a party who has the burden of proof must introduce. prejudice. books..e.. The obvious rationale of the requirement is to avoid injurious surprises to the other party and the consequent delay in the administration of justice. No. G. 2003 Rule 31. et al. October 15. consistent with the rule in our jurisdiction that leans towards permitting consolidation of cases whenever possible and irrespective of the diversity of the issues for resolution..Consolidation It is well recognized that consolidation of cases avoids multiplicity of suits. Estela Perlas-Bernabe. prevent delay. and beyond allegations that merely constitute errors of judgment or mere abuse of discretion. December 16. No. Bank of Commerce vs. Quilala. RTJ-02-1699. August 21. Republic of the Phil. simplifies the work of the courts and seeks to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to litigants. People of the Phil.unsupported imputation of caprice. et al. delegation to clerk of court Vernette Umali-Paco. 9 . 1 .R. and Accesslaw. No. 152375. Hon. Sec. prevents delay. Yet in appropriate instances and in the interest of justice. guards against oppression and abuse.Judgment to receive evidence. whimsicality or arbitrariness. 130907. simplify the work of the trial court and save unnecessary costs and expense. or when there is real need to forestall the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered in the cases. Generally. G. Inc. vs. 2010 The consolidation of cases is addressed to the sound discretion of judges. G. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. Mangrobang. provided that the measure will not give one party an undue advantage over the other. guard against oppression or abuse. Reinato G. October 20. No. A.M. Republic of the Phil. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 104 . et al.. Sec.. 149495. vs. November 27. Sandiganbayan. Cesar A. clear congested dockets. consolidation applies only to cases pending before the same judge and not to cases pending in different branches of the same court or in different courts. consolidation of cases is proper when the actions involve the same reliefs or the same parties and basically the same issues.R. G. 172393. cases pending in different branches of the court or in different courts may be consolidated. No.. or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties. Hence. vs. 2003 The main object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits. et al.. Inc. et al. Sandiganbayan.R. 2011 Rule 30. clears congested court dockets.R. 122216. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. et al. 2007 Manila Banking Corp. 2001 Rule 33 . G. and Accesslaw. vs.M. 2001 Rule 32. A.R. Melissa Domondon vs. Tuvera. powers of the commissioner Aljem's Corp. motu proprio. Inc.Proceedings before commissioner Aljem's Corp. in any stage of a case.R. Sec. December 14. vs. direct a reference to a commissioner when a question of fact. March 28. 54 while the second by Rule 33 of the Rules of Court. G.Rule 32. Section 1 (g). No. 2 . 3 . Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. 123346 & 134385. Inc.. The first is governed by Rule 16. February 16. No. Sec. March 28. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 105 . 122216.Demurrer to Evidence There is a distinction between a motion to dismiss for failure of the complainant to state a cause of action and a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action. 2007 Rule 32.. et al.Order of reference. G. No. No.R. Court of Appeals.. other than upon the pleadings. February 21. vs. June 20. Percival Mandap Lopez. vs. Court of Appeals. or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. Nos. arises upon motion or otherwise.Reference ordered on motion Under Section 2. Juan C. The commissioner is likewise mandated to submit a report in writing to the court upon the matters submitted to him by the order of reference. 148246. et al. and the commissioner may likewise rule upon the admissibility of evidence. G.. Inc.R.R. Manotok Realty. 5 . The order of reference can be limited exclusively to receive and report evidence only. RTJ-02-1696. Sec. Inc. 159189. No.. a court may. CLT Realty Development Corp. University of Baguio. 2002 Republic of the Philippines vs. Radiowealth Finance Co. it should render judgment on the basis of the evidence proffered by the plaintiff. 148246. G. Arinday. Tuvera.. . A. a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. and without need to consider whatever evidence the Tuveras have. vs. Sps. . No. 1 .. . et al. and Accesslaw. 148246. the Rules of Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot apply to election cases even "by analogy or in a suppletory character. Juan C. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 106 . 2001 When a demurrer to evidence granted by a trial court is reversed on appeal. Judge Graciano H. Inc. RTJ-02-1696. Del Rosario. the defendant loses the right to present his evidence and the appellate court shall then proceed to render judgment on the merits on the basis of plaintiff's evidence. that is. Inc." especially because the application of said Rules would not be " practicable and convenient.Judgment on the pleadings Laurentino D. 2007 Republic of the Philippines vs. 2007 While a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is based on preliminary objections which can be ventilated before the beginning of the trial.R. vs. Rather.. Judge Percival Mandap Lopez. 2000 Rule 34." Gelacio P. Republic of the Phil. RTJ-00-1591. Sec. April 11.R. G. February 16. On the other hand.R. No.M. July 6. when the Answer specifically Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. G.R.. Sec. March 6. A. No. et al.M. No. they having waived their right to present evidence in their behalf.Rule 33. No. Jr. Juan C. Melissa Domondon vs. the reviewing court cannot remand the case for further proceedings. if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. When the Answer fails to tender any issue. 138739. Bascug vs. February 16. 1 . Gementiza vs. duly taking into account the evidence presented by the Republic. 2002 Simply stated. a motion to dismiss under Rule 33 is in the nature of a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented only after the plaintiff has rested his case. Comelec. what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer to the Complaint. 140884. No. June 20.Demurrer to evidence The general rule is that upon the dismissal of the demurrer in the appellate court. It thus becomes the Court's duty to rule on the merits of the complaint. Tuvera. et al. Because of this difference. 2002 It should be underscored that the nature of an election protest case differs from an ordinary civil action. . et al. "A 'genuine issue' means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence. Doris U. August 24. G. 2007 Pesane Animas Mongao.R.R. 2003 While this rule [our ruling in Viajar vs. Rodolfo P. Inc. Eugenia D. 2005 Under Section 1 of Rule 34 of the Rules of Court. vs. Now.R. . a judgment on the pleadings would naturally not be proper. Polido vs. No. No. and it would admit the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings not only where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it omits to deal with them at all. and is based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the accompanying annexes. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. . 1999 The trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed. Llamas. and Accesslaw. A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded. Dionisio V. while admitting the material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly. 170632. Court of Appeals. December 8. Romeo C.denies the material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses. vs. Inc. June 30. Sunbanun vs. The answer would fail to tender an issue . Rule 34 pertains to a judgment on the pleadings while Rule 35 relates to a summary judgment which was the holding in this case. or to obtain a declaratory relief. . G. Aurora B. if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the complaint in the manner indicated by said Section 10 of Rule 8. who is the party seeking to recover upon a claim. if it does not comply with the requirements for a specific denial set out in Section 10 (or Section 8) of Rule 8. February 2. it does not apply to summary proceedings under Rule 35. No. . Velasquez vs. et al. . Garcia vs. Go. and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter which. . No. No.R. Beata Sayson. 2011 . July 10.. Court of Appeals. et al. G. 154127. G. August 16. a summary judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 107 . No. G. 163280. unlike in the former where the judge merely relies on the merits of the movant's allegations. 172660. as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue for trial. A different rationale operates in the latter for it arises out of facts already established or admitted during the pre-trial held beforehand." Eugenio Basbas. 124049. would nevertheless bar recovery by the plaintiff) . Estenzo] is true in the summary proceedings under Rule 34 of the Revised Rules of Court. Pryce Properties Corp.R.. et al. a judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to render an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. 156474..R. The essential question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings. or in other words raises an issue. A judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant. G. counterclaim or cross-claim. and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. there appears from the pleadings. set up in bad faith. Republic of the Phil. depositions. Upon a motion for summary judgment the court's sole function is to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 108 . February 14. the court should take that view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is directed. except the amount of damages. Florentino Pineda vs. It is a method intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings.. and Accesslaw. G. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon.Summary Judgments A summary judgment under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court is a procedural technique that is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to the existence of a material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Inc. Inc. vs. the crucial question is: are the issues raised by petitioners not genuine so as to justify a summary judgment? A "genuine issue" means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence. Sandiganbayan (First Division). Wood Technology Corp. April 12. admissions. on motion of either party. In other words. admissions. 143188. et al. 2005 The term genuine issue has been defined as an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue that is sham. in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.R. a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact. Manuel Ybiernas. giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences. contrived.Rule 35 . et al. No. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara. an issue that does not constitute a genuine issue for trial. Thus. 2007 Summary judgment is a procedure aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation. G. and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant. and all doubts as to the existence of an issue of fact must be resolved against the moving party. More importantly. 153867. June 1. et al. No. 169203 & 180702. fictitious.R. The adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary judgment and furnished with supporting affidavits. vs. In a summary judgment. must invoke the rule on summary judgment by filing a motion. G. the defending party or the claimant.. The proper inquiry in this regard would be whether the affirmative defenses offered by petitioners constitute genuine issues of fact requiring a full-blown trial. and affidavits on record.R. G. a summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. February 17. 178925. vs. No.R. depositions or admissions before hearing is conducted. Nos. 2011 Under the applicable provisions of Rule 35. 166859. as the case may be. as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived. and affidavits that no important issues of fact are involved... Equitable Banking Corp. 2011 A summary judgment is granted to settle expeditiously a case if. depositions. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues. G. It is repeated often enough that the court is not authorized to try the issue of fact but to determine whether there is an issue to be tried. is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Court of Appeals. Where the motion is made by a claimant. 2001 Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended. Inc.R. Antero and Virginia Soriano. Velasco.patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.R. et al. vs. Inc. Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. Nevertheless. 2000 Simply stated. G. On a motion for summary judgment. then summary judgment as prescribed by the rules must ensue as a matter of law. What is crucial for determination. therefore. The court can determine this on the basis of the pleadings. when the Answer specifically Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. The determination will depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine. except as to the amount of damages. and Accesslaw. April 12. and counter-affidavits submitted by the parties to the court. March 31. the language used by courts in making a determination in particular cases may serve to indicate the manner in which a court should approach the question to be determined. G. what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer to the Complaint. 169203 & 180702. Ray U. that is. when the affidavits. the court is not authorized to decide an issue of fact but to determine whether the pleadings and records before the court create an issue of fact to be tried. when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. the defending party must show that he has a plausible ground of defense. It is impossible to state a general rule for determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists in a particular case. summary judgment may be allowed. No. admissions and affidavits. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 109 . affidavits. admissions. The law itself determines when a summary judgment is proper. 144291. Evadel Realty and Development Corp. which gives authority to trial courts to grant relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings. No. 166859.. vs. something fairly arguable and of a substantial character. et al. summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. On the other hand. This rule does not vest in the court summary jurisdiction to try the issues on pleadings and affidavits but gives the court limited authority to enter summary judgment only if it clearly appears that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 121517. a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. April 20. documents. Nos. When the Answer fails to tender any issue. vs. Under the rules. Sandiganbayan (First Division). 2011 Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested..R. Republic of the Phil. if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. et al. Inc. et al. 172660. 2008 Benjamin Bitanga vs. 145469. or for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. Santa Loro Vda. "A 'genuine issue' means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence. No. G. vs.. 173289. G. G.Summary judgment for claimant A summary judgment. vs. the movant must establish two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact. No.R.. the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment. Azucena Garcia. No. Felipe Chua. G.. G. et al. De Capin. or in other words raises an issue. 133801. In Yuchengco v. 2010 Eland Phil. 178899. 152154. 2003 Korea Exchange Bank vs.. Inc. vs. Where. Union Bank.R. or accelerated judgment. Sandiganbayan. 173526. Filkor Business Integrated. a summary judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine. the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried. C. August 28. G. National Power Corp. G. that is. August 24. 2011 Rule 35. 2008 Summary judgment may be allowed where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and where the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 2004 Republic of the Phil.R. June 27. November 15. G. for a summary judgment to be proper. 12 (2006)). No. on the basis of the pleadings of a moving party.. is a procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings. et al. No. Business Bank vs. 1. Sec.R. Beata Sayson. Inc. 1 . and Accesslaw. depositions. No. No. Alcantara and Sons. the burden to produce a genuine issue shifts to the opposing party. 2010 Cotabato Timberland Co. 175176. Inc. et al. vs. July 15. Inc. October 17. 2002 Ley Construction vs.R. admissions and affidavits on record. Sandiganbayan (515 Phil. as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue for trial.R. no genuine issue as to a material fact exists.R. February 17. except for the amount of damages. the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment. Phil. Pyramid Construction Engineering Corp. et al. May 28. 2000 Under the afore-quoted procedural rules. No. April 10. