Civ Pro 1

[Type text]

CIVIL PROCEDURE rules and rulings or doctrines| 1

CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. Objectives of, and power to promulgate, rules of pleading, practice and procedure

1. CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5)

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(5) 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 under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy 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.

2. Shioji v. Harvey, G.R. No. L-18940, April27, 1922, 43 Phil. 333 (1922) - Rules of court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law,

if not in conflict with positive law. The rule is subordinate to the statute, and, in case of conflict, the statute will prevail. The court is given the power to make

all necessary rules for orderly procedure in the court, and for regulating the conduct of business in the court. Within this language would be included

regulations having to do with the preparation and filing of briefs. The law also provides that such rules shall be binding and must be observed.

B. General provisions

1. Rule 1

Section 1. Title of the Rules.

These Rules shall be known and cited as the Rules of Court. Sec. 2. In what courts applicable. These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. Sec. 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings. (a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. (b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law. (c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Sec. 4. In what cases not applicable. These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. Sec. 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. Sec. 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

________________________________________

Under Prof. Dan Calica

Doctrines: Bayad-Briones-Cabral-Cerilles-Dizon-Gamboa-Herrera-

Kua-Fernan-Flores-Lim-Mangawang-Poblador-Puno-Tayao-Tiu-

Rodriguez-Yu Digest Group

Compiled: Tayao Flores

[Type text]


2. Alonso v. Villamor, G.R. No. 2352, July 26, 1910, 16 Phil 315 (1910)

1. The property sued for was, at the time it was taken by the defendants, the property of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the seizure of the

same and occupation of the church and its appurtenances by the defendants were wrongful and illegal. The conclusions of the court below as to the value of

the articles taken by the defendants and of the rent of the church for the time of its illegal occupation by the defendants were also correct and proper.

a. The Roman Catholic Church against the municipality of Placer (September 23, 1908): Court ruled that the property belonged to the Roman Catholic Church.

b. Barlin v Ramirez, Municipality of Ponce v Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in Porto Rico 2. It is undoubted that the bishop of the diocese or the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church itself is the real party in interest. The plaintiff personally has

no interest in the cause of action. a. Sec. 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

3. This Court has full power, apart from that power and authority which is inherent, to amend the process, pleadings, proceedings, and decision in this case by substituting, as party plaintiff, the real party in interest. Not only are we confident that we may do so, but we are convinced that we should do so.

a. Sec. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Amendments in general. — The court shall, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms, if any, as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding and at any stage of the action, in either the Court of First Instance or the Supreme Court, by adding or striking out the name of any party, either plaintiff or defendant, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious, and inexpensive manner. The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other pleading to be made after the time limited by the rules of the court for filing the same. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.

b. Sec. 503: Judgment not to be reversed on technical grounds. — No judgment shall be reversed on formal or technical grounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced the real rights of the excepting party.

c. Such an amendment does not constitute a change in the identity of the parties. i. The plaintiff asserts in his complaint, and maintains that assertion all through the record, that he is engaged in the

prosecution of this case, not for himself, but for the bishop of the diocese—not by his own right, but by right of another. He seeks merely to do for the bishop what the bishop might do for himself. His own personality is not involved. His own rights are not presented. He claims no interest whatever in the litigation. He seeks only the welfare of the great church whose servant he is. Gladly permits his identity to be wholly swallowed up in that of his superior.

d. Formal substitution - Substitution so as to make the form express the substance i. No one is deceived for an instant as to whose interest are at stake. The form of its expression is alone defective. ii. Form is a method of speech used to express substance and make it clearly appear. It is the means by which the substance

reveals itself. If the form be faulty and still the substance shows plainly through no, harm can come by making the form accurately expressive of the substance.

e. No one has been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff. If we should by reason of this error send this back for amendment and new trial, there would be on the retrial the same complaint, the same answer, the same defense, the same interests, the same witnesses, and the same evidence. The name of the plaintiff would constitute the only difference between the old trial and the new. In our judgment there is not enough in a name to justify such action.

f. There is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. They were created, not to hinder and delay, but to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. The error in this case is purely technical. To take advantage of it for other purposes than to cure it, does not appeal to a fair sense of justice. Technicality, when it desserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities. No litigant should be permitted to challenge a record of a court of these Islands for defect of form when his substantial rights have not been prejudiced thereby.

3. GALDO v ROSETE and ROA - Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities” (Alonso v Villamor). 1. Notice of appeal, cash bond, and motion for extension of time were all filed within reglementary period. Attendant circumstances do not warrant such a

cavalier disapproval of such record on appeal and consequent denial of his appeal.

a. earnest effort to finish typewritten record himself

b. substantial compliance when submitted to opposing counsel on 05 May afternoon (see Teehankee, concurring opinion)

c. Judge’s contention that there were 2 court stenographers working on time until late that night does not conserve consideration because it is not

just any employee in lower court who can properly receive pleadings, but it is the receiving or docket clerk or deputy clerk of court particularly assigned to

receive pleadings

2. Berkenkotter v CA set the mood for a more liberal construction of rules as mandated by S2 Rule 1 RoC “in order to promote their object and to assist

the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Furthermore, “litigations should, as much as possible,

be decided on merits and not on technicality” (Gregorio v CA).

[Type text]


C. Cause of Action

1. Rule 2

Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. — Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)

Section 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. (n)

Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. (3a)

Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a

judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a)

Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have

against an opposing party, 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 or actions governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial

Court 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 action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)

Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on

motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)

2. Rule 1, Section 5 - Commencement of action - A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is

impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion

for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.

3. Felipe v. Leuterio, G.R. No. L-4606, May 30, 1952, 91 Phil. 482 (1952) - No rights to the prizes may be asserted by the contestants, because their's was merely the privilege to compete for the prize, and that privilege did not ripen into a demandable right unless and until they were proclaimed winners of the competition by the appointed arbiters or referees or judges. Granting that Imperial suffered some loss or injury, yet in law there are instances of "damnum absque injuria". This is one of them. If fraud or malice had been proven, it would be a different proposition. But then her action should be directed against the individual judge or judges who fraudulently or maliciously injured her. Not against the other judges. The judiciary has no power to reverse the award of the board of judges of an oratorical contest. For that matter it would not interfere in literary contests, beauty contests and similar competitions

4. Sagrada Orden de Precadores del Santisimo Rosario de Filipinas v. National Coconut Corporation, G.R. No. L-3756, June 30, 1952, 91 Phil. 503

(1952) - To be held liable, the obligation must arise from any of the four sources of obligations, namely, law, contract or quasi-contract, crime, or negligence.

Defendant-appellant is not guilty of any offense at all, because it entered the premises and occupied it with the permission of the entity which had the legal

control and administration thereof, the Alien Property Administration. Neither was there any negligence on its part. There was also no privity between the

Alien Property Custodian and the Taiwan Tekkosho, which had secured the possession of the property from the plaintiff-appellee by the use of duress, such

that the Alien Property Custodian or its permittee (defendant-appellant) may be held responsible for the supposed illegality of the occupation of the property

by the said Taiwan Tekkosho. The Alien Property Administration had the control and administration of the property not as successor to the interests of the

enemy holder of the title, the Taiwan Tekkosho. Neither is it a trustee of the former owner, the plaintiff-appellee herein, but a trustee of then Government of

the United States, in its own right, to the exclusion of, and against the claim or title of, the enemy owner. From August, 1946, when defendant-appellant took

possession, to the late of judgment on February 28, 1948, Alien Property Administration had the absolute control of the property as trustee of the

Government of the United States, with power to dispose of it by sale or otherwise, as though it were the absolute owner. Therefore, even if

defendantappellant were liable to the Alien Property Administration for rentals, these would not accrue to the benefit of the plaintiff-appellee, the owner, but

to the United States Government.

5. Ma-ao Sugar.Central Co. v. Barrios, G.R. No. L-1539, December 3, 1947, 79 Phil. 666 (1947) - A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

[Type text]


6. Danfoss, Inc. v. Continental Cement Corporation, G.R. No. 143788, September 9, 2005, 469 SCRA 505 (2005) - In order to sustain a dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action, the insufficiency must appear on the face of the complaint. And the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment thereon in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. For this purpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.7

7. CEROFERR REALTY CORP. v CA and Ernesto SANTIAGO

1. Rules of procedure require that a complaint must make a concise statement of the ultimate facts or essential facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of

action. Ceroferr’s cause of action is sufficiently averred.

a. The 3 indispensable elements of a complaint that validly states a cause of action are present:

a. a right in favour 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. an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of obligation to plaintiff for which the latter

may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

2. TEST OF SUFFICIENCY; FACTS IN COMPLAINT; CAUSE OF ACTION.—whether or not admitting facts alleged the court can render a valid judgment

upon the same in accordance with prayer thereof; extends to relevant and material facts well pleaded in complaint as well as inferences fairly deducible

therefrom. If allegation in complaint furnish sufficient basis by which complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of defense

that may be assessed by the defendants.

a. A defendant who moves to dismiss the complaint on ground of lack of cause of action, as in this case, hypotethically admits all averments in

it

b. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaing the statement of cause of action inadequate

3. Jurisdiction over subject matter is determined by allegations of the complaint and cannot be made to depend on the defenses set up in answer or

pleadings filed by defendant.

a. The party raising such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions and he only

objects to jurisdiction because the judgment or order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.

i. Santiago may be considered estopped for he took an active part in the case by hiring geodetic engineers who were present

during first and second surveys that the LRA conducted. It was only when the second survey report showed adverse results that he submitted motion to

dismiss.

b. Issue over vacant lot can be best be resolved by RTC in exercise of general jurisdiction. After land has been originally registered, the Court

of Land Registration ceases to have jurisdiction over contests concerning the location of boundary lines.

8. Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Aquino, G.R. No. 167691, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 263 (2008) - Elements of COA: 1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. In determining the presence of these elements, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked for, such that the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, would justify the relief sought. Only ultimate facts, not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts are considered for purposes of applying the test. Respondent stated a cause of action for damages - respondent was in possession of the property supplied with electricity by petitioner when the electric service was disconnected. This resulted in the alleged injury complained of which can be threshed out in a trial on the merits. Whether one is a party or not in a contract is not determinative of the existence of a cause of action. Participation in a contract is not an element in considering whether or not a complaint states a cause of action because even a third party outside the contract can have a cause of action against either or both contracting parties. (Side issue) BUT, respondent’s appeal should still be dismissed for having been filed out of time. Petitioner insisted that respondent mailed a copy of her motion for reconsideration (with notice of hearing) to its (petitioner's) counsel only on January 5, 2004, although the motion was already scheduled for hearing on January 9, 2004. Respondent should have foreseen that the registered mail, which originated from Naga City, would not be able to reach the law office of petitioner's counsel in Manila at least 3 days before said date. As expected, the mail did not reach petitioner's counsel on time. In fact, he received it only on the day of the hearing itself. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was fatally flawed for failure to comply with the 3-day rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. It did not toll the reglementary period for respondent to appeal the RTC's decision. Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides: Sec. 4. Hearing of Motion. - Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

[Type text]


9. Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169558, September 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 1 (2008) - . A complaint states

a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it

arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such

defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for

recovery of damages.[17]

These elements are present in the case at bar. Private respondents have sufficiently alleged in their complaint that (1) they are entitled to the subject

benefits under Rep. Act No. 6758; (2) petitioner is bound by said law to pay the subject benefits; and (3) petitioner has refused to pay said benefits.

