CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER Part 2

V. PARTIES IN CIVIL ACTION (Rule 3)

Real parties in interest; indispensable parties; representatives as parties; necessary parties; indigent parties; alternative defendants

(1) 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 3). The interest must be real, which is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential interest (Fortich vs. Corona, 289 SCRA 624). It is an interest that is material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in question (Samaniego vs. Aguila, 334 SCRA 438). While ordinarily one who is not a privy to a contract may not bring an action to enforce it, there are recognized exceptions this rule:
(a) Contracts containing stipulations pour atrui or stipulations expressly conferring benefits to a non-party may sue under the contract provided such benefits have been accepted by the beneficiary prior to its revocation by the contracting parties (Art. 1311, Civil Code).
(b) Those who are not principally or subsidiarily obligated in the contract, in which they had no intervention, may show their detriment that could result from it. For instance, Art. 1313, CC, provides that “creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defrauded them.” Further, Art. 1318, CC, provides that contracts entered into in fraud of creditors may be rescinded when the creditors cannot in any manner collect the claims due them. Thus, a creditor who is not a party to a contract can sue to rescind the contract to redress the fraud committed upon him.
(2) Indispensable Party is a real party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action (Sec. 7, Rule 3). Without the presence of his party the judgment of a court cannot attain real finality (De Castro vs. CA, 384 SCRA 607). The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the exercise of juridical power and when an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed. The absence of indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only to the absent parties but even as to those present. Two essential tests of an indispensable party: (a) Can a relief be afforded to the plaintiff without the presence of the other party; and (b) Can the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the other party?
(a) A person is not an IP if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an IP if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action.
(b) Although normally a joinder of action is permissive (Sec. 6, Rule 3), the joinder of a party becomes compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party. Clearly, the rule directs a compulsory joinder of IP (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
(3) Necessary Party is one who is not indispensable but ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, of for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. But a necessary party ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties (Sec. 8, Rule 3). The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
(4) Indigent party is one who is allowed by the court to litigate his claim, action or defense upon ex parte application and hearing, when the court is satisfied that such party has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter, basic necessities for himself and his family (Sec. 21, Rule 3). If one is authorized to litigate as an indigent, such authority shall include an exemption from the payment of docket fee, and of transcripts of stenographic notes, which the court may order to e furnished by him. However, the amount of the docket and other fees, which the indigent was exempt from paying, shall be lien on the judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent. A lien on the judgment shall or arise if the court provides otherwise (Sec. 21, Rule 3).
(5) Representatives as parties pertains to the parties allowed by the court as substitute parties to an action whereby the original parties become incapacitated of incompetent (Sec. 18, Rule 3). The substitution of a party depends on the nature of the action. If the action is personal, and a party dies pendent lite, such action does not survive, and such party cannot be substituted. If the action is real, death of the defendant survives the action, and the heirs will substitute the dead. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein may be enforced against the estate of the deceased defendant (Sec. 1, Rule 87).
(a) In case a party becomes incapacitated or incompetent during the pendency of the action, the court, upon motion, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incapacitated or incompetent party with the assistance of his legal guardian or guardian ad litem (Sec. 18, Rule 20).
(b) In case of transfer, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party Sec. 19, Rule 3).
(6) Alternative defendants are those who may be joined as such in the alternative by the plaintiff who is uncertain from whom among them he is entitled to a relief, regardless of whether or not a right to a relief against one is inconsistent with that against the other. Where the plaintiff cannot definitely identify who among two or more persons should be impleaded as a defendant, he may join all of them as defendants in the alternative. Under Sec. 13, Rule 3, “where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief against the other.” Just as the rule allows a suit against defendants in the alternative, the rule also allows alternative causes of action (Sec. 2, Rule 8) and alternative defenses (Sec. 5[b], Rule 6).

Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties

(1) Joinder of parties is compulsory if there are parties without whom no final determination can be had of an action (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
(2) Joinder of parties is permissive when there is a right or relief in favor of or against the parties joined in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and there is a question of law or fact common to the parties joined in the action (Sec. 6, Rule 3).

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

(1) A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the action although he should not be impleaded. A party is not joined when he is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action.
(2) Under the rules, neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just (Sec. 11, Rule 3). Misjoinder of parties does not involve questions of jurisdiction and not a ground for dismissal (Republic vs. Herbieto, 459 SCRA 183).
(3) Even if neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint under Sec. 3, Rule 17.
(4) The rule does not comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is erroneous or mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. No one is free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to drop him unceremoniously later at the option of the plaintiff. The rule presupposes that the original inclusion had been made in the honest conviction that it was proper and the subsequent dropping is requested because it has turned out that such inclusion was a mistake. And this is the reason why the rule ordains that the dropping is “on such terms as are just” (Lim Tan Hu vs. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425).

Class suit

(1) A class suit is an action where one or more may sue for the benefit of all if the requisites for said action are complied with.
(2) An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attendant facts. A class suit does not require commonality of interest in the questions involved in the suit. What is required by the Rules is a common or general interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The subject matter of the action means the physical, the things real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to the suit which is prosecuted and not the direct or wrong committed by the defendant. It is not also a common question of law that sustains a class suit but a common interest in the subject matter of the controversy. (Mathay vs. Consolidated Ban & Trust Co., 58 SCRA 559). There is no class suit when interests are conflicting.
(3) For a class suit to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
(a) The subject matter of the controversy must be of common or general interest to may persons;
(b) The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties;
(c) The parties actually before the court are sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned; and
(d) The representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all (Sec.12, Rule 3).

Suits against entities without juridical personality

(1) A corporation being an entity separate and distinct from its members has no interest in the individual property of its members unless transferred to the corporation. Absent any showing of interests, a corporation has no personality to bring an action for the purpose of recovering the property, which belongs to the members in their personal capacities.
(2) An entity without juridical personality may be sued under a common name by which it is commonly known when it represents to the plaintiff under a common name, and the latter relies on such representation (Lapanday vs. Estita, 449 SCRA 240).