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 110 . the Court has previously discussed the importance of summary judgment in weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation in order to avoid the expense Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.denies the material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses." Eugenio Basbas. vs..R. when the facts are not in dispute. If the opposing party fails.R.. including documents appended thereto.. No. 138292. and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. G. This does not mean that the hearing is superfluous. Marcos.R. The matter may be resolved. Ferdinand R. vs. vs. the Court is justified in dispensing with the trial and rendering summary judgment for plaintiff.R. Even if in the Answer itself there appears to be a tender of issues requiring trial. Republic of the Phil. 2012 Summary judgment. may also call for a hearing so that both the movant and the adverse party may justify their positions.R. 2012 Rule 35. The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines.: Even if the pleadings appear. It is the law itself that determines when a summary judgment is proper.. as differentiated from a fictitious or contrived one. Sec. G. What is crucial to a determination. yet when the relevant affidavits. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 111 . or accelerated judgment as it is sometimes known. when the affidavits. to raise issues. April 25. on the basis of affidavits. or admissions demonstrate that those issues are not genuine but sham or fictitious. depositions. Nos. or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Sandiganbayan. Inc. Nos. Jr. at bottom. then summary judgment is called for. is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Marcos. and Accesslaw. viz. therefore. Inc. 152154. depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine. the Court ruled that a hearing is not de riguer. April 25. and usually is.. 189434 & 189505. G.Summary judgment for defending party Republic of the Phil.and loss of time involved in a trial. 2 . not to receive evidence of the issues set up in the pleadings. et al. July 15. summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact that call for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed. the hearing contemplated (with 10-day notice) is for the purpose of determining whether the issues are genuine or not. G. Jr. A "genuine issue". 189434 & 189505. To the party who moves for summary judgment rests the onus of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact. summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the affidavits. on their face. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues. In Carcon Development Corporation v.. Under the rules. is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence. Ferdinand R. Court of Appeals. the propriety of summary judgment. vs. However. then summary judgment as prescribed by the rules must ensue as a matter of law. Republic of the Phil. only that the court is empowered to determine its necessity. depositions. depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and admissions. No. et al. G.. No. G. Garcia vs. 2003 Republic of the Phil. affidavits. except for the amount of damages. Elvira Castillo. on the basis of the pleadings of a moving party.R. 156065. 2008 A summary judgment is allowed only if. vs. the pleadings. October 17. G. Ma. If the opposing party fails. et al.Rule 35. summary judgment may be allowed where. Victorino E. No. Inc. et al. Inc. Rule 35. Dionisio V. no genuine issue as to a material fact exists. after hearing.. et al. 2000 Under Section 3. depositions. G. 173289. Sandiganbayan. 3 . De Capin. Even if the pleadings appear. et al vs. The purpose of a summary judgment is to avoid drawn out litigations and useless delays because the facts appear undisputed to the mind of the court. vs. Where. Eserjose. save for the amount of damages. G. For a full-blown trial Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2003 Monterey Foods Corp. Inc. Sandiganbayan. depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine.R.. 175176.R. pleadings. 2006 Edward T. depositions and admissions show no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 149802. summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the affidavits. the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment. vs. as differentiated from a fictitious or contrived one. et al. G. 136803. 152154. at bottom. and Accesslaw. G. No. to raise issues. No. June 27. including documents appended thereto.The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines. there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation. 2003 Ley Construction vs. Sandiganbayan. vs. or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. Alfonso T. January 20.R. is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence. June 16. No.Motion and proceedings thereon Eland Phil.R..R. Union Bank. Such judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits. Sec.. No. National Power Corp. December 8. Marcelo. or admissions of the parties. A "genuine issue". 154127. July 15.. 2010 Romeo C. thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. Yuchengco. August 28. Santa Loro Vda. 2007 Under the afore-quoted procedural rules. the movant must establish two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact. for a summary judgment to be proper. G. the court finds that except as to the amount of damages.R. No. No. vs. et al. 133801. February 17. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 112 . the propriety of summary judgment. September 11. Llamas. and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 153126. No. of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. et al.. on their face. the burden to produce a genuine issue shifts to the opposing party. Azucena Garcia. G. To the party who moves for summary judgment rests the onus of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact.R.R. 2000 Eustaquio Mallilin vs. as distinguished from a sham. the partial summary judgment.Case not fully adjudicated on motion This is what is referred to as a partial summary judgment. Business Bank vs. A careful reading of this section reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment. Mangontawar M. No. 2010 A genuine issue of fact is that which requires the presentation of evidence. Chua. NAPOCOR. No. . the court is instructed to issue an order. 15 November 2010) we had occasion to rule that a careful reading of its Section 4 reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment. with a down payment of P180 million. that Smartnet agreed to pay Piltel P560 million for it. Gubat vs. . and Accesslaw. "Genuine issue" means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived. Inc. August 24. the party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact." as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 160322.. the RTC was correct in skipping trial and deciding the case through a summary judgment based on the undisputed facts. 2011 Rule 35. admits of a situation in which a case is not fully adjudicated on motion. and that Smartnet failed to pay the balance of the purchase price on or about April 30. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 113 . In this way. considering as established those facts which are not in dispute. 2010 Rule 35 on summary judgments. 178899. rather than a final judgment. Inc. With these common admissions.R. (G. an interlocutory order. In Philippine Business Bank v. it is clear that there are no genuine issues of fact as to the existence and nature of the contract to sell as well as Smartnet's failure to pay the balance of the purchase price within the agreed period. G. which specifies the disputed facts that have to be settled in the course of trial. November 15. contrived or false issue. . Radiomarine Network (Smartnet) Phil. The partial summary judgment envisioned by the Rules is an interlocutory order that was never meant to be treated separately from the main case.. both Piltel and Smartnet admit that they entered into a contract to sell covering the Valgoson Property. vs." The Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a means to simplify the trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts.R. February 26. however. G. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed. Inc. Notably. 178899." as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for. 4 . and judgment is not rendered upon all of the reliefs sought. then there is no real or genuine issue. After this sifting process. Sec. 167415. G. fictitious. Felipe Chua. Pilipino Telephone Corp. No. the partial summary judgment is more akin to a record of pre-trial. or that the issue posed is patently insubstantial as to constitute a genuine issue. Thus. Summary judgment is proper in such a case.R. Phil.R. No. 1997.to be dispensed with. Marcos. and Accesslaw. Dandoy vs. Thus. Court of Appeals. procedurally.R. Section 4 of Rule 35 pertains to a situation in which separate judgments were necessary because some facts existed without controversy. 2009 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. which is precisely why courts exist. Inc. G. No. G. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached." This requirement is an assurance to the parties that. October 9. Erlinda B. Lacurom vs. December 4. vs. MTJ-02-1436.. et al. 2007 The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus. Nos. vs. Social Justice Society. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 114 ." In this case. August 28.M. No. Juanita C. 1 . There is no legal basis for petitioners' contention that a judgment over the Swiss accounts bars a motion for summary judgment over the Arelma account.R. the Swiss Deposits Decision has finally and thoroughly disposed of the forfeiture case only as to the five Swiss accounts. and filed with the clerk of court. G.. to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies. Freddie Lizada. Court of Appeals. Tienzo. 0141. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. but a matter of public policy as well as a time-honored principle of procedural law.has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for. No.. which is authorized under Section 5 of Rule 36. Inc. Jose S. personally and directly prepared by the judge. 2003 People of the Phil.R. signed by him. the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. Jr. at the risk of occasional errors. G. April 28. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. G. 2003 Section 1. Sec. Apo Fruits Corp.Rendition of judgments and final orders Ubaldino A. A.M. April 3. 2007 Mariano "Mike" Z. vs. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court also requires that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case "shall be in writing. while others were controverted. The doctrine is not a mere technicality to be easily brushed aside. 189434 & 189505.R. Jacinto. there was never any final or complete adjudication of Civil Case No.R. 143468-71. A. stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Respondent's 2004 Motion is in the nature of a separate judgment. April 25. Republic of the Phil. there is nothing in this provision or in the Rules that prohibits a subsequent separate judgment after a partial summary judgment on an entirely different subject matter had earlier been rendered. January 24. Nos. 159357. RTJ-07-2075. as the Sandiganbayan's partial summary judgment in the Swiss Deposits Decision made no mention of the Arelma account. Velarde vs. 2004 Jaime C. No. 150089. Taran vs. in reaching judgment. However. No. 164195. 2012 Rule 36. Ferdinand R. of res judicata or prescription. as distinguished from one which has 'become final' (or 'executory' as of right [final and executory]). inasmuch as the presumption is that all the facts in the case bearing on the point decided have received due consideration whether all or none of them are mentioned in the opinion. an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules. an adjudication on the merits which. 2011 The nullity of the dismissal order is patent on its face. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others.R. has been outlined in Investments. Sps. to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes 'final' or. No. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs.. 1987) viz. (G. but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court. on one hand. Court of Appeals.g. Heirs of Sps.' e. on the other hand. Inc. 159941. v. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. which is appealable. or production or inspection of documents or things. the task of the Court is ended. or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground. leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 115 . and an interlocutory order. August 24. Unlike a 'final' judgment or order. et al. 2011 The fundamental distinction between a final judgment or order. of course. or granting a motion for extension of time to file a pleading. although the questions are not expressly treated in the opinion of the court. It applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings. an 'interlocutory' order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. an order that does not finally dispose of the case. A 'final' judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case. Conversely. Jose Pulido. whether correct on general principles or not.g. or granting or denying applications for postponement. G. L-60036. Once rendered. Inc. to use the established and more distinctive term. etc. No. as above pointed out.: The concept of 'final' judgment. on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right. . or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately. August 17. is definite and settled. No. a legal conclusion.The doctrine of the law of the case means that whatever is irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule between the same parties in the same case. 188995. for instance. Inc.R. may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. It simply states its conclusion that the case should be dismissed for non prosequitur. or authorizing amendment thereof. . 'final and executory. G. but does not state the facts on which Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. January 27. and Accesslaw. is 'interlocutory.R. the question then settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case binding the lower court and any subsequent appeal. as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other.. e.. continues to be the law of the case for as long as the facts on which the legal rule was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. EPZA vs. . and questions necessarily involved and dealt with in a former appeal will be regarded as the law of the case in a subsequent appeal. the reviewing court can readily determine the prima facie justification for the dismissal. No. et al. et al. G.R. Emerlito F. the entry of judgment. 2010 Under Section 2. February 23. Sec. and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory. Leticia B. a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. Lolito N.R. foreclosed petitioner's right to appeal the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals to this Court. 2001 A "final order" issued by a court has been defined as one which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action.R.Entry of judgments and final orders A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 116 . even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. G. Inc. 2 . 170026. Inc.. there will be no end to litigation. . No. execution of the decision proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Chavez. 2007 The precipitate entry of judgment worked injustice against petitioner. 187984. and the People whom petitioner represents. After all. No. Nazar U. June 19. et al. People of the Phil. Flores. Magsalin. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.this conclusion is based. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court.. Contractors. a judgment or final order becomes final and executory if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed within the period provided by the Rules. Inc. Shimizu Phil. vs. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark and is especially prejudicial to the losing party who is unable to point the assigned error in seeking a review by a higher tribunal. Otherwise. November 15. Baldovizo. G. In effect. No. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period. but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. . 163186. Aguila. 2012 Rule 36. done in haste. an "interlocutory order" is one which does not dispose of a case completely. A trial court should always specify the reasons for a complaint's dismissal so that on appeal. As distinguished therefrom. vs. June 20. the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. Francisco A. et al.R. vs. . Carmen R.. 140690. Labao vs. and Accesslaw. 5 . and Accesslaw. and judgment is not rendered upon all of the reliefs sought.Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration Requisites for Newly Discovered Evidence Under the Rules of Court. Inc. Elizabeth Balising.R. Bañares II. There is no legal basis for petitioners' contention that a judgment over the Swiss accounts bars a motion for summary judgment over the Arelma account.R. et al. if Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia." In this case. Marcos. No.. . In Philippine Business Bank v. corroborative. Section 4 of Rule 35 pertains to a situation in which separate judgments were necessary because some facts existed without controversy. April 25. Republic of the Phil. However. not merely cumulative. and is of such weight that. after investigation). et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 117 .. Nos. as the Sandiganbayan's partial summary judgment in the Swiss Deposits Decision made no mention of the Arelma account. Thus. No. 178899. March 13. or impeaching. 2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced during the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Ferdinand R. the requisites for "newly discovered evidence" are: 1) the evidence was discovered after trial (in this case. 189434 & 189505. 1 . (G. the Swiss Deposits Decision has finally and thoroughly disposed of the forfeiture case only as to the five Swiss accounts. . Respondent's 2004 Motion is in the nature of a separate judgment. there is nothing in this provision or in the Rules that prohibits a subsequent separate judgment after a partial summary judgment on an entirely different subject matter had earlier been rendered. vs. Sec. admits of a situation in which a case is not fully adjudicated on motion. Chua.This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order if no motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed. 2012 Rule 37. 