Although the complaint is labeled as an action for specific performance thereby giving the impression that it is based on contract, the allegations

therein reveal that the action is based on law, i.e., Rep. Act No. 6758. A cause of action is determined from the allegations of a complaint, not

from its caption.

D. Uniform Procedure

1. Rule 5

Section 1. Uniform procedure. — The procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular

provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. (n)

Section 2. Meaning of terms. — The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in

Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. (1a)

Procedure In Regional Trial Courts

2. Rule 1, Section 4 - In what cases not applicable. - These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and

insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.

A. General concepts

1. CONST., Art. VIII, Sees. 1 & 2

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to

determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality

of the Government.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme

Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

2. Decano v. Edu, G.R. No. L-30070, August 29, 1980, 99 SCRA 410 (1980) – Where the issue is the correctness of a national official's decision, the provincial courts of first instance have equal jurisdiction with the Manila courts to review decisions of national officials, as otherwise litigants of ted means would practically be denied access to the courts of the localities where the reside and where the questioned acts are sought to be enforced.

3. Manila Railroad Company v. Attorney General, G.R. No. 6287, December 1, 1911,20 Phil. 406 (1911) - Venue is not jurisdictional as to subject matter and that defendant's rights in respect thereto are such that they may be waived, expressly or by implication

4. TIJAM v SIBONGHANOY - SC affirmed CA. Surety is liable for failure to satisfy judgment against defendant despite demand. Surety is now barred by

laches from invoking this plea at this late hour for the purpose of annuling everything done heretofore in the case with its active participation. A party can not

invoke the jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that

same jurisdiction.

[Type text]


● Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. ● The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. 5. Union Glass & Container Corporation v. SEC, G.R. No. L-64013, November 28, 1983, 126 SCRA 31 (1983) - In order that the SEC can take cognizance of a case, the controversy must pertain to any of the following relationships: [a] between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; [b] between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers; [c] between the corporation, partnership or association and the state in so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and [d] among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves. While the Rules of Court, which applies suppletorily to proceedings before the SEC, allows the joinder of causes of action in one complaint, such procedure however is subject to the rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties. Since Union Glass has no intra-corporate relationship with Hofileña, it cannot be joined as party-defendant in said case as to do so would violate the rule on jurisdiction. Hofileña's complaint against Union Glass for cancellation of the sale of the glass plant should therefore be brought separately before the regular court. Such action, if instituted, shall be suspended to await the final outcome of the SEC case, for the issue of the validity of the dacion en pago posed in the SEC case is a prejudicial question, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the action against Union Glass. Thus, Hofileña's complaint against the latter can only prosper if final judgment is rendered in SEC Case No. 2035, annulling the dacion en Pago executed in favor of the DBP. The jurisdiction of the SEC is delineated, by Sec 5 of PD 902-A: SEC. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative function of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and devices, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving: a) Devices and schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partners, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or the stockholders partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission; 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. It is in aid of this office that the adjudicative power of the SEC must be exercised. Thus the law explicitly specified and delimited its jurisdiction to matters intrinsically connected with the regulation of corporations, partnerships and associations and those dealing with the internal affairs of such corporations, partnerships or associations.

6. Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 63 (2008) - Issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the judicial process.

Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that of Tijam v.

Sibonghanoy.

7. Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96283, February 25, 1992, 206 SCRA 545 (1992) - : Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court will lie only where a grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the voluntary arbitrator is clearly shown. For "the writ of certiorari is an extra-ordinary remedy and that certiorari jurisdiction is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. In a special civil action of certiorari, the Court will not engage in a review of the facts found nor even of the law as interpreted or applied by the arbitrator unless the supposed errors of fact or of law are so patent and gross and prejudicial as to amount to a grave abuse of discretion or an exces de pouvoir on the part of the arbitrator."

8. Manchester Development Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75919, May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA 562 (1987) - The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading.

9. SUN INSURANCE, PHILLIPS, WARBY v ASUNCION, MANUEL UY PO TIONG - The principle of Manchester applies in this case but, though there may have been a similar pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due it is obvious not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the second amended complaint, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for because Uy Po Tiong demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required. The SC rules as follows:

[Type text]


● It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with

jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the

court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

○ Also applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the

filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.

● Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but,

subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has ben left for determination by the court, the additional

filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien

and assess and collect the additional fee.

10. Lopez v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 106973, June 17, 1993, 223 SCRA 469 ( 1993) - Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint and is not made to depend upon the allegations in the answer or in the motion to dismiss. Jurisdiction continues until the case is finally terminated. And while jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case may be raised at any stage of the proceedings as the same is conferred by law, it is nevertheless settled that a party may be barred from raising it on the ground of laches or estoppel It is certain that private respondent participated in the said case by presenting and offering its evidence, and advanced no objection to the trial court's order requiring the parties to submit their evidence within thirty (30) days from 15 January 1992 and declaring the case submitted for decision upon the lapse of the said thirty (30) days period on 14 February 1992 In view of the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 16174 and Our resolution in G.R. No. 91393 (referring to the first Motion to dismiss cases), the RTC had at least prima facie jurisdiction over the case and, therefore, the rendition of judgment therein was undeniably within its authority. The case of Santos vs. Northwest Orient Airlines cannot be invoked to peremptorily oust the trial court of jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 88-1014. For one, there is no indubitable showing that indeed, the factual antecedents in Santos are substantially the same as those obtaining in this case. Also, the trial court should have seriously taken into consideration the earlier case of Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra, wherein this Court affirmed a decision of the appellant court awarding damages to the private respondent therein because PanAm invariably cancelled his plane ticket. We have ruled in a number of cases that posterior changes in the doctrine of this Court cannot retroactively be applied to nullify a prior final ruling in the same proceeding where the prior adjudication was had, whether the case should be civil or criminal in nature.

(1) 11. National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123215, February 2, 1999, 302 SCRA 522 (1999) - It is an action for recovery of

possession.

Petitioner NSC correctly argues that the action in this case is for the recovery of property rather than for specific performance and,

hence, the docket fee should be based on the value of the property sought to be recovered. It is similar to an action in which petitioner seeks the

execution of a deed of sale of a parcel of land in his favor. Such action has been held to be for the recovery of the real property and not for

specific performance since his primary objective is to regain the ownership and possession of the parcel of land.

(2) Yes, the lower court did acquire jurisdiction even if the docket fee paid was insufficient.

Private respondent Jacinto should pay docket fees based on the value of the shares of stock and the amount of damages he seeks to recover. Under

Rule 141, 7(a) of the Rules of Court as it stood at the time of the filing of the complaint against petitioner, docket fees for ordinary civil actions should be

based on the total sum claimed, exclusive of interest, or the stated value of the property in litigation.i[6 Thus, the docket fees should be computed on the

basis of the value of the property and the amount of related damages claimed, exclusive of interest. As we held in Tacay v. Regional Trial Court,ii[7 where

the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the property

and (b) the total amount of related damages sought. The Court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is

accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment

of the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in in the meantime. (General Rule)

(Exception) It does not follow, however, that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for failure of private respondent to pay the

correct amount of docket fees. Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the

plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. If the

plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the

latter case, the balance between the appropriate docket fees and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien on any award he may

obtain in his favor.

[Type text]


In the case at bar, petitioner NSC filed in 1990 a motion to dismiss but did not raise this point. Instead it based his motion on prescription. It is thus

clearly stopped from raising the issue. While the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of an action, nevertheless, the party raising

such question may be estopped if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions and he only objects to the courts

jurisdiction because the judgment or the order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.

12. Colarina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117439, February 25, 1999, 303 SCRA 647 (1999) - When an action involves real property the legal fees for the filing thereof shall be assessed on the basis of its value. While the payment of docket fees, like other procedural rules, may have been liberally construed in certain cases if only to secure a just and speedy disposition of every action and proceeding, it should not be ignored or belittled lest it scathes and prejudices the other party's substantive rights. The payment of the docket fee in the proper amount should be followed subject only to certain exceptions which should be strictly construed.

13. Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corp. v. Formaran, G.R. No. 175914, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 283 (2009) - An action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. Considering that respondent’s complaint is a real action, the Rule requires that "the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees."

14. HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING v KITAMURA

Dismissal of a case without prejudice signifies the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action

as though the dismissed action had not been commenced.

a. Hasegawa is truly not auhotized to act on behalf of Nippon in this case without authorization by company’s board of directors. Considering that Hasegawa

verified and certified the petition only on his behalf and not on behalf of the other petitioner, the petition has to be denied pursuant to Loquias v. Office of the

Ombudsman. Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter that demands strict observance of the Rules.

b. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus. The appropriate

recourse is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in the motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, to

elevate the entire case by appeal in due course.

2. Substantive aspect.—Only the first phase of judicial resolution of conflicts problems is an issue, i.e., jurisdiction. For a court to validly exercise its power to

adjudicate a controversy, it must have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the petitioner, over the defendant or the respondent, over the subject matter, over the

issues of the case and, in cases involving property, over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation.

a. 3 consecutive phases

i.Jurisdiction.—Where can or should litigation be initiated?

1. Whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state

ii. Choice of law.—Which law shall the court apply?

1. Whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties.

iii. Recognition and enforcement of judgments.—Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which establishes and organizes the court. It is given

only by law and in the manner prescribed by law. Movant must show that the court or tribunal cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law grants

it the power to adjudicate the claims.

c. Choice of law rule is inapplicable because the 3 principles below belong to the second phase and not the first since they determine which state’s law is to

be applied in resolving substantive issues of a conflicts problem.

i. Lex loci celebrationis.— “law of the place of the ceremony” or the law of the place where a contract is made. ii. lex contractus or lex loci contractus.—“law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed”; controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly. iii. State of the most significant relationship rule.—takes into account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved. d. Forum non conveniens does not apply either because it is not a proper basis of a motion to dismiss because S1 rule 16 RoC does not include it as a ground; RTC decision to assume jurisdiction is valid exercise of its sound discretion; and conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of defense i. Alternatives open to a foreign element brought before a court or administrative agency: i. dismiss the case; ii. assume jurisdiction and apply

internal law of the forum; iii. assume jurisdiction and take into account or apply the law of some other State or states

15. Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. v. Honorable Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, G.R. No. 142628, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 326 (2007) - B.P. 129: the rule on annulment of judgments was specifically provided in Section 9(2), which vested in the then Intermediate Appellate Court (now the CA) the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs. Sec. 9(3) of B.P. Blg. 129 also vested the CA with "exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution.