Effect of death of party litigant

(1) The death of the client extinguishes the attorney-client relationship and divests a counsel of his authority to represent the client. Accordingly, a dead client has no personality and cannot be represented by and attorney (Laviña vs. CA, 171 SCRA 691). Neither does he become the counsel of the heirs of the deceased unless his services are engaged by said heirs (Lawas vs. CA, 146 SCRA 173).
(2) Upon the receipt of the notice of death, the court shall order the legal representative or representatives of the deceased to appear and be substituted for the deceased within thirty (30) days from notice (Sec. 16, Rule 3). The substitution of the deceased would not be ordered by the court in cases where the death of the party would extinguish the action because substitution is proper only when the action survives (Aguas vs. Llamas, 5 SCRA 959).
(3) Where the deceased has no heirs, the court shall require the appointment of an executor or administrator. This appointment is not required where the deceased left an heir because the heir under the new rule, may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. If there is an heir but the heir is a minor, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for said minor heir (Sec. 13, Rule 3).
(4) The court may appoint an executor or administrator when:
(a) the counsel for the deceased does not name a legal representative; or
(b) there is a representative named but he failed to appear within the specified period (Sec. 16, Rule 3).


VI. VENUE (Rule 4)

(1) Venue is the place or the geographical area where an action is to be filed and tried. In civil cases, it relates only to the place of the suit and not to the jurisdiction of the court (Manila Railroad Company vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523).

Venue versus Jurisdiction

(1) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried;
(2) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue of procedural law;
(3) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent;
(4) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties; and
(5) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motu propio dismissal; venue is not a ground for a motu propio dismissal except in cases subject to summary procedure.

Venue of real actions

(1) Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4).

Venue or personal actions

(1) All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, all at the option of the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4).

Venue of actions against non-residents

(1) If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found (Sec. 3, Rule 4), or at the place where the defendant may be found, at the option of the plaintiff (Sec. 2).

When the Rules on Venue do not apply

(1) The Rules do not apply (a) in those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or (b) where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof (Sec. 4, Rule 4).

Effects of stipulations on venue

(1) The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is (a) in writing, (b) made before the filing of the action, and (3) exclusive as to the venue (Sec. 4[b], Rule 4).
(2) The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is that while they are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive by rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them.
(3) In interpreting stipulations as to venue, there is a need to inquire as to whether or not the agreement is restrictive or not. If the stipulation is restrictive, the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon by the parties. It must be reiterated and made clear that under Rule 4, the general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The mere stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place (Spouses Lantin vs. Lantin, GR 160053, August 28, 2006).


VII. PLEADINGS (Rules 6 - 13)

(1) Pleadings are written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 6). Pleadings aim to define the issues and foundation of proof to be submitted during the trial, and to apprise the court of the rival claims of the parties.

Kinds of Pleadings (Rule 6)

Complaint

(1) Complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action, stating therein the names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant (Sec. 3, Rule 6).

Answer

(1) An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses (Sec. 3, Rule 6). It may allege legal provisions relied upon for defense (Sec. 1, Rule 8).

Negative Defenses

(1) Negative defenses are the specific denials of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action (Sec. 5[a], Rule 6).
(2) When the answer sets forth negative defenses, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, and when the answer alleges affirmative defenses, the burden of proof devolves upon the defendant.

Negative Pregnant

(1) Negative pregnant is an admission in avoidance which does not qualify as a specific denial.
(2) It 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. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 1512154, July 15, 2003).

Affirmative Defenses

(1) Negative defenses are allegations of new matters which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. Affirmative defenses include:
(a) Fraud
(b) Statute of limitations
(c) Release
(d) Payment
(e) Illegality
(f) Statute of frauds
(g) Estoppel
(h) Former recovery
(i) Discharge in bankruptcy
(j) Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance (Sec. 5[b], Rule 6)

Counterclaim

(1) A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party (Sec. 6, Rule 6). It is in itself a claim or cause of action interposed in an answer. It is either compulsory or permissive.

Compulsory Counterclaim

(1) A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is 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. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court, both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6).
(2) It is compulsory where:
(a) It arises out of, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim;
(b) It does not require jurisdiction; and
(c) The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
(3) The tests to determine whether or not a counterclaim is compulsory are:
(a) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim counterclaim largely the same?
(b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claims absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
(c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as the defendant’s counterclaim? and
(d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? (Financial Building Corp. vs. Forbes Park Assn. Inc., 338 SCRA 811).

Permissive Counterclaim

(1) Permissive counterclaim is a counterclaim which does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. It is not barred even if not set up in the action.
(2) The requirements of a permissive counterclaim are:
(a) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction;
(b) It must be within the jurisdiction of the court wherein the case is pending and is cognizable by the regular courts of justice; and
(c) It does not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions subject of the complaint.

Effect on the Counterclaim when the complaint is dismissed

(1) If a counterclaim has already been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, and the court grants the said motion to dismiss, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint (Sec. 2, Rule 17). The dismissal upon motion of plaintiff shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute the counterclaim. The defendant if he so desires may prosecute his counterclaim either in a separate action or in the same action. Should he choose to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action, he must notify the court of his preference within 15 days from notice of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Should he opt to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action, the court should render the corresponding order granting and reserving his right to prosecute his claim in a separate complaint. A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.
(2) The dismissal of the complaint under Sec. 3 (due to fault of plaintiff) is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same action or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. The dismissal of the main action does not carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim (Sec. 6, Rule 16).

Cross-claims

(1) A cross-claim is 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 therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all of part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant (Sec. 8, Rule 6).

Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints

(1) It is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)–party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim.

Complaint-in-intervention

(1) Complaint-in-intervention is a pleading whereby a third party asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties. If the pleading seeks to unite with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter, he shall file an answer-in-intervention.
(2) If at any time before judgment, a person not a party to the action believes that he has a legal interest in the matter in litigation in a case in which he is not a party, he may, with leave of court, file a complaint-in-intervention in the action if he asserts a claim against one or all of the parties.

Reply

(1) Replay is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such matters. It a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted (Sec. 10, Rule 6).

Pleadings allowed in small claim cases and cases covered by the rules on summary procedure

(1) The only pleadings allowed under the Rules on Summary Procedure are complaint, compulsory counterclaim, cross-claim, pleaded in the answer, and answers thereto (Sec. 3[A]). These pleadings must be verified (Sec. 3[B]).
(2) The only pleadings allowed under small claim cases are:


Parts of a Pleading (Rule 7)

(1) The parts of a pleading under Rule 7 are: the caption (Sec. 1), the text or the body (Sec. 2), the signature and address (Sec. 3), the verification (Sec. 4), and the certification against forum shopping (Sec. 5).

Caption

(1) The caption must set forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the docket number if assigned. The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all e named in the original complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties. Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.