15 November 2010) we had occasion to rule that a careful reading of its Section 4 reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment.Separate judgments The Sandiganbayan rightly characterized their ruling on the 2004 Motion as a separate judgment. which is authorized under Section 5 of Rule 36. Inc. and 3) it is material.R. 132624. vs." as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for. 0141. there was never any final or complete adjudication of Civil Case No. Sec. 2000 Rule 36. Fidel M. which is allowed by the Rules of Court under Section 5 of Rule 36 . while others were controverted. Jr. Rule 35 on summary judgments. G. G. . Michael Syiaco vs. Hidalgo. October 4.R. (f) where." It has both a time component and a good faith component.R. such as (a) where the order is a patent nullity.. No. September 22. Nos. et al. relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable. 142974. Nos. what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence first came into existence or the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it. and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.R. and Accesslaw. and a predictive one. 179282-83. December 1.R.. The rule is. G. circumscribed by well-defined exceptions. Inc.e. (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. but had nonetheless failed to secure it. (d) where. 179282-83. No. 179282-83. G. Shem G. Sps. will probably change the judgment. Michael Syiaco vs. i. 162575. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. G. December 15. 2007 Sps. Alfarero and Aurelia Tagalog vs. or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court. i. December 1. 2010 When Evidence Is Deemed Newly Discovered In order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly appreciated as newly discovered. G.R. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.admitted. or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object. G. Eugene Ong. in a criminal case. (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable. Vicente A. however. Inc. No. when the evidence was discovered. Michael Syiaco vs. 161657. It is often equated with "reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant.e. Eugene Ong. (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process. 2010 Republic of the Philippines vs.R. under the circumstances. 2010 The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. as where the court a quo had no jurisdiction. when should or could it have been discovered. G. Inc. Nos. The Rules does not contain an exact definition of due diligence. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 118 .. Beatriz Siok Ping Tang vs. a motion for reconsideration would be useless. (h) where the proceedings were ex parte. Subic Bay Distribution. Petra and Sancho Sevilla. What is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in trying to locate such evidence before or during trial (or investigation). 2010 The question of whether the pieces of evidence are newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one. in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him. Eugene Ong. It contemplates a situation where the party acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain evidence. (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief. December 1. August 14. 150739. 138855.R. 3 . Court of Appeals. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2003 Lamberto Casalla vs. G. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling. G." Thus. Inc. 1998 Rule 37. 2003 National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia vs. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.R. August 9.R. 2005 New trial is a remedy that seeks to "temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice.. 2003 Dulos Realty vs. January 31. Manuel Ybiernas. Marilyn A. 2001 Anastacio Fabela vs. March 29. Roehr vs. G. 128516. No. generally speaking. Peralta.Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration Wolfgang O. 142546. 141104 & 148763. October 29. vs.. Court of Appeals. No. 142820. Sec. Nos. 2002 Marina Properties Corp.R. et al. August 21. No.R. et al. No.. 2011 Rule 37. To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite. Court of Appeals. vs. Benigno and Erlinda Que vs. Court of Appeals.R. 2001 Under Section 1. G. G. vs. No. Zeida Aurora B. November 28. 150327. G. 178925. addressed to the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown.R. Garfin. Court of Appeals. No. the Rules allows the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial.R. People of the Philippines. No. et al. tentative.Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof People of the Phil. G. 124267. Inc. G. G. G. vs. No. 153176. August 18. June 18. or when there exists newly discovered evidence. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 119 .Danilo Cansino vs.R. Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court. G. vs. No. 125799. June 20. 2 . Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez. and Accesslaw. G. and subject to re-opening by the mere subterfuge of replacing the counsel.R. Sec. No. 2004 Republic of the Phil. it is binding on the client. the "negligence" must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel. The grant or denial of a new trial is. et al. June 1.R.R. 125447. 2007 Sps. No. June 8. Court of Appeals. R. 5 . The movant for a new trial must not only act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion. No. Sec. 2010 Jose B. Manuel Ybiernas. together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions. June 1..M. vs.R." In other words. citing Custodio v. he must act reasonably and in good faith as well. Jose and Margarita Chua vs. and Accesslaw. People of the Philippines.R. A. Quitain. G. what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it. 2011. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 120 .Second motion for new trial Lamberto Casalla vs. Sandiganbayan The Rules do not give an exact definition of due diligence. vs. April 30. are deemed sustained. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon. 2003 The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the [proffered] evidence is in fact a "newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence. it has been observed that the phrase is often equated with "reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant. when was the evidence discovered. 4 . et al. Nonetheless. Sps. Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him. et al.. Manuel Ybiernas. when should or could it have been discovered. the concept of due diligence has both a time component and a good faith component. et al.e. No. No. the challenged decision. G. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. and a predictive one. i. RTJ 03-1761. December 8. It is to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance.e. 178925. Inc.R. Jesus V. October 29.." The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one.Rule 37. G.Resolution of motion It is settled that when a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for failure to comply with formal and substantive requirements. 178925. Custodio vs. 172316. what is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it. i. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon. and whether the movant has exercised due diligence depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. 138855. G. Sandiganbayan Rule 37. No. et al. No.. et al. 2011. Inc. We have held that in order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to justify new trial. June 1. Pedro Gutierrez. citing Custodio v. Sec. 163340. 2187-00. Sandiganbayan. Nemia Castro vs. Consequently. Roehr vs. Anastacio Mendoza. G. 2012 Rule 37. 142820. 2011 Rule 37.R. Sec. Jamir and Rosalyn Guevarra. No. Inc. 2004 Omnibus Order of Judge Mangrobang. 2007 Section 5.R. Let it be underscored that the December 22. Maria Carmen D.Effect of granting of motion for new trial New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. in the case at bench. it cannot be rejected on the ground that it is forbidden by the law or by the rules as a prohibited motion.. April 25. Rodriguez. No. Sps. Sec. Republic of the Phil. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 121 .Partial new trial or reconsideration Wolfgang O. Rule 37 of the Rules of Court clearly provides. December 16. 6 . A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the judgment is not yet final.Section 5. Rule 37 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a second motion for reconsideration shall not be allowed.R. G. 7 . No. 192737. 152375. Inc. et al. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law. No. vs. and Accesslaw. there is technically no judgment which can be the subject of a motion for new trial. the proscription against a second motion for reconsideration is directed against "a judgment or final order. Verily. November 23. Hermenegilda dela Cruz Loyola vs.R. taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial. the filing by Spouses Guevarra of a motion for new trial was premature and uncalled for because a decision has yet to be rendered by the trial court in Civil Case No." Although a second motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order can be denied on the ground that it is a mere "rehash" of the arguments already passed upon and resolved by the court. 2003 Decision of Judge Español was effectively set aside by the December 15. G. a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Hence. G. June 20. 2000 Section 9 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court indicates that the proper remedy against the denial of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration was an appeal from the final order dismissing the action upon the respondents' motion to dismiss. No. et al vs.. 141970. Floro T. No. 2001 Philadelphia Agan vs.. or by granting it only partially. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new issue. February 6. Sps. or presenting new evidence. G. Jaban. 9 .R. January 18. No. G.R. August 9. G.Rule 37. 155018.R. G. G. 125290. et al. Sec. 119118. Tancredo Redena vs. No. September 23. therefore. Heirs of Sps. et al. 2003 A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is of equitable character. Orders or Other Proceedings Mario Basco vs. Reyes. 144533. The remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in the course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself.Remedy against order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration Bienvenido P. No. or changing the theory of the case.. G. 2003 Republic of the Phil. 146611. February 19. Alvin Garcia.R. 138336-37. Teresita C. et al. G. No. Inc.R. 2001 Metropolitan Bank vs. vs. 2000 Rufino Valencia vs.R. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. No.R. and leaves the judgment or final order to stand. September 10. 2007 A judicial compromise may be rescinded or set aside on the ground of fraud in accordance with Rule 38 of the Rules on Civil Procedure on petition for relief from judgment.. Andres and Diosdado Nueva. Inc. December 11. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. G. Court of Appeals.R.R. 129846. 2004 Jimmy L. August 17.. No. or (c) the decision or final order is contrary to law. Alejo. or (b) the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order. Court of Appeals. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 122 . No. By denying a motion for reconsideration. Barnes vs. allowed only in exceptional cases as when there is no other available or adequate remedy. Court of Appeals. a trial court finds no reason either to reverse or to modify its judgment or final order. February 16. et al. but is only seeking a reconsideration of the judgment or final order based on the same issues. Court of Appeals. et al. The restriction against an appeal of a denial of a motion for reconsideration independently of a judgment or final order is logical and reasonable. 159941. 2011 Rule 38 . G.Relief from Judgments. and Accesslaw. contentions. and evidence either because: (a) the damages awarded are excessive. Heirs of Sps. April 18. DOTC. accident. as the case may be.R. Such error may be corrected by means of an appeal. In order for a petition for relief to be entertained by the court. final order. mistake. final order or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud. which relates to the case. or excusable negligence is present. G. accident. Most importantly. does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense.Petition for relief from judgment. October 2. 2008 The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court pertains generally to mistake of fact. Romeo Samonte vs. Rule 38 (within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. 1 . and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 123 . and he was not prevented by fraud. No. G. 2002 A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. mistake. The word "mistake" which grants relief from judgment. Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs. January 24. When a party has another remedy available to him. or excusable negligence relied upon.R. 146845. 165544. vs. Escueta. Rufina Lim. 137162. Inc. 2007 Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under exceptional circumstances and only if fraud. or other proceeding to be set aside. accident. or such proceeding was taken).F. 169914 and 174166. vs.R. the petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. Humberto D. 2009 Rule 38.. Sps.. And the rule is that the reglementary period is reckoned Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. order or other proceedings Eleuterio Lopez vs. Inc. G. it should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision. March 5. et al. he cannot avail himself of this petition. S.R. judgment or proceedings and not from the date he actually read the same. G. No. No. Nos. et al. Inc. No. Sec. which may be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court. not of law. he cannot avail himself of this remedy. Where the defendant has other available or adequate remedy such as a motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse decision. Meer. mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal. It is also incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the said petition was filed within the reglementary period specified in Section 3. Naguiat. the petitioner must satisfactorily show that he has faithfully and strictly complied with the provisions of Rule 38. G. and Accesslaw. 127827. Court of Appeals. July 2.Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. Corazon L. 2003 The 60-day period is reckoned from the time the party acquired knowledge of the order.R. 152530. which prevented a party from taking an appeal.R. 2 . G. August 12. 2003 Sps. and Accesslaw. Court of Appeals. Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs. not of law. It must be filed within the reglementary period. August 12. G. is a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. No. petitions for relief from a judgment. September 10. G. February 6. This presupposes. of the Rules of Court. 146611.from the time the party's counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the party for purposes of Section 3 of Rule 38. Hence. No. the latter being a court of appellate jurisdiction. Sanritsu Great International Corp. Naguiat. final order or other proceeding rendered or taken should be filed in and resolved by the court in the same case from which the petition arose. Floro T. 140630.. Romeo Samonte vs. a petition for relief under Rule 38 cannot be availed of in the CA. Mercury Drug Corp. under the present Rules..F. No. July 2. 141970. 2000 The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court pertains generally to mistake of fact. Sps. vs. March 5. which relates to the case. For sure. G.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 124 .R. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered. vs. 165544. G. Court of Appeals. No. accident. Sec. mistake or excusable negligence. just like the procedure followed in the present Regional Trial Court. final order. Inc. 2001 Under Section 2 of Rule 38. Tancredo Redena vs.R. which is reckoned from the time the party's counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Court of Appeals.. et al. of course. 2009 Rule 38. or other proceeding to be set aside. Humberto D. No. Thus. does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. Alejo. a party prevented from taking an appeal from a judgment or final order of a court by reason of fraud. G.R. No. 127827. No.R. 2004 Eleuterio Lopez vs. petition for relief from a judgment. The word "mistake" which grants relief from judgment. Meer. Inc. Inc. that no appeal was taken precisely because of any of the aforestated reasons which prevented him from appealing his case. Runes.R. 2002 Metropolitan Bank vs. G. may file in the same court and in the same case a petition for relief praying that his appeal be given due course. 2007 [T]he proper remedy for allegations of mistake or inexcusable negligence of counsel. October 2. 146845.R. The petition must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. S. 2004 Fukuzumi vs. final order or proceeding involved in a case tried by a municipal trial court shall be filed in and decided by the same court in the same case. G. No.Petition for relief from denial or appeal Insular Life Savings and Trust Co. Such error may be corrected by means of an appeal. 138571. July 13. 2007 Clear it is from the above that a petition for relief from judgment must be filed within: (a) sixty (60) days from knowledge of judgment. et al. VHF Philippines. June 6. order or other proceeding. G.R. August 17. G. or other proceeding to be set aside. August 15. 