[Type text]


This is based on the doctrine of non-interference between concurrent and coordinate courts regarded as highly important in the administration of justice whereby the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. Significantly, B.P. 129 does not specifically provide for any power of the RTC to annul judgments of quasi-judicial bodies. But the ruling in BF Northwest Homeowners Association, Inc. v. IAC provided that despite the absence of any provision in B.P. 129, the RTC had the power to entertain petitions for annulment of judgments of inferior courts and administrative or quasi-judicial bodies of equal ranking. Hence, while it is true, as petitioners contend, that the RTC had the authority to annul final judgments, such authority pertained only to final judgments rendered by inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies of equal ranking with such inferior courts. Question now therefore is WON DARAB is such body. Answer is no. The DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure specifically provides for the manner of judicial review: Sec. 1. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Any decision, order, award or ruling by the Board or its Adjudicators on any agrarian dispute or on any matter… may be brought within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals by certiorari… Given that DARAB decisions are appealable to the CA, the inevitable conclusion is that the DARAB is a co-equal body with the RTC and its decisions are beyond the RTC's control. The CA was therefore correct in sustaining the RTC's dismissal of the petition for annulment of the DARAB Decision Next issue now is whether the petition for annulment of the DARAB judgment could be brought to the CA. As previously noted, Section 9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested in the CA the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments, but only those rendered by the RTCs. It does not expressly give the CA the power to annul judgments of quasi-judicial bodies. Although the grounds set forth in the petition for annulment of judgment are fraud and lack of jurisdiction, said petition cannot prosper for the simple reason that the decision sought to be annulled was not rendered by the RTC but by an administrative agency (HLU Arbiter and Office of the President), hence, not within the jurisdiction of the CA. There is no such remedy as annulment of judgment of the HLURB or the Office of the President.

Assuming arguendo that the annulment petition can be treated as a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the same should have been dismissed by the CA, because no error of judgment was imputed to the HLURB and the Office of the President (OP). Fraud and lack of jurisdiction are beyond the province of petitions under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as it covers only errors of judgment. the silence of B.P. 129 on the jurisdiction of the CA to annul judgments or final orders and resolutions of quasi-judicial bodies like the DARAB indicates its lack of such authority. Side issue: Further, petitioners are also asking the Court to take cognizance of their prayer for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, which they claim was not acted upon by the CA which they claim was not acted upon by the CA, citing the Court's action in Fortich v. Corona where the Court took cognizance of the petition previously filed with the CA due to compelling reasons. The Court is not persuaded to do so. Fortich is also a dispute on classification of land to either agricultural or industrial. DAR ruled it to be agricultural but OP reversed – industrial. Because of this, farmers went on a hunger strike so OP modified its decision declaring only a part of the subject lot industrial and part agricultural (so called Win/Win Resolution). A petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court was then filed with the Court In resolving the issue, the Court recognized the rule that the SC, CA and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. However, due to compelling reasons and in the interest of speedy justice, the Court resolved to take primary jurisdiction over the petition in the interest of speedy justice, after which the Court nullified the act of the OP in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already become final and executory, as it was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations. It must be stressed at this point that the Court, as a rule, will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. The Court finds no compelling circumstances in this case to warrant a relaxation of the foregoing rule. The Fortich case is not analogous with the present case such that the Court is not bound to abandon all rules, take primary jurisdiction, and resolve the merits of petitioners' application for a writ of prohibition. Example why not analogous: the OP's "Win/Win" Resolution in the Fortich case is a patently void judgment since it was evident that there was already an existing final and executory OP Decision dated March 29, 1996. In this case, the assailed DARAB Decision appears to be regular on its face, and for its alleged nullity to be resolved, the Court must delve into the records of the case in order to determine the validity of petitioners' argument of lack of due process, absent notice and hearing. Last issue: The question of whether the DARAB Decision dated October 5, 1995 is null and void and enforceable against petitioners for having been rendered without affording petitioners due process is a factual question. SC deems it appropriate to remand the case to CA to decide WON writ of prohibiton may issue since CA left this issue hanging in its previous resolution.

16. Fernando v. Vasquez, G.R. No. L-26417, January 30, 1970, 31 SCRA 288 ( 1970) - Only errors of jurisdiction are reviewable in a petition for certiorari;

that it will not lie where an appeal may be taken or is lost through petitioner's fault; and that moot questions are not decided by the SC.

17. Oroport Cargohandling Services, Inc. v. Phividec Industrial Authority, G.R. No. 166785, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 197 (2008) - While Sec. 3 of RA 8975 exempts urgent constitutional issues from the prohibition to issue injunctive relief, it does not follow that a claim of unlawful deprivation of property

[Type text]


involves such an issue in the same manner that a robbery victim unlawfully deprived of property cannot claim that his case involves a constitutional issue. RA 8975 is clear that it is not within the RTC's jurisdiction to issue an injunctive writ against the operation of a government infrastructure project.

18. Nocum and Philippine Daily Inquirer v. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 639 (2005) - It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action. RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case when the case was filed before it. From the allegations thereof, respondent's cause of action is for damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. RPC 360 provides that it is a Court of First Instance that is specifically designated to try a libel case.

VENUE vs JURISDICTION: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties.

In the case at bar, the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint that the article and the caricature were printed and first published in the City of Makati referred only to the question of venue and not jurisdiction. These additional allegations would neither confer jurisdiction on the RTC nor would respondent's failure to include the same in the original complaint divest the lower court of its jurisdiction over the case. Respondent's failure to allege these allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a party, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not properly laid.

In Laquian v. Baltazar, this Court construed the term 'jurisdiction in RPC 360 as referring to the place where actions for libel shall be filed or venue. The rules on venue in Article 360 as follows:1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published. 2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. 3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. 4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense.

We fully agree with the Court of Appeals when it ruled: We note that the amended complaint or amendment to the complaint was not intended to vest jurisdiction to the lower court, where originally it had none. The amendment was merely to establish the proper venue for the action. It is a well-established rule that venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions. Assuming that venue were properly laid in the court where the action was instituted, that would be procedural, not a jurisdictional impediment. In fact, in civil cases, venue may be waived. Consequently, by dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue, the lower court had jurisdiction over the case. Apparently, the herein petitioners recognized this jurisdiction by filing their answers to the complaint, albeit, questioning the propriety of venue, instead of a motion to dismiss. We so hold that dismissal of the complaint by the lower court was proper considering that the complaint, indeed, on its face, failed to allege neither the residence of the complainant nor the place where the libelous article was printed and first published. Nevertheless, before the finality of the dismissal, the same may still be amended as in fact the amended complaint was admitted, in view of the court a quo's jurisdiction, of which it was never divested. In so doing, the court acted properly and without any grave abuse of discretion.

CIVIL vs CRIMINAL-- It is elementary that objections to venue in civil actions arising from libel may be waived since they do not involve a question of jurisdiction. The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction. It is a procedural, not a jurisdictional, matter. It relates to the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court.It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial. In contrast, in criminal actions, it is fundamental that venue is jurisdictional it being an essential element of jurisdiction.

Petitioners' argument that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case because respondent failed to allege the place where the libelous articles were printed and first published would have been tenable if the case filed were a criminal case. The failure of the original complaint to contain such information would be fatal because this fact involves the issue of venue which goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This is not to be because the case before us is a civil action where venue is not jurisdictional.

19. CHAVEZ v CA - Article 360 in its original form provided that the venue of the criminal and civil actions for written defamations is the province wherein the libel was published, displayed or exhibited, regardless of the place where the same was written, printed or composed. Article 360 originally did not specify the public officers and the courts that may conduct the preliminary investigation of complaints for libel.

1. The rules on venue in article 360 may be restated thus:

a. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the

province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.

b. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually

resided at the time of the commission of the offense.

c. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of

First Instance of Manila.

d. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city

where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense

2. The Agbayani rule is quite clear that such place of printing and first publication stands as one of only two venues where a private person may file the complaint for libel, the other venue being the place of residence of the offended party at the time the offense was committed.

[Type text]


20. Cuartero v. Court of Appeals - A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant therein, the same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever judgment might be secured in said action by the attaching creditor against the defendant Davao Light and Power, Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals: . . . after an action is properly commenced — by filing of the complaint and the payment of all requisite docket and other fees — the plaintiff may apply and obtain a writ of preliminary attachment upon the fulfillment of the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may do so at any time, either before or after service of summons on the defendant (i.e. even before jurisdiction of the person of the defendants was acquired by court). . . It is incorrect to theorize that after an action or proceeding has been commenced and jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff has been vested in the Court, but before acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (either by service of summons or his voluntary submission to the Court's authority), nothing can be validly done by the plaintiff or the Court. It must be emphasized that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment practically involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should first be obtained. However, once the implementation commences, it is required that the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Therefore, it is required that when the proper officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, service of summons should be simultaneously made. In the Sievert case, jurisdiction over the person of defendant was not had at the time of the implementation of the writ that is why the writ was invalidated. Not in this case because here the writ and summons were simultaneously presented to private respondents. On WON hearing is required - Only requisites for the issuance of the writ are the affidavit and bond of the applicant. No notice to the adverse party or hearing of the application is required inasmuch as the time which the hearing will take could be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property before a writ of attachment issues. In such a case, a hearing would render nugatory the purpose of this provisional remedy hence no violation of private respondent’s right to due process in this case Lastly, The question as to whether a proper ground existed for the issuance of the writ is a question of fact the determination of which can only be had in appropriate proceedings conducted for the purpose.

B. Jurisdiction (subject matter) of the difference levels of courts in

civil cases

1. Supreme Court

a. CONST., Art. VIII, Secs. 1 & 2 Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

b. Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, Sec. 17 Section 17. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. — The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; and original and exclusive jurisdiction in petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Court of Appeals. In the following cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original and concurrent jurisdiction with Court of First Instance:

1. In petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus;

2. In actions between the Roman Catholic Church and the municipalities or towns, or the Filipino Independent Church for controversy as to title to, or ownership, administration or possession of hospitals, convents, cemeteries or other properties used in connection therewith;

3. In actions brought by the Government of the Philippines against the Roman Catholic Church or vice versa for the title to, or ownership of, hospitals, asylums, charitable institutions, or any other kind of property; and

4. In actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of law concerning monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.