Signature and address

(1) Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post office box.
(2) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
(3) An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of the Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
(4) In every pleading, counsel has to indicate his professional tax receipt (PTR) and IBP receipt, the purpose of which is to see to it that he pays his tax and membership due regularly

Verification

(1) A verification of a pleading is an affirmation under oath by the party making the pleading that he is prepared to establish the truthfulness of the facts which he has pleaded based on his own personal knowledge.
(2) The general rule under, Sec. 4. Rule 7 is that, pleading need not be under oath. This means that a pleading need not be verified. A pleading will be verified only when a verification is required by a law or by a rule.
(3) A pleading is verified by and affidavit, which declares that: (a) the affiant has read the pleading, and (b) the allegations therein are true and correct to his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
(4) The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The absence of proper verification is cause to treat the pleading as unsigned and dismissable.
(5) It is, however, been held that the absence of a verification or the non-compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading defective. It is only a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. The requirement is a condition affecting only the form of the pleading (Sarmeinto vs. Zaratan, GR 167471, Feb. 5, 2007). The absence of a verification may be corrected by requiring an oath. The rule is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial justice and that technical requirements may be dispensed with in meritorious cases (Pampanga Development Sugar Co. vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 737). The court may order the correction of the pleading or act on an unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance would not fully serve substantial justice, which after all, is the basic aim for the rules of procedure (Robert Development Corp. vs. Quitain, 315 SCRA 150).

Certification against forum-shopping

(1) The certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement certifying to the following matters:
(a) That the party has not commenced or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending;
(b) That if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and
(c) That if he should therefore learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
(2) The certification is mandatory under Sec. 5, Rule 7, but nor jurisdictional (Robert Development Corp. vs. Quitain, 315 SCRA 150).
(3) There is forum shopping when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion, other than by appeal or certiorari in another. There can also be forum shopping when a party institutes two or more suits in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a party’s chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action (Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion, GR 153785, Aug. 3, 2006). It is an act of malpractice, as the litigants trifle with the courts and abuse their processes. It is improper conduct and degrades the administration of justice. If the act of the party or its counsel clearly constitutes willful and deliberate forum-shopping, the same shall constitute direct contempt, and a cause for administrative sanctions, as well as a ground for the summary dismissal of the case with prejudice (Montes vs. CA, GR 143797, May 4, 2006). Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
(4) It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the certification under oath, and not the attorney. It must be signed by the party himself and cannot be signed by his counsels. As a general and prevailing rule, a certification signed by counsel is a defective certification and is a valid cause for dismissal (Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30).
(5) This certification is not necessary when what is filed is a mere motion for extension, or in criminal cases and distinct causes of action.

Requirements of a corporation executing the verification/certification on non-forum shopping

(1) A juridical entity, unlike a natural person, can only perform physical acts through properly delegated individuals. The certification against forum shopping where the plaintiff or a principal party is a juridical entity like a corporation may be executed by properly authorized persons. This person may be the lawyer of a corporation. As long as he is duly authorized by the corporation and has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in the certification against forum shopping, the certification may be signed by the authorized lawyer (National Steel Corp. vs. CA, 388 SCRA 85).

Effect of the signature of counsel in a pleading

(1) A certification signed by a counsel is a defective certification and is a valid cause for dismissal (Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30). This is the general and prevailing rule. A certification by counsel and not by the principal party himself is no certification at all. The reason for requiring that it must be signed by the principal party himself is that he has actual knowledge, or knows better than anyone else, whether he has initiated similar action/s in other courts, agencies or tribunals. Their lawyer’s explanation that they were out of town at the time their petition was filed with the CA is bereft of basis. That explanation is an afterthought as it was not alleged by counsel in her certification against forum shopping (Go vs. Rico, GR 140682, April 25, 2006).

Allegations in a pleading

(1) Every pleading shall contain in a mathematical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party relies for his claim and defense, as the case may be, containing the statement of mere evidenciary facts (Sec. 1, Rule 8).

Manner of making allegations (Rule 8)

Condition precedent

(1) Conditions precedent are matters which must be complied with before a cause of action arises. When a claim is subject to a condition precedent, the compliance of the same must be alleged in the pleading.
(2) Failure to comply with a condition precedent is an independent ground for a motion to dismiss: that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied (Sec. 1[j], Rule 16).

Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of the mind, judgments, official documents or acts

(1) When making averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting such fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity (Sec. 5, Rule 8). It is not enough therefore, for the complaint to allege that he was defrauded by the defendant. Under this provision, the complaint must state with particularity the fraudulent acts of the adverse party. These particulars would necessarily include the time, place and specific acts of fraud committed against him.
(2) Malice, intent, knowledge or other conditions of the mind of a person may be averred generally (Sec. 5, Rule 8). Unlike in fraud or mistake, they need not be stated with particularity. The rule is borne out of human experience. It is difficult to state the particulars constituting these matters. Hence, a general averment is sufficient.

Pleading an actionable document

(1) An actionable document is a document relied upon by either the plaintiff or the defendant. A substantial number of complaints reaching the courts shows that the plaintiff’s cause of action of the defendant’s defense is based upon a written instrument or a document.
(2) Whenever an actionable document is the basis of a pleading, the rule specifically direct the pleader to set forth in the pleading the substance of the instrument or the document, (a) and to attach the original or the copy of the document to the pleading as an exhibit and to be part of the pleading; or (b) with like effect, to set forth in the pleading said copy of the instrument or document (Sec. 7, Rule 8). This manner of pleading a document applies only to one which is the basis of action or a defense. Hence, if the document does not have the character of an actionable document, as when it is merely evidentiary, it need not be pleaded strictly in the manner prescribed by Sec. 7, Rule 8.

Specific denials

(1) There are three modes of specific denial which are contemplated by the Rules, namely:
(a) By specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint, the truth of which the defendant does not admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matter which he will rely upon to support his denial;
(b) By specifying so much of the averment in the complaint as is true and material and denying only the remainder;
(c) 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, which has the effect of denial (Gaza vs Lim, GR 126863, Jan. 16, 2003)
(2) The purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial is to make him disclose the matters alleged in the complaint which he succinctly intends to disprove at the trial, together with the matter which he relied upon to support the denial. The parties are compelled to lay their cards on the table (Aquintey vs. Tibong, GR 166704, Dec. 20, 2006).