92328. It must be filed within the reglementary period. Luisa Ramos. 140486. February 6. G.R. et al.R.R. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered or such proceeding was taken. 2001 DAP Mining Assn. order or other proceedings to be set aside. Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. No. G. Leonor B. No. G. 2010 Rule 38.party. vs. final order.R.R. 2002 Eleuterio Lopez vs. No. Both periods are also not extendible and never interrupted. 150722. September 16. G. Samartino vs. G. which prevented a party from taking an appeal. et al. G. 150159. et al. or other proceeding to be set aside. Nos. vs. 131482. No. As it were. These two periods must concur. Julius L. 2001 Gold Line Transit vs. Court of Appeals. which is reckoned from the time the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 138500. No. 2007 Quelnan vs. July 3.R. 3 . relief is allowed only in exceptional cases as when there is no other available or adequate remedy. Sec. Court of Appeals. G.R. China Banking Corp. 138571. Sps. March 5. vs. 131505 and 131768. Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes vs. Inc. 2000 Public Estates Authority vs. and (b) six (6) months from entry of such judgment. Indeed. No. 127827. 2005 [T]he proper remedy for allegations of mistake or inexcusable negligence of counsel. The petition must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. July 17. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 125 . and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered. Yujuico. No. 2003 Under Section 3. Jaime T. and Accesslaw. Raon. Court of Appeals. G. 144813.. a verified petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment.R. Inc. Sps.. January 15. G. a petition for relief is actually the "last chance" given by law to litigants to question a final judgment or order. And failure to avail of such "last chance" within the grace period fixed by the Rules is fatal. 165408. July 13. Court of Appeals. final order. Abela. Torres vs. Strict compliance with these periods stems from the equitable character and nature of the petition for relief. No. et al.Time for filing petition. Heirs of the Late Faustina Borres. 131023. 2003 Teresita Villareal Manipor. July 25.R. No.. 2001 Regalado P. Jesus S.R.. No. is a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Pablo and Antonia Ricafort. vs. contents and verification Mercury Drug Corp. 1999 PNB vs. et al. 129442. MTJ-02-1458. Caoibes. RTJ-01-1620. et al. Court of Appeals. A. and is directed to an officer authorizing and requiring him to execute the judgment of the court. RTJ-00-1543. Adriano and Hilda Monterola vs. No.R. G. Jr. No. vs. No. Put differently. Bergonia vs. 129713. Court of Appeals.R. vs. No.M. Hoehne vs. Judge Jose F. 2002 Vda. Marcelino L. G. 136233. 2010 Rule 39 .. No. upon finality of a judgment or order sought to be enforced. Sec. No. It issues by order of the court a quo. 2002 Jaime Tan. Jr. Torres vs. March 18. No. 1998 The execution of a judgment or final order that has attained finality and another pending appeal require different motions from the prevailing party. A. Jaime T. No. G. Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments Execution under Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court is a remedy afforded by law for the enforcement of a judgment. January 16. A. No. Benjamin T.. 2002 Sps. Cagayan de Oro Coliseum vs. Inc. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. A.M.M. A. G. Court of Appeals. November 23. and Accesslaw. December 15. G. 1999 Rule 39. August 4. 2001 Sy Chin vs. 165408. De Cochingyan vs. Inc. RTJ-02-1682. 1999 Arsenia T. March 10. et al. Court of Appeals.M. 2000 Teresita Jason vs.. March 23.. No. Judge Ruben R. its object being to obtain satisfaction of the judgment on which the writ is issued. et al. on motion of the judgment obligee.Execution. G. No. Plata.R. 129918. Alicia B. Gonzalez-Decano. 116092. July 6. Sayo. Vianzon. July 9.R. RTJ-99-1505.M.. et al. No. 2000 Vlason Enterprises vs.Execution upon judgments or final orders Eliza Mina.R. Jr. a judgment or final order that has become final and executory mandatorily requires a specific motion to execute the same. January 15. China Banking Corp. June 29. G. Court of Appeals.party's counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the party.R.. Ygaña.R. 121662-64. vs. October 29. Briccio C. 1 . Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 126 .R. G. October 10. 136368. 2004 Socorro R. No. 1999 Federico Pallada. Rtc of Kalibo. G. Batul vs. No. Lucilo Bayron. instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice. et al. Go. A. Eddie R. Delta Motors. Simplicio R.. Bugtas. special. Nos. No. 2003 Arturo G. 144230. G.R.R. vs. No. Nora Bueno Pasion vs. G. No. 2001 Corona International vs. March 1. Zacate vs. July 31. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 127 .M. January 16. otherwise. et al. 2002 Javier E. November 28. G. G. 149754. 166558. Espinosa. et al. 2000 As a discretionary execution. execution shall issue as a matter of right. Inc.R. 157687 & 158959.. Janda. G. Hospital vs. Comelec. October 18.. August 23.R. Felix. et al. 2004 Thelma C.M. G. et al.Discretionary execution Fernando U. No. No. 2003 State Investment Trust vs. with a hearing when the circumstances so require. Cordero vs. Jr. Angeles.R. March 28. January 31. 1.." Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. it may well become a tool of oppression and inequality. A. 2003 City of Iligan vs. 2 . Good reasons.R.. G. Principal Management Group. 2006 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 145260. 2001 Marawi Marantao Gen. to enable him to file any objection thereto or bring to the attention of said court matters which may have transpired during the pendency of the appeal and which may have a bearing on the execution sought to enforce the judgment. 127851. 2007 It has been opined that Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court now requires that the motion for execution "must be with notice to the adverse party. execution pending appeal is permissible only when good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration of the period to appeal. No. September 17.R. September 30. Stronghold Insurance Co.. RTJ-00-1586. April 3. Mackay vs. Court of Appeals. important. Rojas. February 26.R. No. upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.Odel S. Good reasons consist of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer should the appealed judgment be reversed later. No. Court of Appeals. G. G.R. Nemesio S. Sec.R. pressing reasons must exist to justify execution pending appeal. 2003 Mortimer F.R. et al. October 24. No. G. on motion. Adoracion G. 148090. 144678. and Accesslaw. Amalik P. 2007 Under Sec. Alan G. 144444. Melegrito. 141008. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Arnulfo O. vs. 162922.R.. No. No. G. 2007 Rule 39. Inc. et al. Baldado vs. No. RTJ-07-2054. 2000 A valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it should be Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. The yardstick remains the presence or the absence of good reasons consisting of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer. Malayan Insurance.R.R. G. No. 2000 Shuhei Yasuda vs. August 26. G. vs. Court of Appeals.R. et al. August 16. 134049.The prevailing doctrine and principle then — which continues to be the same as provided in Paragraph 2. No. L. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 128 . No.R. 143933. for "courts look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a judgment which has not acquired a final character. DBP. Court of Appeals. 126158. 112569. Inc. Jose B.. Solidbank Corp. G. 2003 Diesel Construction Co. it should be interpreted only so far as the language thereof fairly warrants. and Accesslaw. should the appealed judgment be reversed later. No. Applying the rule on statutory construction. Court of Appeals. Jollibee Foods Corp. 135128. Section 2 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — is that discretionary execution is permissible only when good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration of the time to appeal. February 14. No. Reyes vs. June 17. Nails & Wires Corp.." Marcopper Mining Corp. considering the tactics of the adverse party who may apparently have no case except to delay.R. No.R. 135180-81. or the prevailing party may after the lapse of time become unable to enjoy it. To consider the mere posting of a bond as a "good reason" would precisely make immediate execution of judgment pending appeal routinary. G. the rule rather than the exception. October 22.R. et al. 1997 This rule is strictly construed against the movant. 106052. mere issuance of a bond to answer for damages is no longer considered a good reason for execution pending appeal. 2004 Bonifacio Sanz Maceda vs. Planters Products vs.. The rule on execution pending appeal must be strictly construed being an exception to the general rule. the Court has held that such execution "is usually not favored because it affects the rights of the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal. No.." In the same vein. and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general rule rather than the exceptions. G. Court of Appeals. Inc. 136805. vs. January 28.R. Phil. 1999 So also. Good reason imports a superior circumstance that will outweigh injury or damage to the adverse party. G. September 23. 1999 The execution of a judgment before its finality must be founded upon good reasons. G. vs. No. April 12. Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment becomes illusory. 2000 PBCom vs. G. G. Rojas. Jollibee Foods Corp. Thus.Judgments not stayed by appeal Diamond Builders Conglomeration. 171820.R. G. 4 . et al. January 28. Eddie R. No. No.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 129 . 106052. No.R. March 13. October 22.. RTJ-07-2054. No.based "upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. G. G. 2000 By its provisional nature. A. 145527. Country Bankers Insurance Corp.R. Antonio C. of protection. 2007 Augustus Caezar R. vs.M. Gan vs.R. Put differently. the penultimate sentence of Section 3 states: "[T]he bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. Inc. No. G.. vs. May 28. Sec. No. 135630. Intramuros Tennis Club vs. No. a judgment or final order that has become final and executory mandatorily requires a specific motion to execute the same. 2000 Section 2 (a) The execution of a judgment or final order that has attained finality and another pending appeal require different motions from the prevailing party. Odel S.R. Sec. 1999 Diesel Construction Co.R. 3 .. 157957. G. December 13. G. Court of Appeals. Inc. Charito Navarosa vs. 136805. through the filing of a supersedeas bond. 140179.R. 2000 A supersedeas bond secures the performance of the judgment or order appealed from in case of its affirmation. et al. G. Hon. vs.Stay of discretionary execution Planters Products vs. the remedy of execution pending appeal requires only a "final" judgment or order (as distinguished from an "interlocutory" order) and not a "final and executory" judgment or order." Consequently. it finds no application in election protest cases where judgments invariably include orders which are not capable of pecuniary estimation such as the right to hold office and perform its functions. 2007 Rule 39. Comelec. September 26. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Section 3 finds application in ordinary civil actions where the interest of the prevailing party is capable of pecuniary estimation. Reyes. September 18. No. and Accesslaw. 2003 Rule 39. Janda. No. August 23." Roque Fermo vs. et al. Comelec. PTA. and consequently. Baclig. A. G. Sec. G. No. 2002 Sps. No. by action. Inc. G. G. Pablo V. proof of the death of some of the parties is not required because the judgment call still be enforced by the executor. 136586. No. et al. Valentina Santana-Cruz vs. 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that an action to revive judgment only requires proof of a final judgment which has not prescribed and has remained unexecuted after the lapse of five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years from its finality. RTJ-00-1598. 144029. July 30. June 4. While the action is still subject to defenses and counterclaims which arose after the judgment became effective. No.R. 2004 Oliverio Laperal vs. No. 2001 Ma. December 14. No. there are instances where this Court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years upon meritorious grounds. September 26.R. Inter-Urban Developers. Court of Appeals. A. 5 . 132655. G. RTJ-03-1759. 2001 A judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. Ocampo. 123935. February 20.R.R. Leoncio & Enriqueta Barrera vs.. No. 140652. administrator or successor-in-interest of the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor. No. et al. Court of Appeals.R. No. vs. 6 . PTA. 2001 Shipside Incorporated vs.. No. Inc. December 14. 135630. G. et al. Zeus C. No. No. February 27. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 130 . EDSA Shangri-La Hotel. Abrogar. 2002 BF Corp. G.Intramuros Tennis Club vs. However. Juan Enriquez vs. November 22. 139284. September 19. G. 2003 Winnie Bajet vs. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Guillermo Agbada and Maxima Agbada vs. 2003 Sps. September 3. vs.R. Arturo and Estela Arceo. 2001 Jon and Marissa De Ysasi vs. vs.R. Thereafter. Sec. and Accesslaw. Vivencio S. et al.Execution by motion or by independent action Asuncion Macias. 2001 Sec.Effect of reversal of executed judgment Jimmy T.R.R.M. 137391. G. Court of Appeals.R.M. 143377. before barred by the statute of limitations. Court of Appeals. July 20. G. Nowhere does the rule require proof that the judgment is still enforceable by and against the original parties who have died. Mariano Lim. August 11. 1998 Rule 39. Go. 120176. 2000 Rule 39. No. January 23. February 15. No.Esteban Yau vs. September 12. A.R. how enforced Phil. April 30. P-00-1446. and Accesslaw. Medel P. No.Issuance. October 15. 8 . No.R. A. G. No. June 6. Bonifacio V. et al. Inc. 140613. Espinosa. 137448 & 141454. Inc.M. A. G. 2007 Rule 39. 2000 Rule 39. 2002 DBP vs.M.. P-02-1592. August 12. 154037. G. 2002 Judge Gregorio R. aside from the principal obligation under the judgment.. Rodrigo G. Nos. No.R. Amalik P.Execution of judgments for money. Nos. A.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 131 . 2003 Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation vs. 158848 & 171994." Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. or profits due as of the date of the issuance of the writ. 118655. 9 . January 31. Sec. Jr. rents. Court of Appeals.R. No. 162922. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sec. G. Osita. Balanag vs. No. Nequinto. P-01-1454. 2001 Section 8 (e) A writ of execution is required under paragraph (e).M.R. 2002 Gloria O. P-04-1767. February 4. 2002 Sps. Expedito B. No. 2004 Luzita Alpeche vs. Bato. Ricardo C. Benitez vs. 7 . October 16. A. Section 8 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (to) "specifically state the amount of the interest. Inc. P-01-1473. March 27. Jr. Silverio. No. No. Felipe and Roselyn Biglete vs.. A. vs. Airlines. Plantilla vs. Balubar. P-00-1407.M. 2002 GSIS vs. damages..R. A.Execution in case of death of party Heirs of Lorilla vs. Bengson Commercial Buildings. G. Alonzo B. Sec. form and contents of a writ of execution Paterno R. 2008 Rule 39. April 12. Maputi. Sr. Baliwag. 2003 Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Guevarra. Ruben S.M. P-00-1371.M. January 31. G. Acosta. Jr. costs.M. Oriental Assurance Corporation. Evidently. A. RTJ-01-1615. sheriffs are not permitted to retain the money in their possession beyond the day when the payment was made or to deliver the money collected directly to the judgment obligee. September 3. No.R.. G. Inc. No. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court lays down the procedure to be followed by the sheriff in implementing money judgments. Jacobus Bernhard Hulst vs. the sheriff is authorized to receive it. 2007 Garnishment is proper only when the judgment to be enforced is one for payment of a sum of money. No. Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Inc. P-10-2772.. Pedro M. 2010 Section 9 (b) Jimmy T.R. Inc. G. July 24. G. March 29. No. A. No. and Accesslaw. PR Builders. et al. March 28. the money received must be remitted to the clerk of court within the same day or.Under Rule 39. G. the sheriff or other authorized officer must execute the same pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.M. Danilo Morales. 2010 Baikong Akang Camsa vs.. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. No. No. the sheriff shall levy on all property belonging to the judgment debtor as is amply sufficient to satisfy the judgment and costs. et al. 152672. 2007 If the judgment is for money. June 19. G. No. G. Go vs. vs. Achilles Andrew V. et al.M. A. Areola. 2007 Section 9. MTJ-02-1395. No. February 16. 153142. Sec. When the judgment obligee is not present at the time the judgment obligor makes the payment. and sell the same paying to the judgment creditor so much of the proceeds as will satisfy the amount of the judgment debt and costs. Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. Any excess in the proceeds shall be delivered to the judgment debtor unless otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the court. in executing a money judgment against the property of the judgment debtor. August 13. Zeus Abrogar. 10 . Jose and Daisy Escalante. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 132 . October 2. PR Builders. 154200. deposited in a fiduciary account with the nearest government depository bank. Judge Aurelio D. Jr. 134141. National Electrification Administration. vs.. 156364. 156364. 