[Type text]


The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, certiorari or writ of error, as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgment and decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in —

(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question;

(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;

(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue;

(4) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those involving other offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion, as that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of whether the accused are charged as principals, accomplices, or accessories, or whether they have been tried jointly or separately;

(5) All civil cases in which the value in controversy exceeds fifty thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs, or in which the title or possession of real estate exceeding in value the sum of fifty thousand pesos to be ascertained by the oath of a party to the cause or by other competent evidence, is involved or brought in question. The Supreme Court shall likewise have exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals in civil cases, even though the value in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, is fifty thousand pesos or less, when the evidence involved in said cases is the same as the evidence submitted in an appealed civil case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided herein;

(6) All other cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved.

c. Cruz vs Mijares - Doctrine: The SC’s jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus is not exclusive. It has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC’s and the CA. A regard of judicial hierarchy indicates that the petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against the RTC’s should be filed with the CA.

d. First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals - Jurisdiction of the SC. Art VI. Sec. 30 1987 Constitution. No law can be passed that increases the

appellate jurisdiction of the SC without its advise and concurrence.

2. Court of Appeals

a. BP 129. Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. (as amended) — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,

whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial

agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees

Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with

the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of

the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual

issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or

hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.

b. Re Cases Appealed from the People’s Court - When an appellate court is abolished and later restored, cases that would have rightfully been under its

jurisdiction should be certified to it

c. Aragon v. CA - Sec. 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, vests in the Court of Appeals

exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final decisions and orders of the Regional Trial Court. However, the aforestated provision of the said law only refers to

cases appealed to it from the Regional Trial Court from which the case originated. Like any other court, it is necessary that the Court of Appeals must have

jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, the issues and the res before it can validly decide any case submitted to it. Hence, it cannot acquire

appellate jurisdiction over any case not properly brought to it by the parties concerned.

3. Regional Trial Courts

[Type text]


a. BP 129. Section 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch. – The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of

the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes

of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised with a view

to making the courts readily accessible to the people of the different parts of the region and making the attendance of litigants and witnesses as inexpensive

as possible.

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.(as amended) – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property

involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)

except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro

Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or,

in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body

exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the

Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and

(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the

value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand

exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).

Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive

jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter

be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.

Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:

(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their

respective regions; and

(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.

Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire

record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial

Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to theCourt of Appeals which may give it due

course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the

decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.

Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. – The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle

exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-

judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of

justice.

[Type text]


RA 7691. Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such

jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the

abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).

Section 7. The provisions of this Act shall apply to all civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. However, by agreement of all the parties, civil

cases cognizable by municipal and metropolitan courts by the provisions of this Act may be transferred from the Regional Trial Courts to the latter. The

executive judge of the appropriate Regional Trial Courts shall define the administrative procedure of transferring the cases affected by the redefinition of

jurisdiction to the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

b. Admin. Circular 09-94. For the guidance of the bench and the Bar, the following guidelines are to be followed in the implementation of Republic Act No.

7691, entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the

Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Otherwise Known as the 'Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980":

1. The new jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil and

original cases, and in cadastral and land registration cases, under Section 19, 32, 33 and 34 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691. Was effective

on April 15, 1994, fifteen (15) days after the publication in the Malaya and in the Times Journal on March 30, 1994, pursuant to Section 8 of the R.A. No.

7691.

2. The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P.

Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action.

However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in

determining the jurisdiction of the court.

3. The criminal jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts under Section 32 (2) of B.P. Blg. 129,

as amended by R.A. No. 7691, has been increased to cover offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of

the fine. As a consequence, the Regional Trial Courts have no more original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation

to their office, where the offense is punishable by more than four (4) years and two (2) months up to six (6) years.

4. The provisions of Section 32 (2) of B.P. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691, apply only to offenses punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both, in

which cases the amount of the fine is disregarded in determining the jurisdiction of the court. However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a

fine, the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with the original provisions of Section 32 (2) of B.P. Blg. 129 which fixed

original exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over offenses punishable with a fine

of not more than four thousand pesos. If the amount of the fine exceeds four thousand pesos, the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction, including

offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, where the amount of the fine does not exceed six thousand pesos.

However, this rule does not apply to offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence which are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of

the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine.

c. Katon v. Palanca - Where prescription, lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a cause of action clearly appear from the complaint filed with the trial court,

the action may be dismissed motu proprio by the Court of Appeals, even if the case has been elevated for review on different grounds. Verily, the dismissal

of such cases appropriately ends useless litigations.

d. Encarnacion v. Amigo - Material element that determines the proper action to be filed for recovery of possession of the property is the length of time of

dispossession.

e. Radio Communications v. CA - It is settled that a breach of contract is a cause of action either for specific performance or rescission of contracts. In

Manufacturer’s Distributors, Inc. v. Siu Liong the Court held that actions for specific performance are incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore fall

under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court

f. Bokingo v. CA - The nature of the action and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the material allegation of

the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to

some or all the claims asserted therein. In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature

of the principal action or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of

pecuniary estimation, and the jurisdiction over the action will depend on the amount claimed.

g. Lu v. Lu Ym - A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only by payment of docket fees.

[Type text]


4. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

a. BP 129. Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. –

Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all 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 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. (as amended by R.A, No. 7691)

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over 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 of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro

Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest

damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are

several claims or causes of action 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 causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of

ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be

resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of

the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does

not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That

value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit

Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or

opposition, or contested lots the where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by

the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real

property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,

Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the

province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

b. Revised Rules on Summary Proceudre (too long)

c. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (too long)

d. Reyes v. Sta Maria - Unlawful detainer cases should be filed in the municipal court; and accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria cases with the CFI

e. Ortigas v. Herrera – Where the action involved is for specific performance and therefore, incapable of pecuniary estimation, the Courts of First Instance

properly has jurisdiction. On the other hand, where what is involved is a claim for a sum of money and capable of pecuniary estimation, the City Courts have

jurisdiction so long as the money claim does not exceed P10,000.

f. Ortigas v. CA - MTC has no jurisdiction over a suit for UD, which involves rights over the real property, other than mere right of possession.

g. Nera v. Vacante - A justice of peace court might make finding that there was violation of a contract on agreement to sell property but it cannot declare and

hold that the contract is resolved or rescided.

[Type text]


h. Villostas v. CA - When the petitioner, therefore, raised rescission of contract in her answer, the court is not divested of its jurisdiction over the case on

account of defenses raised by the answer. The court is then merely authorized to receive evidence thereon. Clearly, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be

made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss.

i. Vda. De Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi - First level courts have exclusive jurisdiction over accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria where the

assessed value of the real property does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000 if the action was filed in Manila.

5. Specialized Courts

a. Family Courts – RA 8369. Section 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. - The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide

the following cases:

a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9)

years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court

shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred.

The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth

Welfare Code";

b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;

c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital 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;

e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;

f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";

g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children;

the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56,

(Series of 1986), and other related laws;

h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;

i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;

j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as

amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and

k) Cases of domestic violence against:

1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and

other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and

2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial

to their development.

If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties.

If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in

that court.

i. A.M No. 02-11-10-SC (relevant) Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

b) Where to file. - The petition shal be filed in the Family Court.

[Type text]


ii. A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC (relevant) Legal Separation. (c) Venue. - The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where

the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing "or in The case of a non-resident

respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner.

iii. A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC (relevant) – Provisional Orders like support and hold departure orders incidental to above, jurisdiction of Family

Courts also.

iv. Madriñan v. Madriñan – The reasoning that by giving family courts exclusive jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, the lawmakers

intended them to be the sole courts which can issue writs of habeas corpus will result in an iniquitous situation, leaving individuals like

respondent without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children. Individuals who do not know the whereabouts of minors they are

looking for would be helpless since they cannot seek redress from family courts whose writs are enforceable only in their respective

territorial jurisdictions. Thus, if a minor is being transferred from one place to another, which seems to be the case here, the petitioner in a

habeas corpus case will be left without legal remedy. This lack of recourse could not have been the intention of the lawmakers when they

passed RA 8369. –from Thornton v. Thornton

v. Thornton v. Thornton – The SC and CA have concurrent jurisdiction with Family Courts in Habeas Corpus cases where the custody of

minors is involved

b. Commercial Courts – RA 8799.Section 5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A

is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its

authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over

pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code.

The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payment/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

i. A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC. INTERIM RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSIES. SEC. 5. Venue. – All

actions covered by these Rules shall be commenced and tried in the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the principal

office of the corporation, partnership, or association concerned. Where the principal office of the corporation, partnership or association

is registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission as Metro Manila, the action must be filed in the city or municipality where the

head office is located.

ii. A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC. Mode of Appeal in Cases Formerly Cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission. 1. All

decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure

Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799 shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition

for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

iii. Reyes v. RTC of Makati - Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the

complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. P.D. No. 902-A enumerates the

cases over which the SEC (now the RTC acting as a special commercial court) exercises exclusive jurisdiction. For a controversy to

fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC as a special commercial court, it must satisfy the requisites provided for by the law. The case

must be deemed a corporate one, and not a civil case. Specifically in this case, the RTC of Makati, acting as a special commercial

court, has no jurisdiction to settle, partition, and distribute the estate of a deceased.

c. Intellectual Property Courts – RA 8293 (too long)

i. A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC. RULE ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY RIGHTS. SEC. 3. Where application filed.— The application shall be filed with any of the Regional Trial Courts of the

judicial region designated to try violations of intellectual property rights stationed at the place where the alleged violation occurred or is

to occur, or the place to be searched, at the election of the applicant. Provided, however, that where the complaint for infringement has

already been filed, the application shall be made in the court where the case is pending.

ii. A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC. RE: CONSOLIDATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COURTS WITH COMMERCIAL COURTS.

1. The Regional Courts previously designated as SEC Courts through the: (a) Resolutions of this Court dated 21 November

2000, 4 July 2001, 12 November 2002, and 9 July 2002, all issued in A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC, (b) Resolution dated 27

August 2001 in A.M. No. 01-5-298-RTC; and (c) Resolution dated 8 July 2002 in A.M. No. 01-12-656-RTC are hereby

DESIGNATED and shall be CALLED as Special Commercial Courts to try and decide cases involving violations of

Intellectual Property Rights which fall within their jurisdiction and those cases formerly cognizable by the Securities and

Exchange Commission;

[Type text]


2. The designation of Intellectual Property Courts under Administrative Order No. 113-95 dated 2 October 1995, as amended

by Administrative Order No. 104-96 dated 21 October 1996 and Resolution dated 19 February 2002 in A.M. No. 02-1-11-

SC, is hereby revoked. However, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Manila is hereby designated as an additional Special

Commercial Court in the City of Manila;

3. Upon the effectivity of this Resolution, all IP cases shall be transferred to the designated Special Commercial Courts except

those which have undergone the pretrial stage in civil cases or those where any of the accused has been arraigned in

criminal cases which shall be retained by the court previously assigned to try them;

4. The Special Commercial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases arising within their respective territorial jurisdiction with

respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within the respective provinces with respect to the First to Twelfth

Judicial Regions. Thus, cases shall be filed in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special

Commercial Court;

5. In the event of inhibition of the judge of a designated Special Commercial Court, the following guidelines shall be observed:

(a) where there is only one (1) Special Commercial Court, the case shall be raffled among the other judges in the station;

(b) where there are two (2) Special Commercial Courts in the station, the Executive Judge shall immediately assign the

case to the other Special Commercial Court; and (c) in case of inhibition of both judges of the Special Commercial Courts,

the Executive Judge shall raffle the case among the judges in the station; and

6. In order to ensure a just and equitable distribution of cases, the designated Special Commercial Courts shall continue to

participate in the raffles of other cases. Provided, however, that the Executive Judge concerned shall adopt a procedure

whereby every IP and SEC case assigned to a Special Commercial Court should be considered a case raffled to it and duly

credited to such court.