Effect of failure to make specific denials

(1) If there are material averments in the complaint other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, these shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied (Sec. 11, Rule 8).
(2) Material allegations, except unliquidated damages, not specifically denied are deemed admitted. If the allegations are deemed admitted, there is no more triable issue between the parties and if the admissions appear in the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34.
(3) An admission in a pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission because the admission is conclusive as to him. All proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether an objection is interposed by a party or not (Republic vs. Sarabia, GR 157847, Aug. 25, 2005). Said admission is a judicial admission, having been made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, and does not require proof. A party who desires to contradict his own judicial admission may do so only be either of two ways: (a) by showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake; or (b) that no such admission was made (Sec. 4, Rule 129).
(4) The following are not deemed admitted by the failure to make a specific denial:
(a) The amount of unliquidated damages;
(b) Conclusions in a pleading which do not have to be denied at all because only ultimate facts need be alleged in a pleading;
(c) Non-material allegations, because only material allegations need be denied.

When a specific denial requires an oath

(1) Specific denials which must be under oath to be sufficient are:
(a) A denial of an actionable document (Sec. 8, Rule 8);
(b) A denial of allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest (Sec. 11, Rule 8).

Effect of failure to plead (Rule 9)

Failure to plead defenses and objections

(1) Defenses or objections no pleaded in either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, they are deemed waived. Except:
(a) When it appears from the pleading or the pieces of evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
(c) That the action is barred by the statute of limitations (same as Sec. 8, Rule 117);
(d) Res judicata. In all these cases, the court shall dismiss the claim (Sec. 1, Rule 9).

Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim

(1) A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim not set up shall be barred (Sec. 2, Rule 9).

Default

(1) Default is a procedural concept that occurs when the defending party fails to file his answer within the reglementary period. It does not occur from the failure of the defendant to attend either the pre-trial or the trial.

When a declaration of default is proper

(1) If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default (Sec. 3, Rule 9).

Effect of an order of default

(1) A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take part in the trial (Sec. 3[a], Rule 9).

Relief from an order of default

(1) Remedy after notice of order and before judgment:
(a) Motion to set aside order of default, showing that (a) the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and (b) the defendant has a meritorious defense—there must be an affidavit of merit (Sec. 3[b], Rule 9).
(2) Remedy after judgment but before finality:
(b) Motion for new trial under Rule 37; or
(c) Appeal from the judgment as being contrary to the evidence or the law;
(3) Remedy after judgment becomes final and executor:
(d) Petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38;
(e) Action for nullity of judgment under Rule 47.
(4) If the order of default is valid, Certiorari is not available. If the default order was improvidently issued, that is, the defendant was declared in default, without a motion, or without having served with summons before the expiration of the reglementary period to answer, Certiorari is available as a remedy (Matute vs. CS, 26 SCRA 798; Akut vs. CA, 116 SCRA 216).

Effect of a partial default

(1) When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented (Sec. 33[c], Rule 9).

Extent of relief

(1) A judgment rendered against a party in default may not exceed the amount or be different from that prayed for nor include unliquidated damages which are not awarded (Sec. 3[c], Rule 9). In fact, there can be no automatic grant of relief as the court has to weigh the evidence. Furthermore, there can be no award of unliquidated damages (Gajudo vs. Traders Royal Bank, GR 151098, March 31, 2006).

Actions where default is not allowed

(1) Annulment of marriage;
(2) Declaration of nullity of marriage; and
(3) Legal separation

The court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated (Sec. 3[e], Rule 9).


Filing and Service of pleadings (Rule 13)

Payment of docket fees

(1) On acquisition of jurisdiction. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but the payments of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action (Proton Pilipinas Corp. vs. Banque National de Paris, 460 SCRA 260). In connection with the payment of docket fees, the court requires that all complaints, petitions, answers and similar pleadings must specify the amount of damages being prayed for both in the body of the pleading and in prayer therein and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees; otherwise such pleading shall not be accepted for filing or shall be expunged from the record. Any defect in the original pleading resulting in underpayment of the docket fee cannot be cured by amendment, such as by the reduction of the claim as, for all legal purposes, there is no original complaint over which the court has acquired jurisdiction (Manchester Development Corp. vs. CA, GR 75919, May 7, 1987).
(2) The rule on payment of docket fee has, in some instances, been subject to the rule on liberal interpretation. Thus, in a case, it was held that while the payment of the required docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period (PGCOR vs. Lopez, 474 SCRA 76; Sun Insurance Office vs. Asuncion, 170 SCRA 272). Also, if the amount of docket fees is insufficient considering the amount of the claim, the party filing the case will be required to pay the deficiency, but jurisdiction is not automatically lost (Rivera vs. Del Rosario, GR 144934, Jan. 15, 2004).
(3) On appeal. The Rules now requires that appellate docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the same period for taking an appeal. This is clear from the opening sentence of Sec. 4, Rule 41 of the same rules that, “Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees.”
(4) The Supreme Court has consistently held that payment of docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executor (Regalado vs. Go, GR 167988, Feb. 6, 2007). Hence, nonpayment is a valid ground for the dismissal of an appeal (MA Santander Construction vs. Villanueva, GR 136477, Nov. 10, 2004). However, delay in the payment of the docket fees confers upon the court a discretionary, not a mandatory power to dismiss an appeal (Villamor vs. CA, GR 136858, Jan. 21, 2004).

Filing versus service of pleadings

(1) Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court;
(2) Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned (Sec. 2, Rule 13).

Periods of filing of pleadings

(1) The date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case (Sec. 3, Rule 13)

Manner of filing

(1) By personal service or by registered mail. The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case (Sec. 3, Rule 13).

Modes of service

(1) There are two modes of service of pleadings, judgments, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers: (a) personally, or (b) by mail. However, if personal service and serviced by mail cannot be made, service shall be done by ‘substituted service’.
(2) Personal service is the preferred mode of service. If another mode of service is used other than personal service, the service must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service of filing was not done personally. Exempt from this explanation are papers emanating from the court. A violation of this explanation requirement may be a cause for the paper to be considered as not having been filed (Sec. 11, Rule 13).
(3) Personal service is made by: (a) delivering a copy of the papers served personally to the party or his counsel, or (b) by leaving the papers in his office with his clerk or a person having charge thereof. If no person is found in the office, or his office is not known or he has no office, then by leaving a copy of the papers at the party’s or counsel’s residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein between eight in the morning and six in the evening (Sec. 6, Rule 13).