2003 Leody Manuel vs. Domingo Peña.M.R. 2002 Winnie Bajet vs.R. However. Inc.R.R. Rendon. Regalado II.Execution of judgments for specific act Catalina Balais-Mabanag vs. if not practicable. Jacobus Bernhard Hulst vs. et al. September 3. 2007 Rule 39. Salvador Abad Santos. 157867. 2010 Section 10 (d) . May 12. Diaz. as amended by Act No. G. but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.R. not a party to the foreclosure suit. et al. March 3. The removal of the improvements on the land under these circumstances is deemed read into the decision. No.. If the defendant refuses to surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party. Sr. 136221. had intervened. Bernardo de Leon vs. nor is a categorical statement needed in the decision that in such event the sheriff or other proper officer shall have the authority to remove the improvements on the property if the defendant fails to do so within a reasonable period of time. 4118. et al.. 2010 A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in possession of the property. Public Estates Authority. Furthermore. Nos. Nos. December 15. Public Estates Authority. it appearing that the defeated party's claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of ownership. G. No. Bernardo de Leon vs.Delivery or Restitution of Real Property A writ of possession is defined as "a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. and (c) in extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. Sañez.R. No express order to this effect needs to be stated in the decision. A." There are three instances when a writ of possession may be issued: (a) in land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 181970 & 182678.R. RTJ 00-1593. 2000 Section 10 (c) . et al. It bears stressing that a judgment is not confined to what appears upon the face of the decision. et al. 496. Metrobank vs. the officer shall not destroy. October 16. (b) in judicial foreclosure. provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person. 181970 & 182678. Mayfair Theater. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give its possession to the person entitled under the judgment. 3135. G. and Accesslaw.M. A. vs.. MTJ-00-1283.R. Inc. 2009 Possession is an essential attribute of ownership. subject only to the issuance of a special order by the court for the removal of the improvements. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 133 .M. vs. 2000 Equatorial Realty Devt. Augustus C. demolish or remove said improvements Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No.Removal of Improvements on Property Subject of Execution Octavio Alvarez vs. the delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the decision. G.. 2004 When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent. Inc. August 3.. Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment. adjudication of ownership would include the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of his claim of ownership which was rejected. the sheriff or other proper officer should oust him. No. August 3. Jose S.Jaime Morta. et al. G. February 6. February 4. MTJ-07-1680. No.R. No. G. No. et al. 139370. 13 . Inc.Return of writ of execution Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. Sec. Inc. 1999 Rule 39..Effect of levy on execution as to third persons Clearly. et al. 2010 Rule 39.R. A. 2001 The implementation of a judgment for the performance of an act other than the payment of money is governed by Section 11. the levy does not make the judgment creditor the owner of the property levied upon. 2002 Julian B. He merely obtains a lien. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. such as real estate mortgages. 14 . Danilo Morales. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 134 . Inc. 11 . issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court. Such levy on execution is subject and subordinate to all valid claims and liens existing against the property at the time the execution lien attached. Katipunan ng Tinig sa Adhikain. Garcia. 2007 Rule 39.except upon special order of the court.Execution of special judgments Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Guevarra. G. A. 2003 Knecht vs.M. April 30. 154037. vs.M. National Electrification Administration. and Accesslaw. Ernesto G. August 6. Dela Serna. G.R. Sr. San Juan. Maceren.. 2007 Rule 39. Sangalang. No. Sec. July 4. Sec.R.Property exempt from execution Batong Bahay Gold Mines vs. 12 . 154200. Sec. Ariel S. No. United Cigarette Corp. 86963. August 17. July 24.. 166536. Flor Martinez vs. P-00-1437. No. G. No. et al. Luis Zenon O. vs. 2003 Winnie Bajet vs. RTJ-00-1598. 2001 Gloria O. P-02-1600. A.M. Nequinto. Martin. Esteban P. 2003 Sheriffs are obliged to make a return of the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it. September 18. P-03-1742. No. A. No. A. Leticia T. et al. Rubio. No. No. 2003 Dominador Arevalo. P-01-1529. P-03-1742. 2002 Concerned Citizen vs. Winston T.M. No. August 9. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that the writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full.M. July 17. 2004 Luzita Alpeche vs. July 30. Bernabe vs. No. Bernabe vs. Ediza.Serafin A. Eguia. A. Torio. 2002 DBP vs. until the judgment is satisfied or its effectivity expires. A.M. No.M. Crisanto T. 2004 Salvador L.M. Rodolfo V. Flora. Rogelio V. The officers are likewise tasked to make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. Eguia. A. P-02-1576. and Accesslaw. A..M. March 28. Benitez vs.M. P-00-1371. Zaragoza. Bonifacio V. Angel C.M. P-04-1768. 2001 Accordingly. September 18. A. 2007 Section 14. P-01-1495. A. A. Expedito B.M. Gredam P. P-01-1492. No. vs. Ruben S.M. Winston T.M. P-01-1490. the officers shall report to the court and state the reason or reasons therefor. A. A. A. P-02-1535. the sheriff is mandated to make periodic reports on partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs every 30 days. Garcia vs. Malsi vs. No. Maputi. February 11. 2002 Esmeraldo D. Jr. 2003 Fernando Fajardo vs. 2003 Edna Fe F. et al. No. P-04-1782. Medel P. Inc. Viven M. 2008 Filomena Meneses vs. 2003 Renato Miguel D. P-03-1703. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 135 . Inc. Yared. March 27. Jr. No. Judge Vivencio S. Edgardo S.M. Baclig. Loria. July 30. Pershing T. The over-all purpose of the requirement is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions. Jose Noel R.. P-07-2290. No. A. Quitalig.M. Conejero. No. Acosta. May 25. January 23. No. March 28.M. No. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after their receipt of the writ. If the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. July 11. 2003 Vedasto Tolarba vs. Añonuevo vs. Ayupan. October 16.M. P-06-2169. Jose R. No. A. et al. A.M. P-02-1592. No.M. February 15. Talion vs. Aquino vs. September 18. Urbanozo vs. No. March 20. 2002 Giselle G. It also enables the court to determine how efficiently court processes are carried out after the promulgation of judgment.. The reason for this requirement is to update the court on the status of the execution and to explain to it why the judgment has not been satisfied. January 23. A. A. April 30. P-00-1407. Felipe and Roselyn Biglete vs. 2003 Salvador L. Visitacion vs. Bato. Malana. Albert S. P-01-1473. Silvino R. A. 2002 Sps.M.. No. Pilipiña. Proserpina V. Anico vs. 15 . Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 136 .Notice of sale of property on execution Aurora Guiang vs. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff. No. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full. P-11-2896. He is mandated to uphold the majesty of the law as embodied in the decision. P-06-2107. 2004 Saad Anjum vs. 2007 The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court immediately after the judgment had been satisfied in part or in full. No.M.judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty days after his receipt of the writ. Mojares. Inc. A.M. Co. as well as the litigants. Emerson B. No. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. Pilipiña. P-02-1640. Cebu International Finance Corp. A. A. Even if the writs are unsatisfied or only partially satisfied. August 2. P-08-2430. to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. Leopoldo C. G. or its effectivity expires. Periodic reporting also provides the court insights on the efficiency of court processes after promulgation of judgment. No. July 30. Inc. 2011 We will reiterate that a sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial. Alejandro A. No. October 13. 146996. A. in the absence of any instructions to the contrary. Accordingly. No. Over-all. et al. 2008 The Rules clearly provide that it is mandatory for sheriffs to execute and make a return on the writ of execution within 30 days from receipt of the writ and every 30 days thereafter until it is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. Paulo M. P-99-1323. A.. Eva T. 2011 Rule 39. a sheriff must comply with his mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible. Proserpina V. 2003 David de Guzman vs. Lacambra. Villavicencio vs. 142648. No. There is even no need for the litigants to "follow up" a writ's implementation. Perez. Gatlabayan. vs. August 2. Anico vs. may be informed of the proceedings undertaken to implement the writ.M. Christopher T. July 14. 2003 Ofelia J. et al. vs. Emerson B. February 27. the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. sheriffs must still file the reports so that the court. A. P-11-2896. Arthur R. He is likewise required to make a report to the court every 30 days until judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. Cesar L. the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.M.R. No.M. G. February 14. Abacahin. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within 30 days after his receipt of the writ.R. it is his duty. Cabigon. and Accesslaw.M. the purpose of periodic reporting is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions. February 20. he is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. Jr. Sec.. the officer shall not be bound to keep the property and could be answerable for damages. Co vs. A. 2003 Arthur R. a third-party claimant or a stranger to the foreclosure suit. 2002 Section 16. Ordinario. like respondents herein. Both remedies are cumulative and may be availed of independently of or separately from the other. as well as damages arising from wrongful seizure and detention of the property despite the third-party claim. even before or without need of filing a claim in the court that issued the writ. Bajar. Abrogar. strictly speaking. No. Ltd. P-07-2342. A. 2002 MR Holdings. Inc. Zeus C. February 24. Co vs. Sheriff Carlos P. G. August 31. 2003 Jurisprudence is likewise replete with rulings that since the third-party claimant is not one of the parties to the action. or a complaint for damages against the bond filed by the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 16 . August 31." the object of which is the recovery of ownership or possession of the property seized by the sheriff. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.R. vs. Sillador. et al.M. he could not. explicitly mandates that the indemnity bond shall be in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. July 3. Sec. P-07-2342. AM P-02-1611. RTJ-03-1759. G. Sillador. P-04-1907. Allan D. appeal from the order denying his claim. 121943." China Banking Corp. 2007 Under the above Rule. March 24. vs. Castro.Proceedings where property claimed by third person Ildefonso P. can opt to file a remedy known as terceria against the sheriff or officer effecting the writ by serving on him an affidavit of his title and a copy thereof upon the judgment creditor. Camarote vs. July 31.M.Section 15 (d) Rule 39 of the Rules of Court unequivocally provides the time in which the auction sale is to be conducted as well as the procedure to be followed in the redemption of the properties. but should file a separate reinvindicatory action against the execution creditor or the purchaser of the property after the sale of public auction. distinct and separate from the action in which the judgment is being enforced. the third-party claimant must institute in a forum of competent jurisdiction an action. By the terceria. 2007 Rule 39. 118830. A third-party claimant may also resort to an independent "separate action. Go. Roela D. No.R. If a "separate action" is the recourse. No. Ching vs. April 11. No. Glorioso. 2003 Sps. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 137 . Bernabe M. Court of Appeals.M.R. Sps. February 27. Pablo R. 2007 Jimmy T. Availment of the terceria is not a condition sine qua non to the institution of a "separate action. No. G. No. vs. A. Roela D.M. 138104. Allan D. Inc. and Accesslaw. Jacinto vs. A. No. 152343. vs. Philippine National Bank. Mojares. 2003 Conspicuously emphasized under Section 21 of Rule 39 is that if the amount of the loan is equal to the amount of the bid. there is no need to pay the amount in cash. A. February 20. A. G. Inc. No. G. et al. 2007 Rule 39. G.Who may redeem real property so sold Restituto L.R. November 23. June 20. 19 . Sps. Same provision mandates that in the absence of a third-party claim. Sps. August 28. Castro vs. 21 . 147977.M. March 26.R. July 30. January 18. Court of Appeals.R. No.R. Paulo M. 146996. 2008 Ma. Planters Development Bank. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 138 . No. et al. Sec. Antonio M. Sec. February 5. No. Alejandro A. No. 2007 Aurora Guiang vs. 27 . Villavicencio vs.How property sold on execution. G. 170606. 170215.. No. P-99-1346. and Accesslaw.R. vs. 169706. G. 2008 Rule 39." it naturally follows that the highest bid submitted is the amount that should be credited to the account of the judgment debtor. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which states that "all sales of property under execution must be made at public auction. Fe Bacos vs. No.R. Esmeraldo and Elizabeth Suico vs. P-99-1323. et al. G. Co. Gatlabayan. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2010 Rule 39. the purchaser in an execution sale need not pay his bid if it does not exceed the amount of the judgment.. Sec. Inc. 142648. G. he shall pay only the excess. Domingo Arcega.R. 2004 Ofelia J. Rita Viola. who may direct manner and order of sale David de Guzman vs.. Carlos Bague. William and Rebecca Genato vs. 2002 Annie Fermin.. 126322.Judgment obligee as purchaser LCK Industries Inc. to the highest bidder. No. otherwise. Eva T. No. G. February 27.judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. Yupangco Cotton Mills vs. January 16.R. Esteves. et al. 2001 Drawing from Section 19. No. et al.M. No. et al. April 12. G. Inc. Eligio P. March 1. 2007 Desiring to avoid any confusion arising from the conflict between the texts of the Rules of Court (1940 and 1964) and Act No. . 2001 Paragraph 2 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court unequivocally provides the time in which the auction sale is to be conducted as well as the procedure to be followed in the redemption of the properties. and the jurisprudence clarifying the reckoning of the redemption period in judicial sales of real property. G. to whom payments on redemption made Restituto L. Tambago. No.Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period. P-07-2342. G. the Court has incorporated in Section 28 of Rule 39 of the current Rules of Court (effective on July 1. September 17. Allan D. on the other hand. . No. No. 3135. Carlos Bague. Court of Appeals. August 31. et al. Castro vs. A. 94617.M. Roela D. Sec. A. No. on one hand. 2000 Rule 39. RTJ 99-1498. by whom executed or given Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. notice to be given and filed Hi-Yield Realty vs. Inc. 134330. 138978. No. . 143687. 29 . successive redemptions. Belo vs.R. 2001 Rule 39..R. judicial construction of reckoning the redemption period from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale.R. and Accesslaw. A. G.. Angel S. January 25. . G. Estanislao vs.R. No. GSIS.Erlinda M. Malaya et al. P-99-1346. June 20.M. July 31. Mallari vs. . Sec. National Bank. vs. 2010 Rule 39. No. et al. Court of Appeals. September 12. 28 . 33 . Phil. Judge Jacinta B. 2001 Sps. Sillador.Time and manner of. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 139 .. and amounts payable on. Co vs. 2002 Vicente P. 157659. 1997) the . Lim vs.R. and a certificate to be delivered and recorded upon. 2001 Enrique M. Sec.Effect of redemption by judgment obligor. Villanueva.M. Isaac Villegas vs. June 8.R. 156829. 47 .R.R..R. Sec. (Phils. 2003 Jose Clavano vs. Montenegro vs. June 8. 2004 Rule 39. 36 . No. Court of Appeals. 2002 Alma G.R. Victor Lingan. G.R.). Sec. 2007 Candelaria Q.R. Agustin Lagrama. November 27. 143781. 2002 Rule 39. 157568. Montenegro. April 3. Teresa L. Ma. 38 . Inc. Sec. G. January 17. December 5. 2001 Bryan U. 130845. 156542. No. 156829. Ma. 2002 Rule 39. No.De Leon vs.. 2000 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. et al. 132245. 142015. Tirso D. No. and Accesslaw. Inc. Corp.R.R. Inc. March 24. 144884. 2004 Rule 39. G. R&R Metal Casting. February 27. No. No.R. HLURB. G. No. 121943. No. G. January 2. No. et al. G. May 18. G. G. 144444.. Pelagia Dimatulac. G. 2007 China Banking Corp.Enforcement of attendance and conduct of examination Ramon D. & Devt. 37 . G. Montenegro vs. vs. 153839.R. Court of Appeals. Sec. No. No. Dayot vs. April 27. G.R. et. Velasco. G. Montenegro.R.Examination of judgment obligor when judgment unsatisfied Ramon D. No. June 26. Ordinario. G. Shell Chemical Co. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 140 . Villanueva vs. vs. Sps. Teresa L.Examination of obligor of judgment obligor PNB Mgt. 2004 Rural Bank of Sta. al. Victorio.Effect of judgments or final orders Leonardo Chua vs. Mutya B. 2003 PNB vs. 127182. 2003 State Investment Trust vs. Delta Motors.C. No. June 29. G.. 135219. No. 2001 The Malayan Bank vs. Ignacia vs. April 29.R. R. February 3. G. but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.. et al. Section 47. 