6. Other Tribunals and Agencies

a. SEC – RA 8799 (no sec. 5.1 as specified in the syllabus only sec. 5.2 quoted above)

b. NLRC – Labor Code Arts 213-225

Article 213. National Labor Relations Commission. - There shall be a National Labor Relations Commission which shall be attached to the Department of Labor and Employment solely for program and policy coordination only, composed of a Chairman and twenty-three (23) Members.

Eight (8) members each shall be chosen only from among the nominees of the workers and employers organizations, respectively. The Chairman and the seven (7) remaining members shall come from the public sector, with the latter to be chosen preferably from among the incumbent Labor Arbiters.

Upon assumption into office, the members nominated by the workers and employers organizations shall divest themselves of any affiliation with or interest in the federation or association to which they belong.

The Commission may sit en banc or in eight (8) divisions, each composed of three (3) members. The Commission shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before any of its divisions and regional branches and formulating policies affecting its administration and operations. The Commission shall exercise its adjudicatory and all other powers, functions, and duties through its divisions. Of the eight (8) divisions, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth divisions shall handle cases coming from the National Capital Region and other parts of Luzon; and the seventh and eighth divisions, cases from the Visayas and Mindanao, respectively: Provided, That the Commission sitting en banc may, on temporary or emergency basis, allow cases within the jurisdiction of any division to be heard and decided by any other division whose docket allows the additional workload and such transfer will not expose litigants to unnecessary additional expenses. The divisions of the Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective territorial jurisdiction.

The concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or resolution. Whenever the required membership in a division is not complete and the concurrence of two (2) Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of additional Commissioners from the other divisions as may be necessary.

The conclusions of a division on any case submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion. It shall be mandatory for the division to meet for purposes of the consultation ordained therein. A certification to this effect signed by the Presiding Commissioner of the division shall be issued, and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties.

[Type text]


The Chairman shall be the Presiding Commissioner of the first division, and the seven (7) other members from the public sector shall be the Presiding Commissioners of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eight divisions, respectively. In case of the effective absence or incapacity of the Chairman, the Presiding Commissioner of the second division shall be the Acting Chairman.

The Chairman, aided by the Executive Clerk of the Commission, shall have administrative supervision over the Commission and its regional branches and all its personnel, including the Labor Arbiters.

The Commission, when sitting en banc, shall be assisted by the same Executive Clerk, and, when acting thru its Divisions, by said Executive Clerk for its first division and seven (7) other Deputy Executive Clerks for the second, third, fourth fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth divisions, respectively, in the performance of such similar or equivalent functions and duties as are discharged by the Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals.

The Commission and its eight (8) divisions shall be assisted by the Commission Attorneys in its appellate and adjudicatory functions whose term shall be coterminous with the Commissioners with whom they are assigned. The Commission Attorneys shall be members of the Philippine Bar with at least one (1) year experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations. They shall receive annual salaries and shall be entitled to the same allowances and benefits as those falling under Salary Grade twenty-six (SG 26). There shall be as many Commission Attorneys as may be necessary for the effective and efficient operations of the Commission but in no case more than three (3) assigned to the Office of the Chairman and each Commissioner.

No Labor Arbiter shall be assigned to perform the functions of the Commission Attorney nor detailed to the office of any Commissioner. (As amended by Section 1, Republic Act No. 9347 [July 27, 2006] and as previously amended by Republic Act No. 7700 and Section 5, Republic Act No. 6715).

Article 214. Headquarters, Branches and Provincial Extension Units. - The Commission and its first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth divisions shall have their main offices in Metropolitan Manila, and the seventh and eighth divisions in the cities of Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, respectively. The Commission shall establish as many regional branches as there are regional offices of the Department of Labor and Employment, sub-regional branches or provincial extension units. There shall be as many Labor Arbiters as may be necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the Commission. (As amended by Section 2, Republic Act No. 9347 [July 27, 2006] and previously amended by Section 6, Republic Act No. 6715 [March 21, 1989]).

Article 215. Appointment and Qualifications. – The Chairman and other Commissioners shall be members of the Philippine Bar and must have been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least fifteen (15) years, with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations, and shall preferably be residents of the region where they shall hold office. The Labor Arbiters shall likewise be members of the Philippine Bar and must have been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least ten (10) years, with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations.

The Chairman and the other Commissioners and the Labor Arbiters shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of sixty-five (65) years, unless sooner removed for cause as provided by law or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office; Provided, however, That the President of the Republic of the Philippines may extend the services of the Commissioners and Labor Arbiters up to the maximum age of seventy (70) years upon the recommendation of the Commission en banc.

The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners shall all be appointed by the President. Appointment to any vacancy in a specific division shall come only from the nominees of the sector which nominated the predecessor. The Labor Arbiters shall also be appointed by the President, upon recommendation of the Commission en banc to a specific arbitration branch, preferably in the region where they are residents, and shall be subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations: Provided, that the Labor Arbiters who are presently holding office in the region where they are residents shall be deemed appointed thereat.

The Chairman and the Commission, shall appoint the staff and employees of the Commission, and its regional branches as the needs of the service may require, subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and upgrade their current salaries, benefits and other emoluments in accordance with law. (As amended by Section 3, Republic Act No. 9347 [July 27, 2006] and as previously amended by Section 7, Republic Act No. 6715 [March 21, 1989]).

Article 216. Salaries, benefits and other emoluments. – The Chairman and members of the Commission shall have the same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to, and be entitled to the same allowances, retirement and benefits as, those of the Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, respectively. Labor Arbiters shall have the same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to and be entitled to the same allowances, retirement and other benefits and privileges as those of the judges of the regional trial courts. In no case, however, shall the provision of this Article result in the diminution of the existing salaries, allowances and benefits of the aforementioned officials. (As amended by Section 4, Republic Act No. 9347 [July 27, 2006] and as previously amended by Section 8, Republic Act No. 6715 [March 21, 1989]).

Article. 217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission. - (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

1. Unfair labor practice cases;

[Type text]


2. Termination disputes;

3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;

4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;

5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and

6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.

(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said agreements. (As amended by Section 9, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Article. 218. Powers of the Commission. - The Commission shall have the power and authority:

(a) To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before it and its regional branches, as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Code; (As amended by Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

(b) To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, statement of accounts, agreements, and others as may be material to a just determination of the matter under investigation, and to testify in any investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Code;chan robles virtual law library

(c) To conduct investigation for the determination of a question, matter or controversy within its jurisdiction, proceed to hear and determine the disputes in the absence of any party thereto who has been summoned or served with notice to appear, conduct its proceedings or any part thereof in public or in private, adjourn its hearings to any time and place, refer technical matters or accounts to an expert and to accept his report as evidence after hearing of the parties upon due notice, direct parties to be joined in or excluded from the proceedings, correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form, give all such directions as it may deem necessary or expedient in the determination of the dispute before it, and dismiss any matter or refrain from further hearing or from determining the dispute or part thereof, where it is trivial or where further proceedings by the Commission are not necessary or desirable; and

(d) To hold any person in contempt directly or indirectly and impose appropriate penalties therefor in accordance with law.

A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the Chairman or any member of the Commission or any Labor Arbiter as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward said officials, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn, or to answer as a witness or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt by said officials and punished by fine not exceeding five hundred pesos (P500) or imprisonment not exceeding five (5) days, or both, if it be the Commission, or a member thereof, or by a fine not exceeding one hundred pesos (P100) or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a Labor Arbiter.

The person adjudged in direct contempt by a Labor Arbiter may appeal to the Commission and the execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending the resolution of the appeal upon the filing by such person of a bond on condition that he will abide by and perform the judgment of the Commission should the appeal be decided against him. Judgment of the Commission on direct contempt is immediately executory and unappealable. Indirect contempt shall be dealt with by the Commission or Labor Arbiter in the manner prescribed under Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court; and (As amended by Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued except after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the Commission, to the effect:

[Type text]


(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof;

(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will follow;

(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief;

(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and

(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.

Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commission shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful acts have been threatened or committed, charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property: Provided, however, that if a complainant shall also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will be unavoidable, such a temporary restraining order may be issued upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon hearing after notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall become void at the expiration of said twenty (20) days. No such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on condition that complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the Commission sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the Commission.

The undertaking herein mentioned shall be understood to constitute an agreement entered into by the complainant and the surety upon which an order may be rendered in the same suit or proceeding against said complainant and surety, upon a hearing to assess damages, of which hearing, complainant and surety shall have reasonable notice, the said complainant and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission for that purpose. But nothing herein contained shall deprive any party having a claim or cause of action under or upon such undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary remedy by suit at law or in equity: Provided, further, That the reception of evidence for the application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such places as he may determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses and shall submit thereafter his recommendation to the Commission. (As amended by Section 10, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Article. 219. Ocular inspection. - The Chairman, any Commissioner, Labor Arbiter or their duly authorized representatives, may, at any time during working hours, conduct an ocular inspection on any establishment, building, ship or vessel, place or premises, including any work, material, implement, machinery, appliance or any object therein, and ask any employee, laborer, or any person, as the case may be, for any information or data concerning any matter or question relative to the object of the investigation.

[Article. 220. Compulsory arbitration. - The Commission or any Labor Arbiter shall have the power to ask the assistance of other government officials and qualified private citizens to act as compulsory arbitrators on cases referred to them and to fix and assess the fees of such compulsory arbitrators, taking into account the nature of the case, the time consumed in hearing the case, the professional standing of the arbitrators, the financial capacity of the parties, and the fees provided in the Rules of Court.] (Repealed by Section 16, Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981).

Article. 221. Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement. - In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. In any proceeding before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter, the parties may be represented by legal counsel but it shall be the duty of the Chairman, any Presiding Commissioner or Commissioner or any Labor Arbiter to exercise complete control of the proceedings at all stages.

Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the Labor Arbiter shall exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his jurisdiction on or before the first hearing. The same rule shall apply to the Commission in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. (As amended by Section 11, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Article. 222. Appearances and Fees. - (a) Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only:

1. If they represent themselves; or 2. If they represent their organization or members thereof.

(b) No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting union: Provided, However, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the

[Type text]


parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall be null and void. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1691, May 1, 1980).

Article. 223. Appeal. - Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:

(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter;

(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;

(c) If made purely on questions of law; and

(d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.

In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.

To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the Commission or the Labor Arbiter shall impose reasonable penalty, including fines or censures, upon the erring parties.

In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the other party who shall file an answer not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.

The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of the answer of the appellee. The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties.

Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission in the enforcement of decisions, awards or orders. (As amended by Section 12, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Article. 224. Execution of decisions, orders or awards. - (a) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or any Regional Director, the Commission or any Labor Arbiter, or Med-Arbiter or Voluntary Arbitrator may, motu proprio or on motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executory, requiring a sheriff or a duly deputized officer to execute or enforce final decisions, orders or awards of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or regional director, the Commission, the Labor Arbiter or med-arbiter, or voluntary arbitrators. In any case, it shall be the duty of the responsible officer to separately furnish immediately the counsels of record and the parties with copies of said decisions, orders or awards. Failure to comply with the duty prescribed herein shall subject such responsible officer to appropriate administrative sanctions. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(b) The Secretary of Labor and Employment, and the Chairman of the Commission may designate special sheriffs and take any measure under existing laws to ensure compliance with their decisions, orders or awards and those of the Labor Arbiters and voluntary arbitrators, including the imposition of administrative fines which shall not be less than P500.00 nor more than P10,000.00. (As amended by Section 13, Republic Act No. 6715, March 21, 1989).

Article. 225. Contempt powers of the Secretary of Labor. - In the exercise of his powers under this Code, the Secretary of Labor may hold any person in

direct or indirect contempt and impose the appropriate penalties therefor.

c. Insurance Commission – PD 612. Sec 414-416

Section 414. The Insurance Commissioner shall have the duty to see that all laws relating to insurance, insurance companies and other insurance matters, mutual benefit associations, and trusts for charitable uses are faithfully executed and to perform the duties imposed upon him by this Code, and shall, notwithstanding any existing laws to the contrary, have sole and exclusive authority to regulate the issuance and sale of variable contracts as defined in section two hundred thirty-two and to provide for the licensing of persons selling such contracts, and to issue such reasonable rules and regulations governing the same.

[Type text]


The Commissioner may issue such ruling, instructions, circulars, orders and decision as he may deem necessary to secure the enforcement of the provisions of this Code, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance. Except as otherwise specified, decisions made by the Commissioner shall be appealable to the Secretary of Finance.

Section 415. In addition to the administrative sanctions provided elsewhere in this Code, the Insurance Commissioner is hereby authorized, at his discretion, to impose upon the insurance companies, their directors and/or officers and/or agents, for any willful failure or refusal to comply with, or violation of any provision of this Code, or any order, instruction, regulation, or ruling of the Insurance Commissioner, or any commission or irregularities, and/or conducting business in an unsafe or unsound manner as may be determined by the Insurance Commissioner, the following:

(a) fines not in excess of five hundred pesos a day; and

(b) suspension, or after due hearing, removal of directors and/or officers and/or agents.

Section 416. The Commissioner shall have the power to adjudicate claims and complaints involving any loss, damage or liability for which in insurer may be answerable under any kind of policy or contract of insurance, or for which such insurer may be liable under a contract of suretyship, or for which a reinsurer may be sued under any contract of reinsurance it may have entered into; or for which a mutual benefit association may be held liable under the membership certificates it has issued to its members, where the amount of any such loss, damage or liability, excluding interest, cost and attorney's fees, being claimed or sued upon any kind of insurance, bond, reinsurance contract, or membership certificate does not exceed in any single claim one hundred thousand pesos.

The insurer or surety may, in the same action file a counterclaim against the insured or the obligee.

The insurer or surety may also file a cross-claim against a party for any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim therein.

With leave of the Commissioner, an insurer or surety may file a third-party complaint against its reinsurers for indemnification, contribution, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the transaction that is the subject matter of the original action filed with the Commissioner.

The party filing an action pursuant to the provisions of this section thereby submits his person to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the impleaded party or parties in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court.

The authority to adjudicate granted to the Commissioner under this section shall be concurrent with that of the civil courts, but the filing of a complaint with the Commissioner shall preclude the civil courts from taking cognizance of a suit involving the same subject matter.

Any decision, order or ruling rendered by the Commissioner after a hearing shall have the force and effect of a judgment. Any party may appeal from a final order, ruling or decision of the Commissioner by filing with the Commissioner within thirty days from receipt of copy of such order, ruling or decision a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court twelve printed or mimeographed copies of a petition for certiorari or review of such order, ruling or decision, as the case may be. A copy of the petition shall be served upon the Commissioner and upon the adverse party, and proof of service thereof attached to the original of the petition.

As soon as a decision, order or ruling has become final and executory, the Commissioner shall motu propio or on motion of the interested party, issue a writ of execution required the sheriff or the proper officer to whom it is directed to execute said decision, order or award, pursuant to Rule thirty-nine of the Rules of Court.

For the purpose of any proceeding under this section, the Commissioner, or any officer thereof designated by him, empowered to administer oaths and affirmation, subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, documents, or contracts or other records which are relevant or material to the inquiry. In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person, the Commissioner may invoke the aid of any court of first instance within the jurisdiction of which such proceeding is carried on, where such person resides or carries on his own business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, documents, contracts or other records. And such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the Commissioner, or officer designated by the Commissioner, there to produce records, if so ordered or to give testimony touching the matter in question. Any failure to obey such order of the court may be published by such court as a contempt thereof.

A full and complete record shall be kept of all proceedings had before the commissioner, or the officers thereof designated by him, and all testimony shall be taken down and transcribed by a stenographer appointed by the Commissioner.

A transcribed copy of the evidence and proceeding, or any specific part thereof, of any hearing taken by a stenographer appointed by the Commissioner, being certified by such stenographer to be a true and correct transcript of the testimony on this hearing of a particular witness, or of a specific proof thereof, carefully compared by him from his original notes, and to be a correct statement of evidence and proceeding had in such hearing so purporting to be taken

[Type text]


and subscribed, may be received as evidence by the Commissioner and by any court with the same effect as if such stenographer were present and testified to the facts so certified. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1455)

d. Energy Regulatory Commission – RA 9136. Sec. 38, 41, 43-46

SEC. 38. Creation of the Energy Regulatory Commission. There is hereby created an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body to be named the Energy Regulatory Commissions (ERC). For this purpose, the existing Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) created under Executive Order No. 172, as amended, is hereby abolished. The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four (4) members to be appointed by thePresident of the Philippines. The Chairman and the members of the Commission shall be natural-born citizens and residents of the Philippines, persons of good moral character, at least thirty-five (35) years of age, and of recognized competence in any of the following fields: energy, law, economics, finance, commerce, or engineering, with at least three (3) years actual and distinguished experience in their respective fields of expertise: Provided, That out of the four (4) members of the Commission, at least one (1) shall be a member of the Philippine Bar with at least ten (10) years experience in the active practice of law, and one (1) shall be a certified public accountant with at least ten (10) years experience in active practice. Within three (3) months from the creation of the ERC, the Chairman shall submit for the approval by the President of the Philippines the new organizational structure and plantilla positions necessary to carry out the powers and functions of the ERC. The Chairman of the Commission, who shall be a member of the Philippine Bar, shall act as the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission. All members of the Commission shall have a term of seven (7) years: Provided, That for the first appointees, the Chairman shall hold office for seven (7) years, two (2) members shall hold office for five (5) years and the other two (2) members shall hold office for three (3) years; Provided, further, That appointment to any future vacancy shall only be for the unexpired term of the predecessor: Provided, finally, That there shall be no reappointment and in no case shall any member serve for more than seven (7) years in the Commission. The Chairman and members of the Commission shall assume office of the beginning of their terms: Provided, That, if upon the effectivity of this Act, the Commission has not been constituted and the new staffing pattern and plantilla positions have not been approved and filled-up, the current Board and existing personnel of ERB shall continue to hold office. The existing personnel of the ERB, if qualified, shall be given preference in the filling up of plantilla positions created in the ERC, subject to existing civil service rules and regulations. Members of the Commission shall enjoy security of tenure and shall not be suspended or removed from office except for just cause as specified by law. The Chairman and members of the Commission or any of their relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, legitimate or common law, shall be prohibited from holding any interest whatsoever, either as investor, stockholder, officer or director, in any company or entity engaged in the business of transmitting, generating, supplying or distributing any form of energy and must, therefore,divest through sale or legal disposition of any and all interests in the energy sector upon assumption of office. The presence of at least three (3) members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum and the majority vote of two (2) members in a meeting where a quorum is present shall be necessary for the adoption of any rule, ruling, order, resolution, decision, or other act of the Commission in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions: Provided, That in fixing rates and tariffs, an affirmative vote of three (3) members shall be required. SEC. 41. Promotion of Consumer Interests. – The ERC shall handle consumer complaints and ensure the adequate promotion of consumer interests. SEC. 43. Functions of the ERC. –The ERC shall promote competition, encourage market development, ensure customer choice and penalize abuse of market power in the restructured electricity industry. In appropriate cases, the ERC is authorized to issue cease and desist order after due notice and hearing. Towards this end, it shall be responsible for the following key functions in the restuctured industry: (a) Enforce the implementing rules and regulations of this Act; (b) Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate and enforce, in accordance with law, a National Grid Code and a Distribution Code which shall include, but not limited to, the following: (i) Performance standards for TRANSCO O & M Concessionaire, distribution utilities and suppliers: Provided, That in the establishment of the performance standards, the nature and function of the entities shall be considered; and (ii) Financial capability standards for the generating companies, the TRANSCO, distribution utilities and suppliers: Provided, further, That such standards are set to ensure that the electric power industry participants meet the minimum financial standards to protect the public interest. Determine, fix, and approve, after due notice and public hearings the universal charge, to be imposed on all electricity end-users pursuant to Section 34 hereof. (c) Enforce the rules and regulations governing the operations of the electricity spot market and the activities of the spot market operator and other participants in the spot market, for the purpose of ensuring a greater supply and rational pricing of electricity; (d) Determine the level of cross subsidies in the existing retail rate until the same is removed pursuant to Section 74 hereof; (e) Amend or revoke, after due notice and hearing, the authority to operate of any person or entity which fails to comply with the provisions hereof, the IRR or any order or resolution of the ERC. In the event a divestment is required, the ERC shall allow the affected party sufficient time to remedy the infraction or for an orderly disposal, but in no case exceed twelve (12) months from the issuance of the order; (f) In the public interest, establish and enforce a methodology for setting transmission and distribution wheeling rates and retail rates for the captive market of a distribution utility, taking intro account all relevant considerations, including the efficiency or inefficiency of the regulated entities. The rates must be such as to allow the recovery of just and reasonable costs and a reasonable return on rate base (RORB) to enable the entity to operate viably. The ERC may adopt alternative forms of internationally-accepted rate-setting methodology as it may deem appropriate. The rate-setting methodology so adopted and applied must ensure a reasonable price of electricity. The rates prescribed shall be non-discriminatory. To achieve this objective and to ensure the complete removal of cross subsidies, the cap on the recoverable rate of system losses prescribed in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7832, ishereby amended and shall be replaced by caps which shall be determined by the ERC based on load density, sales mix, cost of service, delivery