Service by mail

(1) The preferred service by mail is by registered mail. Service by ordinary mail may be done only if no registry service is available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee (Sec. 7, Rule 13). It shall be done by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, or otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if not delivered.

Substituted service

(1) This mode is availed of only when there is failure to effect service personally or by mail. This failure occurs when the office and residence of the party or counsel is unknown. Substituted service is effected by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail (Sec. 8, Rule 13). Substituted service is complete at the time of delivery of the copy to the clerk of court.

Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions

(1) Final orders or judgments shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action, final orders or judgments against him shall be served upon him also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party (Sec. 9).

Priorities in modes of service and filing

(1) Personal service is the preferred mode of service.
(2) The preferred service by mail is by registered mail.
(3) The following papers are required to be filed in court and served upon the parties affected:
(a) Judgments
(b) Resolutions
(c) Orders
(d) Pleadings subsequent to the complaint
(e) Written motions
(f) Notices
(g) Appearances
(h) Demands
(i) Offers of judgment
(j) Similar papers (Sec. 4, Rule 13).

When service is deemed complete

(1) Personal service is deemed complete upon the actual delivery following the above procedure (Sec. 10, Rule 13).
(2) Service by ordinary mail is deemed complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. On the other hand, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever is earlier (Sec. 8, Rule 13).
(3) Substituted service is complete at the time of delivery of the copy to the clerk of court.

Proof of filing and service

(1) The filing of a pleading or paper shall be proved by its existence in the record of the case, if it is not in the record, but is claimed to have been filed personally, the filing shall be proved by the written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court in a copy of the same (Sec. 12, Rule 13).
(2) If the filing or paper is filed by registered mail, proof of filing is by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who did the mailing, containing a full statement of the date and place of depositing the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if not delivered (Sec. 12, Rule 13).
(3) Proof of personal service shall consist of the written admission of the party served. It may also be proven by the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing full information of the date, place and manner of service (Sec. 13, Rule 13). If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of the affidavit of the person mailing of the facts showing compliance with Sec. 7, Rule 13. If the service is by registered mail, the proof shall consist of such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card is to be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee (Sec. 13, Rule 13).

Amendment (Rule 10)

Amendment as a matter of right

(1) A plaintiff has the right to amend his complaint once at any time before a responsive pleading is served by the other party or in case of a reply to which there is no responsive pleading, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served (Sec. 2, Rule 10). Thus, before an answer is served on the plaintiff, the latter may amend his complaint as a matter of right. The defendant may also amend his answer, also as a matter of right, before a reply is served upon him. Sec. 2 refers to an amendment made before the trial court, not to amendments before the CA. the CA is vested with jurisdiction to admit or deny amended petitions filed before it (Navarro Vda. De Taroma, 478 SCRA 336). Hence, even if no responsive pleading has yet been served, if the amendment is subsequent to a previous amendment made as a matter of right, the subsequent amendment must be with leave of court.

Amendments by leave of court

(1) Leave of court is required for substantial amendment made after service of a responsive pleading (Sec. 3, Rule 10). The plaintiff, for example, cannot amend his complaint by changing his cause of action or adding a new one without leave of court (Calo and San Jose vs. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445; Buenaventura vs. Buenaventura, 94 Phil. 193).
(2) After a responsive pleading is filed, an amendment to the complaint may be substantial and will correspondingly require a substantial alteration in the defenses of the adverse party. The amendment of the complaint is not only unfair to the defendant but will cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings. Leave of court is thus, required. On the other hand, where no responsive pleading has yet been served, no defenses would be altered. The amendment of the pleading will not then require leave of court (Siasoco vs.CA, 303 SCRA 186).

Formal amendment

(1) A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party (Sec. 4, Rule 10).

Amendments to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence

(1) When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, 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. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made (Sec. 5, Rule 10).

Different from supplemental pleadings

(1) A supplemental pleading is one which sets forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The filing of supplemental pleadings requires leave of court. The court may allow the pleading only upon such terms as are just. This leave is sought by the filing of a motion with notice to all parties (Sec. 6, Rule 10).
(2) A supplemental pleading does not extinguish the existence of the original pleading, while an amended pleading takes the place of the original pleading. A supplemental pleading exists side with the original; it does not replace that which it supplements’ it does not supersede the original but assumes that the original pleading remain as the issues to be tried in the action. A supplemental pleading supplies the deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, not to entirely substitute the latter (Sps. Caoili vs. CA, GR 128325, Sept. 14, 1999).

Effect of amended pleading

(1) An amended pleading supersedes the original one which it amends (Sec. 8, Rule 10). The original pleading loses its status as a pleading, is deemed withdrawn and disappears from the record. It has been held that the original complaint is deemed superseded and abandoned by the amendatory complaint only if the latter introduces a new or different cause of action (Versoza vs. CA, 299 SCRA 100).
(2) The original pleading is superseded or disappears from the records. The defenses in the original pleadings not reproduced in the amended pleadings are waived (Magaspi vs. Remolete, 115 SCRA 193).

CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER Part 1

PART I.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rules 1 - 71

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Concept of Remedial Law

Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.

Substantive Law as Distinguished from Remedial Law

Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties regarding life, liberty or property which when violated gives rise to a cause of action (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640).

Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations created by substantive law by providing a procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion of rights and violations of duties and by prescribing rules as to how suits are filed, tried and decided by the courts.

As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from remedial law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.

Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court

Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speed disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court

(1) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases
(2) They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
(3) They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, Constitution).
(4) The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but is the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion. (Andres vs. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802)

Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

(1) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes and good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon courts. (CIR v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp., GR 159593, Oct. 12, 2006). Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules (d) a lack of ay showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR 167471, Feb. 5, 2007)
(2) To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical incantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. (Cu-Unjieng v. CA, 479 SCRA 594)
(3) Where substantial and important issues await resolution. (Pagbilao, supra)
(4) When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are involved. (Mindanao Savings Loan Asso. V. Vicenta Vda. De Flores, 469 SCRA 416).
(5) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago, GR 170354, June 30, 2006).

Nature of Philippine Courts

Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (US v. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321)

What is a Court

(1) It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well as the public administration of justice.
(2) It is a governmental body officially assembled under authority of law at the appropriate time and place for the administration of justice through which the State enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21 CJS 16).
(3) It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus, 64 OG 3189).

Court distinguished from Judge

(1) A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply an officer of such tribunal;
(2) A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct from the person or judge who sits on it;
(3) A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge is a physical person ;
(4) A court may be considered an office; a judge is a public officer; and
(5) The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstances that would affect the judge.