1999 Ricardo T. No. G. Del Rosario. G..R. Court of Appeals. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy. et al. G. Ernesto C. the judgment on the merits rendered in the first constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action. Inc. 114508. or subject matter of the two suits is the same.R. No. G. 129713. October 31. and the second case where such judgment is invoked. 1999 Maria G. purpose. subject matter and cause of action.. Court of Appeals.R. No. only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined. 126699. 150134. Court of Appeals. August 29. No. et al. there is no identity of cause of action.R. Dec. vs. Court of Appeals. 1999 Pribhdas J. vs. Court of Appeals. 1999 Ayala Corp. 131012. G. 2000 Rodolfo Barretto vs. Rodolfo Guiao. 2001 The doctrine of res judicata actually embraces two (2) concepts: the first is "bar by prior judgment" under paragraph (b) of Rule 39. et al. there is identity of parties. et al. Baluyut.R. vs. Section 49 (b) enunciates the first rule of res judicata known as "bar by prior judgment" or "estoppel by judgment. including the parties and those in privity with them. Corp. No. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 141 . September 28. Mirpuri vs. In the present case. No. fact.R. When the three (3) identities are present. 15. not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand." This rule provides that any right. August 7.R. Ray Burton Devt. April 21. or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim or demand. It refers to a situation where the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to the matters actually determined or which were necessarily included therein. 2007 Bar by prior judgment exists when. 2000 Cagayan De Oro Coliseum vs. Gloria vs. G. and not as to matters merely involved therein. 1998 The above-quoted provision lays down two main rules. No.R. Rule 39 is "conclusiveness of judgment. the second concept — conclusiveness of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.Maria Mercedes Nery. 136294. 110259. et al. This is what is termed conclusiveness of judgment. November 29. Veronica Padillo vs. Inc. between the first case where the judgment was rendered. Far East Bank and Trust Company. But where between the first case wherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein such judgment is invoked. the judgment is conclusive in the second case. and Accesslaw. G. vs. and the second is "conclusiveness of judgment" under paragraph (c) thereof. No. Gabriel Leyson. 139306.." which states that the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the parties and their privies to the litigation and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal… The second rule of res judicata embodied in Section 47 (c). G. November 19. 119707. The judgment is conclusive in the second case. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 142 . The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects. to wit: (1) the effect of a judgment as a bar to the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.judgment — applies. 100789. November 22.R. Camara vs. 1999 It is clear that a judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision. G. should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. 1999 The fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests is that parties ought not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. petitioner is barred from challenging the pronouncement of the trial court that his alleged lot is within the property of respondents. Court of Appeals. and Accesslaw. November 18. 118328. G. (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits. G. when. but also to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. No. July 20. Bernardino Calos. between the first case where judgment was rendered and the second case where such judgment is invoked.R. G. that when the right or fact has been judicially determined. 1999 There is "Conclusiveness of judgment". the judgment of the court." issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. 2000 Codidi Mata vs.R. (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. No. et al. No. which is also known as "preclusion of issues" or "collateral estoppel. and (2) the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause — nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. Ocho vs. only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined. there is identity of parties. G. 103476. 1998 The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law. Inc. and (4) there must be. July 20.R. A contrary doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness. Court of Appeals. between the two cases. Court of Appeals. No. G. Domingo Celendro vs. Augusto A. The requisites of res judicata are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order.R. Court of Appeals. and not as to matters merely involved therein. Ramon D. 2000 Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. October 8. identity of parties. Marciana Serdoncillo vs. 131641. Natividad P.. No. 131099. No.R. Inc. 137908. subject matter and causes of action. namely: (1) public policy and necessity which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation — republicae ut sit litium. In other words. February 23. not of causes of action.Nazareno vs. Fidel Benolirao. so long as it remains unreversed. 175393 & 177731. 122181. It may no longer be modified in any respect.. at the risk of occasional errors. G. 175393 & 177731. judgments must become final at some definite point in time. 164195. December 4. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries in which case there is no prejudice to any party. August 4.R. there would be no end to litigations. 153736. 1998 Sps. RTC-Branch 71 of Pasig City. which is precisely why courts exist. et al. Court of Appeals. the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period. procedurally. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that. G.R. Court of Appeals. Legaspi. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect. G. 2010 It is settled that when a final judgment is executory. No. The doctrine is not a mere technicality to be easily brushed aside. is a major Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. et al. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice. 2009 Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. Inc. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. it becomes immutable and unalterable. Apo Fruits Corp.. Nos. the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. December 18. demand or cause of action. and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.R. vs.R. Apolonia G. June 26. Nos. RTC-Branch 71 of Pasig City. confirmed by final judgment. The enforcement of such judgment should not be hampered or evaded. for the immediate enforcement of the parties' rights. even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. and that.. but a matter of public policy as well as a time-honored principle of procedural law. December 18. et al. and Accesslaw.. 2009 The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus. Linzag vs.R. and where the judgment is void. and (2) preclude relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. Inc. et al. at the risk of occasional errors. 2009 Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. GSIS vs. Jose A. otherwise.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 143 . and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. at the risk of occasional errors. to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies. et al. G.prosecution of a second action upon the same claim. GSIS vs. No. Nicanor and Rosario Tumbokon vs. G. thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting justiciable controversies with finality. No. No. Inc. fact or matter directly adjudged or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court that renders judgment on the merits is conclusively settled and cannot be litigated again between the parties and their privies. 47 (b) and (c) The res judicata rule bars the re-litigation of facts or issues that have once been settled by a court of law upon a final judgment on the merits. Tortogo. or enjoin the enforcement of a final judgment must be granted with caution and upon a strict observance of the requirements under existing laws and jurisprudence. Sec. Nos. August 17. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 144 . Angelina Pahila-Garrido vs.. G. litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. Catalina Balais-Mabanag vs. regardless of whether the claims. 47 (d) It is fundamental that the judgment or final order is. et al. This is the reason why we abhor any delay in the full execution of final and executory decisions. purposes or subject matters of the two suits are the same. 2010 Rule 39. Pacifico R. conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding. G.. Cruz vs. with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. Register of Deeds of Quezon City." It is the second that is relevant to this case. Conclusiveness of judgment or auter action pendent ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised anew in any future case involving the same parties although for a different cause of action. suspend. 2010 Rule 39. 2011 Rule 39. Eliza M. Sandiganbayan. March 29. et al. Inc. et al. and Accesslaw.component of the ideal administration of justice. the second as "conclusiveness of judgment. Any such remedy allowed in violation of established rules and guidelines connotes but a capricious exercise of discretion that must be struck down in order that the prevailing party is not deprived of the fruits of victory. and (b) any right.R. G.. February 12. Section 47 (b) and (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court establishes two rules: (a) a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars the parties and their privies from bringing a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before either the same or any other tribunal. 174599-609. Where the rule applies. No. Sec. 48 . 153142.Effect of foreign judgments Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. a remedy intended to frustrate. Sec. there must be identity of issues but not necessarily identity in causes of action.R. 156358. Thus. The first is commonly referred to as "bar by former judgment". Inc. G. divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction. Wolfgang O. Maria Carmen D. 2000 Rule 40. Sec. Gil Miguel T.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 145 . 153791. 137378. In this jurisdiction. a judgment in an action in personam rendered by a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title. as such. final orders or resolutions of an MTC should be appealed to the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the former.Where to appeal Under the Rules of Court. 1 . G. G. in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. 2003 Under Section 48. Jr. it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39.g. Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. on custody. Fasgi Ent. Ron Zabarte.R. such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German court. October 12. Chan. a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction. February 26. care and support of the children. 141536. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment.R. 2001 In this jurisdiction. No. Inc. following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice. Puyat vs. and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment. Mariano M. Aluminum Wheels vs. is subject to proof to the contrary. 142820. June 20. Roehr vs.As a general rule.R. Rodriguez. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Go Ke Chong. No. but the legal effects thereof. August 24. on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum. until a contrary showing. No. e. No. our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam. must still be determined by our courts. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes. Phil. Section 48. as distinguished from actions in rem. G. vs. a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and. and Accesslaw. that trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted. Section 50 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 39. Ideally. the trial court still acquires jurisdiction over the case. 1999 Rule 40. Title V. Federico Agcaoili. August 31. subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the deficiency assessment. No. Fedman Development Corp. 165025. and the amount paid turns out to be deficient. No. The "prescriptive period" that bars the payment of the docket fees refers to the period in which a specific action must be filed. Inc. Yet. 2011 The prevailing rule is that if the correct amount of docket fees are not paid at the time of filing.When to appeal Ma. the principal law on prescription of actions. 128805. 5 .R. August 31. of the Civil Code. as provided in the applicable laws. The non-specification of the amounts of damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. and Accesslaw. Fedman Development Corp. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. October 12. 165025. the trial court still acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant. barring prescription. the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount being claimed. particularly Chapter 3.R. Book III. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 146 . Imelda Argel vs. No. August 31.Rule 40. 2011 If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation to the amounts being sought.R. Fedman Development Corp. so that in every case the docket fees must be paid before the lapse of the prescriptive period. and the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficiency. vs. 165025. vs. provided there is no bad faith or intent to defraud the Government on the part of the plaintiff. vs. Federico Agcaoili. G. the complaint or similar pleading must specify the sums of money to be recovered and the damages being sought in order that the clerk of court may be put in a position to compute the correct amount of docket fees. therefore. Federico Agcaoili. Sec. Inc. where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court. the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment. No. 2011 The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim. G. Sec.R. In an action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of money and damages. Court of Appeals. G. G. 2 .Appellate court docket and other lawful fees The non-payment of the prescribed filing fees at the time of the filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading fails to vest jurisdiction over the case in the trial court. But it is equally true that an appeal being a purely statutory right. Further. vs. debt. office. January 28. or is prescribed for the protection or benefit of the party affected is mandatory. responsibility. except those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as plain and clerical errors.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 147 . January 28. This is because on appeal only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the brief or memorandum will be considered. an appellate court has no power to resolve an unassigned error. Section 7 (b) provides that. 140473. It is true that the Rules should be interpreted so as to give litigants ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and that a possible denial of substantial justice due to legal technicalities should be avoided. requirement. Heirs of Enrique Altavas. Inc. Sec. role. Court of Appeals. "it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum" and failure to do so "shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal". (and) engagement". save for a plain or clerical error.Fedman Development Corp. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his part. This the petitioner failed to do when she did not submit her memorandum of appeal in Civil Case No. Court of Appeals. in appeals from inferior courts to the RTC. Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In rules of procedure. Federico Agcaoili. Thus. charge. an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. mandatory act. Inc. No. the appellant's brief is mandatory for the assignment of errors is vital to the decision of the appeal on the merits. 2011 Rule 40. G. His failure to comply with this mandate or to perform said duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal. chore. he who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must play by the rules. G. 162028. His failure to comply with this mandate or to perform said duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal. commission. No. No. 2003 Section 7 (b). under the express mandate of said Rule. assignment. the Rule imposes upon an appellant the "duty" to submit his memorandum. Filing of Memorandum Mandatory Rule 40. In other words. No. Lorna Villa vs. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his part. liability. That she lost her case is not the trial court's fault but her own. G. 140473. function. 7 . or of the essence of the proceedings. pledge. 165025. The use of the word "shall" in a statute or rule expresses what is mandatory and compulsory. A duty is a "legal or moral obligation. As private respondent points out. an act which is jurisdictional. dictate. Melba Moncal Enriquez vs.R. and Accesslaw. Otherwise stated. G. 12044 as required by Rule 40.R.R. August 31. 2008 Melba Moncal Enriquez vs. which does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter. the appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal.Procedure in the Regional Trial Court The appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal. trust. July 14. Inc. and that. After the lapse of the fifteen-day period. Pampanga Omnibus Development Corp. G. San Fernando Rural Bank. Spouses Aurora and Claudio Olazo. 