[Type text]


voltage and other technical considerations it may promulgate. The ERC shall determine such form or rate-setting methodology, which shall promote efficiency. In case the rate setting methodology used is RORB, it shall be subject to the following guidelines: (i) For purposes of determining the rate base, the TRANSCO or any distribution utility may be allowed to revalue its eligible assets not more than once every three (3) years by an independent appraisal company: Provided, however, That ERC may give an exemption in case of unusual devaluation: Provided, further, That the ERC shall exert efforts to minimize price shocks in order to protect the consumers; (ii) Interest expenses are not allowable deductions from permissible return on rate base; (iii) In determining eligible cost of services that will be passed on to the end-users, the ERC shall establish minimum efficiency performance standards for the TRANSCO and distribution utilities including systems losses, interruption frequency rates, and collection efficiency; (iv) Further, in determining rate base, the TRANSCO or any distribution utility shall not be allowed to include management inefficiencies like cost of project delays not excused by force majeure, penalties and related interest during construction applicable to these unexcused delays; and (v) Any significant operating costs or project investments of the TRANSCO and distribution utilities which shall become part of the rate base shall be subject to verification by the ERC to ensure that the contracting and procurement of the equipment, assets and services have been subjected to transparent and accepted industry procurement and purchasing practices to protect the public interest. (g) Three (3) years after the imposition of the universal charge, ensure that the charges of the TRANSCO or any distribution utility shall bear no cross subsidies between grids, within grids, or between classes of customers, except as provided herein; (h) Review and approve any changes on the terms and conditions of service of the TRANSCO or any distribution utility; (i) Allow the TRANSCO to charge user fees for ancillary services to all electric power industry participants or self-generating entities connected to the grid. Such fees shall be fixed by the ERC after due notice and public hearing; (j) Set a lifeline rate for the marginalized end-users; (k) Monitor and take measures in accordance with this Act to penalize abuse of market power, cartelization, and anti-competitive or discriminatory behavior by any electric power industry participant; (l) Impose fines or penalties for any non-compliance with or breach of this Act, the IRR of this Act and the rules and regulations which it promulgates or administers; (m) Take any other action delegated to it pursuant to this Act; (n) Before the end of April of each year, submit to the Office of the President of the Philippines and Congress, copy furnished the DOE, an annual report containing such matters or cases which have been filed before or referred to it during the preceding year, the actions and proceedings undertaken and its decision or resolution in each case. The ERC shall make copies of such reports available to any interested party upon payment of a charge which reflects the printing costs. The ERC shall publish all its decisions involving rates and anticompetitive cases in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation, and/or post electronically and circulate to all interested electric power industry participants copies of its resolutions to ensure fair and impartial treatment; (o) Monitor the activities in the generation and supply of the electric power industry with the end in view of promoting free market competition and ensuring that the allocation or pass through of bulk purchase cost by distributors is transparent, non-discriminatory and that any existing subsidies shall be divided pro-rata among all retail suppliers; (p) Act on applications for or modifications of certificates of public convenience and/or necessity, licenses or permits of franchised electric utilities in accordance with law and revoke, review and modify such certificates, licenses or permits in appropriate cases, such as in cases of violations of the Grid Code, Distribution Code and other rules and regulations issued by the ERC in accordance with law; (q) Act on applications for cost recovery and return on demand side management projects; (r) In the exercise of its investigative and quasi-judicial powers, act against any participant or player in the energy sector for violations of any law, rule and regulation governing the same, including the rules on cross-ownership, anti-competitive practices, abuse of market positions and similar or related acts by any participant in the energy sector or by any person, as may be provided by law, and require any person or entity to submit any report or data relative to any investigation or hearing conducted pursuant to this Act; (s) Inspect, on its own or through duly authorized representatives, the premises, books of accounts and records of any person or entity at any time, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial power for purposes of determining the existence of any anti-competitive behavior and/or market power abuse and any violation of rules and regulations issued by the ERC; (t) Perform such other regulatory functions as are appropriate and necessary in order to ensure the successful restructuring and modernization of the electric power industry, such as, but not limited to, the rules and guidelines under which generation companies, distribution utilities which are not publicly listed shall offer and sell to the public a portion not less than fifteen percent (15%) of their common shares of stocks: Provided, however, That generation companies, distribution utilities or their respective holding companies that are already listed in the PSE are deemed in compliance. For existing companies, such public offering shall be implemented not later than five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act. New companies shall implement their respective public offerings not later than five (5) years from the issuance of their certificate of compliance; and (u) The ERC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases contesting rates, fees, fines and penalties imposed by the ERC in the exercise of the above mentioned powers,

[Type text]


functions and responsibilities and over all cases involving disputes between and among participants or players in the energy sector. All notices of hearings to be conducted by the ERC for the purpose of fixing rates or fees shall be published at least twice for two successive weeks in two (2) newspapers of nationwide circulation. SEC. 44. Transfer of Powers and Functions. – The powers and functions of the Energy Regulatory Board not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby transferred to the ERC. The foregoing transfer of powers and functions shall include all applicable funds and appropriations, records, equipment, property and personnel as may be necessary. SEC. 45. Cross Ownership, Market Power Abuse and Anti-Competitive Behavior. – No participant in the electricity industry or any other person may engage in any anti-competitive behavior including, but not limited to, cross-subsidization, price or market manipulation, or other unfair trade practices detrimental to the encouragement and protection of contestable markets. No generation company, distribution utility, or its respective subsidiary or affiliate or stockholder or official of a generation company or distribution utility, or other entity engaged in generating and supplying electricity specified by ERC within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, shall be allowed to hold any interest, directly or indirectly, in TRANSCO or its concessionaire. Likewise, the TRANSCO, or its concessionaire or any of its stockholders or officials or any of their relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, shall not hold any interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any generation company or distribution utility. Except for ex officio government-appointed representatives, no person who is an officer or director of the TRANSCO or its concessionaire shall be an officer or director of any generation company, distribution utility or supplier. An “affiliate” means any person which, alone or together with any other person, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another person. As used herein, “control” shall mean the power to direct or cause the direction of the management policies of a person by contract, agency or otherwise. To promote true market competition and prevent harmful monopoly and market power abuse, the ERC shall enforce the following safeguards: (a) No company or related group can own, operate or control more than thirty percent (30%) of the installed generating capacity of a grid and/or twenty-five percent (25%) of the national installed generating capacity. “Related group” includes a person’s business interests, including its subsidiaries, affiliates, directors or officers or any of their relatives by consanguinity or affinity, legitimate or common law, within the fourth civil degree; (b) Distribution utilities may enter into bilateral power supply contracts subject to review by the ERC: Provided, That such review shall only be required for distribution utilities whose markets have not reached household demand level. For the purpose of preventing market power abuse between associated firms engaged in generation and distribution, no distribution utility shall be allowed to source from bilateral power supply contracts more than fifty percent (50%) of its total demand from an associated firm engaged in generation but such limitation, however, shall not prejudice contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of this Act. An associated firm with respect to another entity refers to any person which, alone or together with any other person, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, such entity; and (c) For the first five (5) years from the establishment of the wholesale electricity spot market, no distribution utility shall source more than ninety percent (90%) of its total demand from bilateral power supply contracts. For purposes of this Section, the grid basis shall consist of three (3) separate grids, namely Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The ERC shall have the authority to modify or amend this definition of a grid when two or more of the three separate grids become sufficiently interconnected to constitute a single grid or as conditions may otherwise permit. Exceptions from these limitations shall be allowed for isolated grids that are not connected to the high voltage transmission system. Except as otherwise provided for in this Section, any restriction on ownership and/or control between or within sectors of the electricity industry may be imposed by ERC only insofar as the enforcement of the provisions of this Section is concerned. The ERC shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act., promulgate rules and regulations to ensure and promote competition, encourage market development and customer choice and discourage/penalize abuse of market power, cartelization and any anti-competitive or discriminatory behavior, in order to further the intent of this Act and protect the public interest. Such rules and regulations shall define the following: (a) the relevant markets for purposes of establishing abuse or misuse of monopoly or market position; (b) areas of isolated grids; and (c) the periodic reportorial requirements of electric power industry participants as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this Section. The ERC shall, motu proprio, monitor and penalize any market power abuse or anti-competitive or discriminatory act or behavior by any participant in the electric power industry. Upon finding that a market participant has engaged in such act or behavior, the ERC shall stop and redress the same. Such remedies shall, without limitation, include the imposition of price controls, issuance of injunctions, requirement of divestment or disgorgement of excess profits and imposition of fines and penalties pursuant to this Act. The ERC shall, within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations providing for a complaint procedure that, without limitation, provides the accused party with notice and an opportunity to be heard. SEC. 46. Fines and Penalties. – The fines and penalties that shall be imposed by the ERC for any violation of or non-compliance with this Act or the IRR shall range from a minimum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to a maximum of Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00). Any person who is found guilty of any of the prohibited acts pursuant to Section 45 hereof shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor and fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court. The members of the Board of Directors of the juridical companies participating in or covered in the generation companies, the distribution utilities, the TRANSCO or its concessionaire or supplier who violate the provisions of this Act may be fined by an amount not exceeding double the amount of damages caused by the offender or by imprisonment of one (1) year or two (2) years or both at the discretion of the court. This rule shall apply to the members of the Board who knowingly or by neglect allows the commission or omission under the law.