Classification of Philippine Courts

(1) Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are organized into four (4) levels:

(a) First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) – which try and decide (1) criminal actions involving violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction and offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, and (2) civil actions including ejectment, recovery of personal property with a value of not more than P300,000 outside MM or does not exceed P400,000 in MM;
(b) Second Level (RTCs, Family Courts) – courts of general jurisdiction; among the civil actions assigned to them by law are those in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, or involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or exceeds P50,000 in MM, except actions for ejectment (forcible entry and unlawful detainer), or where the demand exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost, or the value of the personal property or controversy exceeds P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM. RTCs also exercise appellate jurisdiction, to review cases appealed from courts of the first level;
(c) Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) – CA is an appellate court, reviewing cases appealed to it from the RTC, on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. Appeals to it decided by the RTC in the exercise of original jurisdiction are a matter of right; appeals with respect to cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction are a matter of discretion. Occasionally, CA may act as a trial court, as in actions praying for the annulment of final and executor judgments of RTCs on the ground of extrinsic fraud subsequently discovered, against which no other remedies lies.
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices act, and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees including those in GOCCs in relation to their office. It also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTCs whether in the exercise of their own original or appellate jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases committed by public officers or employees including those in GOCCs in relation to their office.
(d) Fourth Level (Supreme Court)

Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

(1) A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions or proceedings are originally filed with it. A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the power of review over the decisions or orders of a lower court
(2) MeTCs, MCTCs and MTCs are courts of original jurisdiction without appellate jurisdiction. RTC is likewise a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases originally filed with it; and appellate court with respect to cases decided by MTCs within its territorial jurisdiction. (Sec. 22, BP 129)
(3) CA is primarily a court of appellate jurisdiction with competence to review judgments of the RTCs and specified quasi-judicial agencies (Sec. 9[3], BP 129). It is also a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases filed before it involving issuance of writs of certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and prohibition. CA is a court of original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs (Sec. 9 [1],[2], BP 129).
(4) The SC is fundamentally a court of appellate jurisdiction but it may also be a court of original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and in cases involving petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution). The Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a division of the Supreme Court may be appealed.

Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction

(1) Courts of general jurisdiction are those with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature. Courts of special (limited) jurisdiction are those which have only a special jurisdiction for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
(2) A court may also be considered ‘general’ if it has the competence to exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is in the context that the RTC is considered a court of general jurisdiction.

Constitutional and Statutory Courts

(1) A constitutional court is one created by a direct Constitutional provision. Example of this court is the SC, which owes its creation from the Constitution itself. Only the SC is a Constitutional court.
(2) A statutory court is one created by law other than the Constitution. All courts except the SC are statutory courts. SB was not directly created by the Constitution but by law pursuant to a constitutional mandate.

Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

(1) This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Court’s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines).
(2) A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist.
(3) Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. a direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
(4) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it.

Doctrine of Non-interference or Doctrine of Judicial Stability

(1) Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.
(2) This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter.

II. JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction – the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case.

Jurisdiction over the Parties

(1) The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant
(2) Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the complaint or petition. By doing so, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
(3) Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either by a valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary submission to the court’s authority.
(4) The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant applies to both ordinary and special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful detainer cases.

How jurisdiction over plaintiff is acquired

(1) Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing of the complaint. This presupposes payment of the docket fees

How jurisdiction over defendant is acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in personam; it is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case, while in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided the latter has jurisdiction over the res.

(1) By voluntary appearance of the defendant, without service of summons or despite a defective service of summons. The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.
(2) Instances when appearance of defendant is not tantamount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court: (a) when defendant files the necessary pleading; (b) when defendant files motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default; (c) when defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default; (d) when the parties jointly submit a compromise agreement for approval of the court; (e) when defendant files an answer to the contempt charge; (f) when defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the court’s jurisdiction over his person.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

(1) It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and means not simply jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs. It is the power or authority to hear and determine cases to which the proceeding is question belongs.
(2) When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso facto are to be immediately resolved by the court on its own: (a) What is the subject matter of their complaint filed before the court? (b) Does the court have jurisdiction over the said subject matter of the complaint before it? Answering these questions inevitably requires looking into the applicable laws conferring jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction versus exercise of jurisdiction

(1) Jurisdiction if the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power or authority is the exercise of jurisdiction.

Error of jurisdiction vs. error of judgment

(1) An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs when the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law, or when the court or tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or jurisdiction.
(2) An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings.
(3) Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction are correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.
(4) When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.

How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

(1) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred by law. This jurisdiction which is a matter of substantive law should be construed to refer only to jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the parties, the issues and the res are matters of procedure. The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong.
(2) It is the duty of the court to consider the question of jurisdiction before it looks at other matters involved in the case. If the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to render a decision in a case properly submitted to it. It cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction. Failure to do so may be enforced by way of mandamus proceeding.

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

(1) Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially 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.
(2) The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court (Omictin vs. CA, GR 148004, January 22, 2007).

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction / continuity of jurisdiction

(1) In view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
(2) Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

Objection to jurisdiction over the subject matter

(1) When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the same. (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction.
(2) Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is common reason that the court cannot remand the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction. Its only power is to dismiss and not to make any other order.
(3) Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss shall include all grounds then available and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense not barred by the failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion to dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party may, when he files an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is not barred under te omnibus motion rule.

Effect of estoppel on objection to jurisdiction

(1) The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition of that court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the court’s jurisdiction. Jurisprudence however, did not intend this statement to lay down the general rule. (Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp. v. Estita, 449 SCRA 240; Mangaiag v. Catubig-Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). The Sibonghanoy applies only to exceptional circumstances. The general rule remains: a court’s lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal (Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424; Concepcion v. Regalado, GR 167988, Feb. 6, 2007).
(2) The doctrine of estoppels by laches in relation to objections to jurisdiction first appeared in the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, where the SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings. This doctrine is based upon grounds of public policy and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
(3) The SC frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one’s case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (BPI v. ALS Mgt. & Devt. Corp., 427 SCRA 564).

Jurisdiction over the issues

(1) It is the power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the pleadings of the parties.
(2) An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision. Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.
(3) Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings present the issues to be tried and determine whether or not the issues are of fact or law.
(4) Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and conferred by stipulation of the parties as when in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulations of facts and documents or enter into agreement simplifying the issues of the case.
(5) It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here the parties try with their express or implied consent issues not raised by the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.

Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation

(1) Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action. Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the court by placing the property of thing under its custody (custodia legis). Example: attachment of property. It may also be acquired by the court through statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the property or thing within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Example: suits involving the status of the parties or suits involving the property in the Philippines of non-resident defendants.
(2) Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by the seizure of the thing under legal process whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or it may result from the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the power of the court over the thing is recognized and made effective (Banco Español Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291).

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the CA, COMELEC, COA, CTA, Sandiganbayan, NLRC
(2) Concurrent original jurisdiction
(a) With Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Quasi-judicial agencies, and writ of kalikasan, all subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
(b) With the CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto, and writs of habeas corpus, all subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
(c) With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
(d) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls.
(3) Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under Rule 45) against CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure questions of law; and in cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court; and CTA in its decisions rendered en banc.
(4) Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Supreme Court:
(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
(d) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(g) When the findings are contrary to the trial court;
(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; ad
(k) When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of the judgments of the RTC.
(2) Concurrent original jurisdiction
(a) With SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC, CBAA, other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43, and the NLRC, and writ of kalikasan.
(b) With the SC and RTC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and writs of quo warranto, habeas corpus, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases.
(c) With SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
(a) by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts.
(b) by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(c) by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC, CBAA and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
(d) over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction; this is because decisions of MTCs in these cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTCs.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (under RA 9282 and Rule 5, AM 05-11-07-CTA)

(1) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal
(a) Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR;
(b) Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR, where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;
(c) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
(d) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs (1) in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or (2) other matters arising under the Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws administered by BOC;
(e) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
(f) Decision of the secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
(g) Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-agricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping duties and counterveiling duties under Secs. 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under RA 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) Over all criminal cases arising from violation of the NIRC of the TCC and other laws, part of laws, or special laws administered by the BIR or the BOC where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less that P1M or where there is no specified amount claimed (the offenses or penalties shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate);
(b) In tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less than P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC.
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
(a) In criminal offenses (1) over appeals from the judgment, resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction, and (2) over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction;
(b) In tax collection cases (1) over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases originally decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction; and (2) over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

(1) Original jurisdiction in all cases involving
(a) Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
(b) Violations of RA 1379 (Anti-Ill-Gotten Wealth Act)
(c) Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC) where one or more of the principal accused are occupying the following positions in the government, whether in permanent, acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (RA 6758)
2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as G-27 and up under RA 6758
3. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
4. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under RA 6758
(d) Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Sec. 4(a) of RA 7975 as amended by RA 8249 in relation to their office
(e) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14-A (Sec. 4, RA 8249)
(2) Concurrent original jurisdiction with SC, CA and RTC for petitions for writs of habeas data and amparo

Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) matters incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as rescission of contract
(b) title to, possession of, or interest in, real property with assessed value exceeding P20,000 (outside Metro Manila), or exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila
(c) probate proceedings where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM
(d) admiralty or maritime cases where the demand or claim exceeds P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM
(e) other actions involving property valued at more than P300,000 outside MM or more than P400,000 in MM
(f) criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
(2) Original exclusive jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
(3) Original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide intra-corporate controversies:
(a) Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the SEC
(b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation , partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity
(c) Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations
(d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership of association possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership of association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.
(4) Concurrent and original jurisdiction
(a) with the Supreme Court in actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
(b) with the SC and CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies in petitions for quo warranto, habeas corpus, and writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases
(c) with the SC, CA and Sandigabayan in petitions for writs of habeas data and amparo
(5) Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions
(6) Special jurisdiction over JDRC, agrarian and urban land reform cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of quasi-judicial agencies when so designated by the SC.

Jurisdiction of Family Courts

Under RA 8369, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases:
(1) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas corpus involving children
(2) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof
(3) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains
(4) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
(5) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of EO 209 (Family Code)
(6) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under PD 603, EO 56 (1986) and other related laws
(7) Petitions for the constitution of the family home
(8) In areas where there are no Family Courts, the above-enumerated cases shall be adjudicated by the RTC (RA 8369)

Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trail Courts/Municipal Trial Courts

(1) Criminal cases
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction
1. Summary proceedings for violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction, including traffic laws
2. offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of the kind, nature, value or amount thereof; provided however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof (Sec. 2, RA 7691).
(2) Civil actions
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction
1. civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount the demand does not exceed P200,000 outside MM or does not exceed P400,000 in MM, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
2. Summary proceedings of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, violation of rental law
3. title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside MM or does not exceed P50,000 in MM
(3) Special jurisdiction over petition for writ of habeas corpus and application for bail if the RTC Judge in area is not available
(4) Delegated jurisdiction to hear and decide cadastral and land registration cases where there is no controversy provided the value of the lad to be ascertained by the claimant does not exceed P100,000

Jurisdiction over small claims

(1) MTCs, MeTCs and MCTCs shall have jurisdiction over actions for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed P100,000 exclusive of interest and costs (Sec. 2, AM 08-8-7-SC, Oct. 27, 2009).
(2) Actions covered are (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is soley for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 4, AM 08-8-7-SC). These claims may be:
(a) For money owed under the contracts of lease, loan, services, sale, or mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from fault or negligence, quasi-contract, or contract; and
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money claim pursuant to Sec. 417 of RA 7160 (LGC).

Cases covered by Rules on Summary Procedure (Sec. 1, RSP)

(1) Civil Cases
(a) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed P20,000;
(b) All other cases, except probate proceedings where the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not exceed P100,000 (outside MM) or P200,000 (in MM), exclusive of interest and costs.
(2) Criminal Cases
(a) Violations of traffic law, rules and regulations;
(b) Violation of the rental law;
(c) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed is imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or fine not exceedint P1,000, or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom, provided, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, RSP shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.
(3) SRP does not apply to a civil case where the plaintiff’s cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure.

Cases covered by the Rules on Barangay Conciliation

(1) The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same municipality or city for amicable settlement of all disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding P5,000
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice
(h) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical entities. The reason is that only individuals shall be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents
(i) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically:
1. A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention
2. A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf
3. Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin and support pendente lite
4. Where the action may be barred by statute of limitations
(j) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relationship
(k) Where the dispute arises from the CARL
(l) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can be directly filed in court.

Totality Rule

(1) Where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the claims of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions (Sec. 33[1], BP 129).