2006 Herminia Cando vs.R. March 22. Court of Appeals. G. vs. The court loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court would have the power to review a judgment that has acquired finality. that the appeal should be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of judgment or from the denial of the motion for reconsideration. there would be no end to litigation and would set to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting justiciable controversies with finality. G. Inc. 160741. The Rules of Civil Procedure provide.R. 140894.Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts Rosario Yambao vs. Francisco Magestrado vs. November 27. No. April 4. Otherwise. 168088..R. upon motion and payment of the docket fees before the expiration of the reglementary period. Hence. parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Inc. No. vs. July 10.R. Moreover. but a mere statutory privilege.R.R. or (2) appeal by certiorari under Section 2 (c). 151132. No. 136207. 2007 There are two modes of appeal from a final order of the trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction — (1) by writ of error under Section 2 (a). Rule 41 of the Rules of Court if questions of fact or questions of fact and law are raised or involved. G. there must be a proof of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case. No. in relation to Rule 45. among others. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 148 . No. 2007 The remedy to question a final order is appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.. People of the Philippines. The law grants an aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the court's decision or order disposing of the action or proceeding to appeal or move to reconsider the same. et al. or of a particular matter therein when declared by the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable. 2007 Failure to interpose an appeal within the reglementary period renders an order or decision final and executory unless a party files a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period. June 21. G. where only questions of law are raised or involved. an order becomes final and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further amend or revoke. Court of Appeals. and Accesslaw. First Bancorp. 2000 Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.Rule 41 . Rule 41. Inc. 148072. CA. June 22. Heirs of Tungpala vs. G. No. 2005 It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right. the CA may grant an extension to file the petition for review. R. et al. within the 15-day reglementary period for the perfection of an appeal. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that.R.. 2008 Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process. Once a decision attains finality. As a consequence. March 16. 167398. free from the constraints of technicalities. Thus. No. July 21. it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court — not even the Supreme Court — has the power to revise. No. to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Land Bank of the Phil. Inc. v. in case the service is made through registered mail or other modes of service. at the risk of occasional error. Land Bank of the Phil. Rosario Dalton-Reyes vs. 2003. G. in a petition for determination of just compensation is a petition for review under Rule 43. the petitioner failed to meet these requirements. No. vs. G. 158270. 190660. vs. review. CA.R. the assailed RTC decision shall become final and executory and. the prevailing parties can move for the issuance of a writ of execution. Undisputedly. No. 2011. that is. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 149 . the proper mode of appeal from a decision of the RTC. the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. and the CA may dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-payment of docket and other lawful fees. The rules require that from the date of receipt of the assailed RTC order denying one's motion for reconsideration... Augustus Gonzales. vs..R. that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege.R. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.service of a copy of the petition on the adverse party and the court a quo. G. et al. et al. April 11. and a written explanation why service was not done personally. change or alter the same. not a notice of appeal under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Court of Appeals. G. and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal. and Accesslaw. Hermin Arceo. time and again. 149580. therefore. 2005 Starting March 20. the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause. citing Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. Otherwise. it has been held. 2011 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 143275 To recapitulate. New Pacific Timber and Supply Co. August 8. an appellant may take an appeal to the CA by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC and paying the required docket and other lawful fees with the RTC Branch Clerk of Court. sitting as a special agrarian court. Quirico Pe. et al. Time and again. Inc. No. it has been held that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules. the appellant's appeal is not perfected. rather than frustrate it. one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules. G. vs. June 26. Bengson Commercial Buildings. The third mode of appeal. instead. Constancio Benemerito. 2000 Shuhei Yasuda vs. et al. No. August 26. 174247. Diaz. August 9.. 1 . 172268. February 16. thus. 138758. Jaban. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 150 . Chan vs. April 12. et al. is taken to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. governing appeals from the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to the Court of Appeals. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that no appeal may be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. et al. No. is elevated to the Supreme Court only on questions of law. No. G. October 10.. 2002 GSIS vs. and Accesslaw.. 2008 The first mode of appeal. 142546. 138336-37. G. G. Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. G. 141863. G. 2007 It is explicit from (Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution. G. No. G. Santos vs. Court of Appeals. 2002 Anastacio Fabela vs. or mixed questions of fact and law. covered by Rule 42. such order may be challenged by the aggrieved party via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.. 2007 Section 1.R. Gerardo D. Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano vs. Baluyut. A & C Minimart Corp.R. Abedes vs. 1999 According to Section 1. The second mode of appeal. G. January 31. G. 137448.. et al. G. governed by Rule 41. No. et al. 112569. 147465.Rule 41. People of the Phil.R. October 15. 2003 Lamberto Casalla vs.. et al.R. an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a matter therein when declared by the Rules to be appealable. February 21. the aggrieved party can no longer appeal from the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. No. No. G. No. explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. et al.R. 2004 Basilio Rivera vs. Court of Appeals. 2000 Maria G. Alvin Garcia.. Jancom Environmental Corp. G. of law.R. 2002 MMDA vs. Judy Anne L. Rodolfo Guiao. 136294. 138855.R. July 11. October 29. G. G. 173176. 174373. No.. Court of Appeals.R. et al vs. People of the Philippines.R. Patricia S. No.Subject of appeal Bienvenido P. et al. 2007 Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No. 2001 Ramon Oro vs. Emelinda V. January 30.R. Court of Appeals. Inc. 140974. 2001 William P. September 28.R. Villareal. No. Said provision.R. Inc. No. is brought to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact. July 6. Sec.. provided for by Rule 45. Court of Appeals.R. vs. 'final and executory. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 151 . 2007 While this provision prohibits an appeal from an interlocutory order. The remedy of the party is to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 from the order rejecting the petition for relief from judgment. Domingo Realty. to use the established and more distinctive term.: The concept of 'final' judgment. leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. Court of Appeals.R. A 'final' judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case. . . No. on one hand. 161309. Once rendered.. et al. Inc. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable. on the other hand. No. the task of the Court is ended. 2007 Douglas Lu Ym vs. .. G. etc. of res judicata or prescription. et al.' e.order denying the petition since this is proscribed under Section 1 of Rule 41.g. Republic of the Phil. No. is definite and settled.R. the aggrieved party is afforded the chance to question an interlocutory order through a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. as above pointed out. (G. and an interlocutory order. Sandiganbayan. or authorizing amendment thereof. No.R. G. et al.R. an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules. may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. Gertrudes Nabua. January 26. vs. G. but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court. the petition must be filed within sixty days from notice of the assailed judgment.. as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. as distinguished from one which has 'become final' (or 'executory' as of right [final and executory]). an 'interlocutory' order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. is 'interlocutory. for instance. 2005 The fundamental distinction between a final judgment or order. or granting or denying applications for postponement. e. L-60036. to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes 'final' or. 126236. 152375. 152575. v. Inc. or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground. an interlocutory order is not appealable. January 27. Conversely..R. Inc. or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately. and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others. vs. Inc. 2011 Section 1 (c) Under Section 1 (c). and Accesslaw. 1987) viz. No. an order that does not finally dispose of the case. December 16. Inc. or denial of a motion for reconsideration. June 29. or granting a motion for extension of time to file a pleading. vs. of course. an adjudication on the merits which. which is appealable.g. Court of Appeals. order. Fil-Estate Golf and Development. resolution. Unlike a 'final' judgment or order. on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right.. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. or production or inspection of documents or things. G. Felicidad Navarro. has been outlined in Investments. February 23. G.R. or (h) an order dismissing an action without prejudice. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. Galvez. 149017. Inc. (b) an order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment. 2011 The December 20. G. 2009 Section 1. (d) an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal.. No. No. Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1. Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal. G. for there is no unequivocal determination of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the cause of action and subject matter thereof. Chua. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs.R. 176141.may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. 2008 Section 1 (h) A dismissal without prejudice does not operate as a judgment on the merits. Gertrudes Nabua. (e) an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent. (f) an order of execution. August 25. (g) a judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims. mistake or duress. counterclaims.R. Jacob M. and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous. the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Sps. Sandiganbayan (Second Division). No. Republic of the Phil. No. Leah Palma vs. 2007 amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure has deleted Section 1 (a) of Rule 41 which contains the express provision that no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration. Douglas Lu Ym. No.R. et al. November 28. Inc. or any other ground vitiating consent. In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable. and Accesslaw.. August 17. G. Danilo P. 179328. No. Positos vs. G. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that an appeal may be taken only from a final order that completely disposes of the case. 2010 Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 152 . De Suarez. December 16. while the main case is pending.. et al. Heirs of Sps. 2008 The appropriate remedy to be taken from an interlocutory order is a special civil action under Rule 65. March 10. 159275.R. Teofista Isagon vda. 159941. et al. that no appeal may be taken from (a) an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration. unless the court allows an appeal therefrom. cross-claims and third-party complaints.R. (c) an interlocutory order. Valente Raymundo vs. Rizalina P. confession or compromise on the ground of fraud. and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. vs. vs. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. et al. 165273. December 23. 2002 — included an order denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration . has since amended Section 1. On occasion.R. 2007. such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party. or an equally beneficial. that a litigant need not mark time by resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order annulled and set aside for being patently void for failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules of Court. August 17. It is inadequacy. It is understood. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs.R. and Accesslaw. . A remedy is plain. or resolution of the lower court or agency. order. simply because the CA correctly applied the rule of procedure in force at the time when it issued its assailed final order. Inc. (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment. Court of Appeals. 2011 The settled rule precluding certiorari as a remedy against the final order when appeal is available notwithstanding. (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law. (G. because it is better on balance to look beyond procedural requirements and to overcome the ordinary disinclination to exercise supervisory powers in order Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2006) the Court has declared that the requirement that there must be no appeal. the Court has considered certiorari as the proper remedy despite the availability of appeal. and (b) the order of the RTC granting the motion to dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter evidently constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. Heirs of Sps. by deleting an order denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration from the enumeration of non-appealable orders. and insufficient. the Court has held that the availability of appeal as a remedy does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent or preclude a party from making use of certiorari if appeal is not an adequate remedy. October 23. then. 159941.The enumeration of the orders that were not appealable made in the 1997 version of Section 1. (d) where an appeal would be slow. Nor should the petitioner be denied the recourse despite certiorari not being available as a proper remedy against an assailed order. that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari. (f) where public interest is involved. 117622-23. effective December 27. Specifically. not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ. namely: (a) the broader interest of justice demanded that certiorari be given due course to avoid the undeserved grossly unjust result that would befall the petitioners otherwise. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court — the version in force at the time when the CA rendered its assailed decision on May 15. It is true that Administrative Matter No. G. supra. Rule 41. or other remedy in the ordinary course of law. or any plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions. No. to reverse the CA on that basis would not be right and proper. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 153 . Sps. and that such a revision of a procedural rule may be retroactively applied. the Court rules that the CA should have given due course to and granted the petition for certiorari for two exceptional reasons. or speedy remedy. However. speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment. . Nos. and (g) in case of urgency. 07-7-12-SC. (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice. inadequate. Inc. In Francisco Motors Corporation v. . Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. 2003 Land Bank of the Phil. NPC vs. 143275." Jurisprudential law. final orders or resolutions meanwhile are appealable to the CA either through an ordinary appeal. 159941.that a void order of a lower court may be controlled to make it conformable to law and justice. the above-quoted rule requires the filing of a record on appeal in "other cases of multiple or separate appeal. 155065. vs. G. or a petition for review under Rule 42 if the case was decided under the RTC's appellate jurisdiction.R. Verily. Pilotin. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. 2 . G. Lapanday Holdings Corp. G. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. July 10. a superior court is to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case "as the ends of justice may require. No. G. Francisco Magestrado vs.R. 2002 Napocor vs. and Accesslaw.R. et al. September 4. No.R. December 11. Inc.R. Heirs of Sps. 2007 Section 2 (a) RTC judgments.R.R.R. September 10. G. G. 2004 La Salette College.. The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. August 17. July 27. Victor C. the instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined. recognizes the existence of multiple appeals in a complaint for expropriation.Modes of appeal Madrigal Transport. No. vs. G. 2000 Asset Privatization Trust vs. 1998 While admittedly a complaint for expropriation is not a special proceeding. because to do so is to destroy the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the extraordinary writ. October 12. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 154 . No. the writ will be granted whenever necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice. No. Arlene and Bernardo de Leon. Inc.. if the case was originally decided by the RTC." Thus. 156067. People of the Phil. 137785. Aguirre-Paderanga.R. Court of Appeals. Sec. Inc. Vine Development Corp. 149227. 115104. vs. No. No. et al. No. 2005 Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. and that in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts. 2011 Rule 41. G. et al. Sps. an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case. Court of Appeals. G. 148072. 121171. 1998 Macawiwili Gold Mining vs. no doubt. December 29.. August 11. or of a particular matter therein when declared by the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable. No. 2010 Section 2 (c) Section 2 (c). No. and Accesslaw. et al. Such rules are a necessary incident to the proper. 173351. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. December 23. Otake. unfortunately respondents did not present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of said rule. 176667. 153791. vs. the appeal shall be to this Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. it is provided that in all cases where only questions of law are raised. appeal to the Court of Appeals is by a petition for review under Rule 42. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.Go Ke Chong. without rules governing practice. No. but jurisdictional. No. and intolerable delays would result. Jr. we have held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is not a mere technicality. Heirs of Juan Faber. Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. The reason for rules of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible. On the other hand. Inc. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period.R. in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Mariano M. 2008 This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. the right to appeal is lost. the appeal from a decision or order of the RTC shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. Inc. 2007 Under Section 2 (c).R. efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions. July 29. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 155 . Chan. Thus. appeal to the Court of Appeals is taken by filing a notice of appeal. 152827. Gerardo Mendoza. 159589. vs. G. Ericsson Telecommunications.R. There are exceptions to this rule. G. February 6. Soledad Salinas.R. 2007 Republic of the Philippines vs.R. Section 1. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that in all cases where questions of law are raised or involved. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the rules. In cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. City of Pasig. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. vs. it is merely a statutory privilege. BF Citiland Corp. Marilyn B. November 22. Failing to do so. Inc. G. 2007 Section 2 (b) The Rule is clear. G. No. G. August 24. Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Inc.Period of ordinary appeal. Voltaire I. 2000 Tung Chin Hui vs. March 26. 2000 Ma. G. Rufus B. Victor C. 2008 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. which is considered notice to the parties. et al. 128805. and Accesslaw. No. et al. 3 . Such period has been considered to begin upon receipt of notice by the counsel of record. October 10. 2007 Based on the foregoing. G. G.. the filing of a record on appeal becomes indispensable since only a particular incident of the case is brought to the appellate court for resolution with the rest of the proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court.R. considering the evidence presented at the trial.R. 137122. November 15. 141524. G. Wilfredo D. 149227. et al. or it may be an order or judgment that dismisses an action. September 21. et al. 137571. the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court. September 14. No. Sec.. 167403.R. Ma..R. October 12. et al. declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are.R. No. 2003 Manila Memorial Park vs. 160825. G. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final. Heirs of Jose c. December 11. No. In such a case.. in the special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage. Inc. et al. Fred Elizalde. Court of Appeals. 2009 Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings. 2005 Makati Insurance Co. Vicente delos Santos.R. G. 149508. Socorro V. Sps.R. G. December 4. et al.. August 6. No. De Mangubat. Deleste. Court of Appeals. Pilotin. Rovira vs. No.R. Domingo Neypes vs. February 2. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case. leaving nothing more for the court to do with respect to it. vs.In Re: Heirship of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez. Imelda Argel vs. Reyes. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 156 . No. No.R. Rodriguez. in actions for partition of property with accounting. Vda. It is an adjudication on the merits which. G. 182645. Inc. G. CA. 2007 The fifteen (15)-day period (mentioned in Section 3 of Rule 41) begins to run upon receipt of notice of the decision or final order appealed from. counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration. 1999 To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases. No. an appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. No. vs. Ricardo and Leonila delos Santos vs. appeal in habeas corpus cases La Salette College. 141810 & 141812.R.. 2010 Rule 41. vs. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 157 . October 4. et al. City of Parañaque.. No. Manuel “Guy” Link. vs.. vs. D. It is also not part of due process. 1999 The payment of docket fees is a requirement in filing an ordinary appeal from the decision or final order of the RTC. G.M. G. No. No. et al. 137761. 136121.. Concomitant with the filing of a notice of appeal is the payment of the required appeal fees within the 15-day reglementary period set forth in Section 4 of the said Rule. vs. 2003 Noli Alfonso. et al.R. 2011 The right to appeal is not a natural right. August 16. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. No.R. August 8. et al. G. Wenceslao and Associates. No. 2000 Mactan Cebu International Airport vs. April 6. 2002 Teodora Buenaflor. G. It is an essential requirement. Solidbank. Pilotin. November 22. July 6. vs.R. vs. Sps.R. Inc. et al. G. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC (the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from) and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. Otherwise. Court of Appeals. No. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2000 Ayala Land vs. the right to appeal is lost. Sec. 4 . Sps. No. and Accesslaw. 138758. 172849. Cuizon Mangubat. et al. 2000 William P. et al. 149227. Chan vs. 2000 Gabriel Lazaro vs.R. G. Henry and Liwanag Andres. vs. et al. Inc. 140162. November 29. G. Section 3 thereof states that the appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. G. G. 2000 Oriental Assurance Corp.. G. No. No. Augustus Gonzales. August 16. Morris and Socorro Carpo. 170728. August 31.R. Court of Appeals. Inc. No. 2011 It bears stressing that payment of docket and other fees within this period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal. Quirico Pe. December 10. Section 2.R.Appellate court docket and other lawful fees La Salette College. 2008 In cases of ordinary appeal. Tereso Tan. The payment of appellate docket fees is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. 167398.R. vs. 139611. 139882. December 11. without which the decision or final order appealed from becomes final and executory as if no appeal was filed.Rule 41. 142021.R. Victor C. No.R. Court of Appeals.R. et al. G. This is so because a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in court. M.Notice of appeal Aquilina Estrella. No.M. et al.Thus. effect thereof Eusebio Osorio vs. Pilotin. but also jurisdictional. RTJ-04-1838. Victor C. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period.R. No. G. in order to perfect an appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. City of Parañaque. 2003 Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review are generally inviolable. 2003 Rule 41. and the decision or final order sought to be appealed from would become final and executory. Inc. vs. No. the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory. Inc. G. November 27.R. A. No. 2003 Accordingly. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in law must. 170728. even jurisdictional. March 20. the appellate court would not be able to act on the subject matter of the action. 9 . No. be strictly followed..Perfection of appeal. within 15 days. vs. and third. within the same 15-day period. 5 . et al.R. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. such notice must be served on the adverse party. G. for the perfection of the appeal. a notice of appeal must be filed with the court that rendered the judgment or final order sought to be appealed. Furthermore. but a mere statutory privilege. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. Dizon. Wenceslao and Associates. Sec. 148568. December 11. Inc. Otherwise. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 158 . et al. March 18. one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. 2011 Rule 41. 2004 Atlantic Erectors vs. It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right. 149227. Agustin S.R. Herbal Cove Realty Corp. the full amount of appellate court docket and other legal fees must be paid to the clerk of the court that rendered the judgment or final order. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. et al. as a rule. 134460.. Sec. La Salette College. G. It should be noted that full payment of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. D. and Accesslaw. second. vs.. parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. the following requirements must be complied with. so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. August 31. Hence. Nila Espiridion. First. M.M. the failure to complete the records does not justify its non-transmittal. prior to the transmittal of the original records of the case to the CA. No. Withal. Cruz. Clerk of Court made no mention of any steps taken to complete the records. as in this case. March 18. et al. Inc. vs. et al. In his comment. G. August 8. Armando R. as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal. No. 2011 Rule 41. and the steps taken or that could be taken to have them available".Duty of clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of appeal Saturnino Obañana. A. when the records cannot be completed.. RTJ-08-2152. vested rights are acquired by the winning party. January 18. A. Luminza Delos Reyes vs. August 3. Ricafort. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sec. 2011 While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause. 2010 Section 9.R. After a decision is declared final and executory. No. the RTC may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the prevailing party.finality of the decision. G. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that if the records are found to be incomplete. Agustin S. MTJ-04-1545. et al. At any rate. Danilo S. Dizon. Under the Rules. August 8. et al.R. May 27. NLRC. the issuance of the writ of execution because the respondent's appeal was not perfected. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period. and Accesslaw.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 159 . the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. A. Augustus Gonzales. however. Quirico Pe. 166411. No. No. 167398. free from the constraints of technicalities. Elpidio Calipay vs. 2004 Eusebio Osorio vs. RTJ-04-1838.R. 2004 Section 10. vs. It raises jurisdictional problem. Quirico Pe.M. the reasons for their non-transmittal.. 167398. Inc. vs. respondent should "indicate in his letter of transmittal the exhibits or transcripts not included in the records being transmitted to the appellate court. measures should be taken to complete the records. G. Augustus Gonzales. No. et al. the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. Jr. Rule 41 of the Rules explains that the court of origin loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time by the appellant and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. 10 . Abadilla. et al. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality. Inc. unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons. Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners. and Accesslaw. Maximo and Engracia C. Virginia Hofilena-Europa.R. deserves scant consideration from the courts. March 5.. Dela Cruz vs. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sps. 1 (2001). In Samala v. we said: The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. must be avoided. 2010). August 17. G. to wit: The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is. Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo vs. No. 2011 Section 1. et al. Inc. Sec. 149692. Gonzalez v. Heirs of Quintos. and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable. not only mandatory. such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof. July 30. Such objective is more in keeping with the nature of a petition for review.R. 176129. G. Rudex International Development Corp. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters. when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy. 1 .. a one-day delay does not justify their petition's dismissal. Court of Appeals (416 Phil. August 24. In Department of Justice Secretary Raul M.How appeal taken. The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. 146769.Rule 42. this Court elucidated on the rules on reglementary periods. 2002 This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.R. vs.R. Pennisi (G. Just compensation means not only paying the correct amount but also paying for the land within a reasonable time from its acquisition. Technicality. No. 2007 The reason why it is permissible to adopt a petition for review when appealing cases decided by the Special Agrarian Courts in eminent domain cases is the need for absolute dispatch in the determination of just compensation. time for filing Heirs of Sps. 169958. but jurisdictional. compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. No. No. Without prompt payment. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 160 . By way of exception. Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that a party who desires to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals. which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. G. A petition for review hastens the award of fair recompense to deprived landowners for the government-acquired property. . G. Inc. 2007 Expertravel & Tours. a petition for review dispenses with the filing of a notice of appeal or completion of records as requisites before any pleading is submitted. vs. 2005 The requirements as to form and content of a petition for review of a decision of the RTC are laid down in Section 2 of Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court. Virginia Real vs. 146062.R. Buenaventura Bombay. G. Hence. Sps. 143397.R. 2004 Santiago Alcantara vs. 188360. G. 1998 The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. No.R. Cusi-Hernandez vs. the certification must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. June 28. 148892. Rodriguez. LBP vs. 2 . 175020. . 2010 Rule 42. Eduardo Diaz.Form and contents Francisco Dee vs.R. Ma. G. October 1. May 6. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 161 . pursuant to Section 3 of the same Rule. Inc. G. Norberto and Desideria Dulpina. an end not foreseeable in an ordinary appeal. No.R. 136096.R. v. G. Inc. No. No. 146224. an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties. Sisenando H. No. May 26.R. October 4. G.Unlike an ordinary appeal. Court of Appeals. No. Heber and Charlita Edillo vs. 2000 Far Eastern Shipping vs. Court of Appeals. February 20. 2002 Sps. August 6. 130068. and Accesslaw. Court of Appeals and The Peninsula Manila. 2001 Nelia Atillo vs. January 26. No.R. 2007 Non-compliance with these requirements is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the Petition. 147328. February 7. Rural Bankers Association of the Phil.. Luz L. Rosario Tanghal-Salvana. Court of Appeals. No. No. 2002 Santiago Eslaban vs.R. G..R. July 18. Sec. De Onorio. et al. G. . Clarita Vda. No. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party. Anton and Eileen Lim vs. Sps. G. Belo. January 21. No. January 29. 2001 Cornelia P. Uni-Tan Marketing Corp.R. . . . and failure to comply therewith cannot be excused. No. 152392. G. . issues and causes of action.R. 140436. 133542. 183467. No. Eduardo Diaz. February 7. Sec. July 18. and Accesslaw. which is the subject of her appeal.. 140436. Buenaventura Bombay. Sec. et al.R.Effect of failure to comply with requirements Nelia Atillo vs. 136096. Evelyn Barredo vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 162 . Section 2 (d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. G. People of the Phil. not that of the MTCC.. G. 3 . Inc. 2001 Cornelia P. as amended. 2000 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al.R. inter alia.." the cited deficiency in petitioner's petition does not make it insufficient in form and substance since it is the decision of the RTC.Rule 42. the petition shall "be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts. Cusi-Hernandez vs. Inc.R. No. No. G. requires that. March 29. 2010 Rule 42. 2 (d) While Rule 42.