III. ACTIONS

Action (synonymous with “suit”) is the legal and formal demand of one’s right from another person made and insisted upon in a court of justice (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary). The kinds of actions are ordinary and special, civil and criminal, ex contractu and ex delicto, penal and remedial, real, personal, and mixed action, action in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem,

Ordinary Civil Actions, Special Civil Actions, Criminal Actions

(1) Ordinary civil action is one by which one party sues another, based on a cause of action, to enforce or protect a right, or to prevent or redress a wrong, whereby the defendant has performed an act or omitted to do an act in violation of the rights of the plaintiff. (Sec. 3a) The purpose is primarily compensatory.
(2) Special civil action is also one by which one party sues another to enforce or protect a right, or to prevent or redress a wrong.
(3) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law (Sec. 3[b], Rule 1). The purpose is primarily punishment.


Civil Actions versus Special Proceedings
(1) The purpose of an action is either to protect a right or prevent or redress a wrong. The purpose of special proceeding is to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.

Personal Actions and Real Actions

(1) An action is real when it affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein. All other actions are personal actions.
(2) An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real estate, which means that the realty or an interest therein is the subject matter of the action. The issues involved in real actions are title to, ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage or condemnation of real property.
(3) Not every action involving real property is a real action because the realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of the suit. Example is an action for damages to real property, while involving realty is a personal action because although it involves real property, it does not involve any of the issues mentioned.
(4) Real actions are based on the privity of real estates; while personal actions are based on privity of contracts or for the recovery of sums of money.
(5) The distinction between real action and personal action is important for the purpose of determining the venue of the action. A real action is “local”, which means that its venue depends upon the location of the property involved in the litigation. A personal action is “transitory”, which means that its venue depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff.

Local and Transitory Actions

(1) A local action is one founded on privity of estates only and there is no privity of contracts. A real action is a local action, its venue depends upon the location of the property involved in litigation. “Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof is situated” (Sec. 1, Rule 4).
(2) Transitory action is one founded on privity of contracts between the parties. A personal action is transitory, its venue depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff. A personal action “may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff” (Sec. 2, Rule 4).

Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem

(1) An action in rem, one instituted and enforced against the whole world.
(2) An action in personam is one filed against a definite defendant. It is intended to subject the interest of defendant on a property to an obligation or lien. Jurisdiction over the person (defendant) is required. It is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person, and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose is to impose through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. No other than the defendant is liable, not the whole world, as in an action for a sum of money or an action for damages.
(3) An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. An individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. It deals with status, ownership or liability or a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition, action for accounting, attachment, foreclosure of mortgage.
(4) An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor is a real action necessarily an action in rem. An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of actions according to foundation. For instance, an action to recover, title to or possession of real property is a real action, but it is an action in personam, not brought against the whole world but against the person upon whom the claim is made.
(5) The distinction is important to determine whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required and consequently to determine the type of summons to be employed. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case against said defendant where the action is one in personam but not where the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
(6) SC sums up the basic rules in Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, GR 161417, February 8, 2007:

The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action – whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14 likewise apply according to the nature of the action.

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. And action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.

Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.


IV. CAUSE OF ACTION (Rule 2)

Meaning of Cause of Action

(1) A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party (defendant) violates the rights of another (plaintiff).
(2) It is the delict or wrong by which the defendant violates the right or rights of the plaintiff (Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios, 76 Phil. 666).
(3) The elements are:
(a) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
(b) An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(c) Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.

Right of Action versus Cause of Action

(1) A cause of action refers to the delict or wrong committed by the defendants, whereas right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute the action;
(2) A cause of action is determined by the pleadings; whereas a right of action is determined by the substantive law;
(3) A right of action may be taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, by estoppels or other circumstances which do not at all affect the cause of action (Marquez v. Varela, 92 Phil. 373).

Failure to State Cause of Action

(1) The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a complaint to prosper. Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the complaint or the pleading asserting the claim “states no cause of action”. This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be stated or alleged in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action required by substantive law must clearly appear from the mere reading of the complaint. To avoid an early dismissal of the complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is: “If you have a cause of action, then by all means, state it!” Where there is a defect or an insufficiency in the statement of the cause of action, a complaint may be dismissed not because of an absence or a lack of cause of action by because the complaint states no cause of action. The dismissal will therefore, be anchored on a “failure to state a cause of action”.
(2) It doesn’t mean that the plaintiff has no cause of action. It only means that the plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient for the court to know that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by the defendant. Thus, even if indeed the plaintiff suffered injury, if the same is not set forth in the complaint, the pleading will state no cause of action even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.

Test of the Sufficiency of a Cause of Action

(1) The test is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. vs. David, 468 SCRA 63; Santos v. de Leon, 470 SCRA 455).
(2) To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other matter aliunde are not considered but the court may consider in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records (Zepeda v. China Banking Corp., GR 172175, Oct. 9, 2006).
(3) In determining whether or not a cause of action is sufficiently stated in the complaint, the statements in the complaint may be properly considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or to hold preliminary hearings to determine its existence (Diaz v. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302). The sufficiency of the statement of the COA must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence may be determined only by the allegations of the complaint, consideration of other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances not being allowed (Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Roxas, 335 SCRA 540).

Splitting a Single Cause of Action and Its Effects

(1) It is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part the subject of a separate complaint (Bachrach vs. Icaringal, 68 SCRA 287). In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate action (Quadra vs. CA, GR 147593, July 31, 2006). This practice is not allowed by the Rules because it breeds multiplicity of suits, clogs the court dockets, leads to vexatious litigation, operates as an instrument of harassment, and generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.
(2) The filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of the other or others and a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a bar to, or a ground for dismissal of, the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2; Bacolod City vs. San Miguel, Inc., L-2513, Oct. 30, 1969). The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss. Hence, if the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on litis pendencia, there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. If a final judgment had been rendered in the first action when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on res judicata, that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment. As to which action should be dismissed would depend upon judicial discretion and the prevailing circumstances of the case.

Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Actions (Secs. 5 and 6, Rule 2)

(1) Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone (Sec. 5, Rule 2). It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the cause of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction (totality rule).
(2) Restrictions on joinder of causes of action are: jurisdiction, venue, and joinder of parties. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules.
(3) When there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the erroneously joined cause of action can be severed or separated from the other cause of action upon motion by a party or upon the court’s own initiative. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of the case.