[Type text]


If the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition, be dismissed from the government service with prejudice to reinstatement and with perpetual or temporary disqualification from holding any elective or appointive office. If the offender is an alien, he may, in addition to the penalties prescribed, be deported without further proceedings after service of sentence. Any case which involves question of fact shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals and those which involve question of law shall be directly appealable to the Supreme Court. The administrative sanction that may be imposed by the ERC shall be without prejudice to the filing of a criminal action, if warranted. To ensure compliance with this Act, the penalty of prision correccional or a fine ranging from Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court, shall be imposed on any person, including but not limited to the president, member of the Board, Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operating Officer of the corporation, partnership, or any other entity involved, found guilty of violating or refusing to comply with any provision of this Act or its IRR, other than those provided herein. Any party to an administrative proceeding may, at any time, make an offer to the ERC, conditionally or otherwise, for a consented decree, voluntary compliance or desistance and other settlement of the case. The offer and any or all of the ultimate facts upon which the offer is based shall be considered for settlement purposes only and shall not be used as evidence against any party for any other purpose and shall not constitute an admission by the party making the offer of any violation of the laws, rules, regulations, orders and resolutions of the ERC, nor as a waiver to file any warranted criminal actions. In addition, Congress may, upon recommendation of the DOE and/or ERC, revoke such franchise or privilege granted to the party who violated the provisions of this Act. 7. Katarungang Pambparangay

a. RA 7160. Katarungang Pambarangay

Section 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. -

(a) There is hereby created in each barangay a lupong tagapamayapa, hereinafter referred to as the lupon, composed of the punong barangay, as chairman

and ten (10) to twenty (20) members. The lupon shall be constituted every three (3) years in the manner provided herein.

(b) Any person actually residing or working, in the barangay, not otherwise expressly disqualified by law, and possessing integrity, impartiality, independence

of mind, sense of fairness, and reputation for probity, may be appointed a member of the lupon.

(c) A notice to constitute the lupon, which shall include the names of proposed members who have expressed their willingness to serve, shall be prepared by

the punong barangay within the first fifteen (15) days from the start of his term of office. Such notice shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the

barangay continuously for a period of not less than three (3) weeks;

(d) The punong barangay, taking into consideration any opposition to the proposed appointment or any recommendations for appointment as may have been

made within the period of posting, shall within ten (10) days thereafter, appoint as members those whom he determines to be suitable therefor. Appointments

shall be in writing, signed by the punong barangay, and attested to by the barangay secretary.

(e) The list of appointed members shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay for the entire duration of their term of office; and

(f) In barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of indigenous cultural communities, local systems of settling disputes through their councils

of datus or elders shall be recognized without prejudice to the applicable provisions of this Code.

Section 400. Oath and Term of Office. - Upon appointment, each lupon member shall take an oath of office before the punong barangay. He shall hold

office until a new lupon is constituted on the third year following his appointment unless sooner terminated by resignation, transfer of residence or place of

work, or withdrawal of appointment by the punong barangay with the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the lupon.

Section 401. Vacancies. - Should a vacancy occur in the lupon for any cause, the punong barangay shall immediately appoint a qualified person who shall

hold office only for the unexpired portion of the term.

Section 402. Functions of the Lupon. - The lupon shall:

(a) Exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels provided herein;

(b) Meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its members and the public on matters relevant to the amicable settlement

of disputes, and to enable various conciliation panel members to share with one another their observations and experiences in effecting speedy resolution of

disputes; and

(c) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance.

[Type text]


Section 403. Secretary of the Lupon. - The barangay secretary shall concurrently serve as the secretary of the lupon. He shall record the results of

mediation proceedings before the punong barangay and shall submit a report thereon to the proper city or municipal courts. He shall also receive and keep

the records of proceedings submitted to him by the various conciliation panels.

Section 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. -

(a) There shall be constituted for each dispute brought before the lupon a conciliation panel to be known as the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo, hereinafter

referred to as the pangkat, consisting of three (3) members who shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from the list of members of the lupon.

Should the parties fail to agree on the pangkat membership, the same shall be determined by lots drawn by the lupon chairman.

(b) The three (3) members constituting the pangkat shall elect from among themselves the chairman and the secretary. The secretary shall prepare the

minutes of the pangkat proceedings and submit a copy duly attested to by the chairman to the lupon secretary and to the proper city or municipal court. He

shall issue and cause to be served notices to the parties concerned.

The lupon secretary shall issue certified true copies of any public record in his custody that is not by law otherwise declared confidential.

Section 405. Vacancies in the Pangkat. - Any vacancy in the pangkat shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from among the other lupon members.

Should the parties fail to agree on a common choice, the vacancy shall be filled by lot to be drawn by the lupon chairman.

Section 406. Character of Office and Service of Lupon Members. -

(a) The lupon members, while in the performance of their official duties or on the occasion thereof, shall be deemed as persons in authority, as defined in the

Revised Penal Code.

(b) The lupon or pangkat members shall serve without compensation, except as provided for in Section 393 and without prejudice to incentives as provided

for in this Section and in Book IV of this Code. The Department of the Interior and Local Government shall provide for a system of granting economic or other

incentives to the lupon or pangkat members who adequately demonstrate the ability to judiciously and expeditiously resolve cases referred to them. While in

the performance of their duties, the lupon or pangkat members, whether in public or private employment, shall be deemed to be on official time, and shall not

suffer from any diminution in compensation or allowance from said employment by reason thereof.

Section 407. Legal Advice on Matters Involving Questions of Law. - The provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or the municipal legal officer shall

render legal advice on matters involving questions of law to the punong barangay or any lupon or pangkat member whenever necessary in the exercise of

his functions in the administration of the katarungang pambarangay.

Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties

actually residing in the same city or municipality 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 Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

(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.

The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial motu propio refer the

case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

[Type text]


Section 409. Venue. -

(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.

(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any

of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complaint.

(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated.

(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought

in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located.

Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal

question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his

duly designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding.

Section 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. -

(a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving

any matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay.

(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon chairman shall within the next working day summon the respondent(s), with notice

to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation effort within

fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the

provisions of this Chapter.

(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and

cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing the complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon

receipt by the complainant of the complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary:

Provided, however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay.

(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification - The pangkat shall convene not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the

day and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For

this purpose, the pangkat may issue summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to disqualify

any member of the pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution of the pangkat, the matter

shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the resulting

vacancy shall be filled as herein provided for.

(e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in

accordance with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days,

except in clearly meritorious cases.

Section 411. Form of settlement. - All amicable settlements shall be in writing, in a language or dialect known to the parties, signed by them, and attested

to by the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the

settlement shall be written in the language known to them.

Section 412. Conciliation. -

(a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be

filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon

chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by

the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. - The parties may go directly to court in the following instances:

(1) Where the accused is under detention;

[Type text]


(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;

(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support

pendente lite; and

(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.

(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. - The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in

settling disputes between members of the cultural communities.

Section 413. Arbitration. -

(a) The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award of the lupon chairman or the pangkat.

Such agreement to arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with the procedure

hereinafter prescribed. The arbitration award shall be made after the lapse of the period for repudiation and within ten (10) days thereafter.

(b) The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or

dialect, the award shall be written in the language or dialect known to them.

Section 414. Proceedings Open to the Public; Exception. - All proceedings for settlement shall be public and informal: Provided, however, That the lupon

chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be, may motu proprio or upon request of a party, exclude the public from the proceedings in the interest

of privacy, decency, or public morals.

Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance

of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

Section 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. - The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a

final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify

the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court.

However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408 of this Code, in which case the

compromise or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of said court.

Section 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of

the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.

Section 418. Repudiation. - Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the lupon

chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient

basis for the issuance of the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.

Section 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration. - Award to the Court. - The secretary of the lupon shall transmit the settlement or the arbitration

award to the appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-day period repudiating the

settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon chairman.

Section 420. Power to Administer Oaths. - The punong barangay, as chairman of the lupong tagapamayapa, and the members of the pangkat are hereby

authorized to administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all proceedings in the implementation of the katarungang pambarangay.

Section 421. Administration; Rules and Regulations. - The city or municipal mayor, as the case may be, shall see to the efficient and effective

implementation and administration of the katarungang pambarangay. The Secretary of Justice shall promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to

implement this Chapter.

Section 422. Appropriations. - Such amount as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the katarungang pambarangay shall be provided for

in the annual budget of the city or municipality concerned.

b. Adm. Circular No. 14-93 - ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL

CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

[Type text]


SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEDURE TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE REVISED

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW (SECTIONS 399-422, CHAPTER VII, TITLE I, BOOK III, R.A. 7160. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991).

The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the local Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1, 1992, and

which repealed P.D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not only in the authority granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be

observed in the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon.

In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not be subverted and its effectiveness undermined by indiscriminate, improper and/or premature issuance

of certifications to file actions in court by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretaries, attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the following guidelines

are hereby issued for the information of trial court judges in cases brought before them coming from the Barangays:

I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced

by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991), and

prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices, except in the following disputes:

1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;

3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to

amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either

as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);

5. 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;

6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following:

a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);

b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf;

c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the

action; and

d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;

10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);

11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as

amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the

Department of Labor and Employment);

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).

II. Under the provisions of R.A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation, as implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations

promulgated by the Secretary of Justice, the certification for filing a complaint in court or any government office shall be issued by Barangay authorities only

upon compliance with the following requirements:

[Type text]


1. Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman (Punong Barangay), certifying that a confrontation of the parties has taken place and

that a conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same has been subsequently repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec.

2[h], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);

2. Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, certifying that:

a. a confrontation of the parties took place but no conciliation/settlement has been reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules; or

b. that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no fault of the complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules).

3. Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party on the ground of failure of settlement where the dispute involves members of the same

indigenous cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural community, or where one or

more of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of

amicable settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of place of settlement (Secs.

1,4 & 5, Rule IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); and

4. If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsuccessful, there having been no agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised

Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation

proceeding before the Punong Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance

at this stage of a certification to file action, because it is now mandatory for him to constitute the Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration

proceedings shall be held.

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the Regional Trial Court shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if

there has been compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules and

Regulations, as a pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file action attached to the records of the case comply with the

requirements hereinabove enumerated in par. II;

IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition for formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised

Katarungang Pambarangay Law) may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of

action or prematurity (Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party

under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority, applying by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd

par., of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law which reads as follows:

The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the Lupon under this Code are filed may at any time before trial, motu proprio refer

case to the Lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined. This Administrative Circular shall be effective immediately.

c. Uy v. Contreras- The conciliation procedure required under P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement, non-compliance with which would deprive a

court of its jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. Where, however, the fact of non-compliance with and non-

observance of such procedure has been seasonably raised as an issue before the court first taking cognizance of the complaint, dismissal of the action is

proper

d. Gonzales v. CA - The conciliation procedure required under P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement, non-compliance with which would deprive a

court of its jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. Where, however, the fact of non-compliance with and non-

observance of such procedure has been seasonably raised as an issue before the court first taking cognizance of the complaint, dismissal of the action is

proper

e. Agbayani v. Belen - By express statutory inclusion and exclusion, the Lupon shall have no jurisdiction over disputes where the parties are not actual

residents of the same city or municipality, except where the barangays in which they actually reside adjoin each other.

f. Blardony v. Coscolluela - Although PD 1605 requires as a condition precedent filing with the Lupon Tagapamayapa prior to filing in court, failure to

observe the same does not remove jurisdiction already acquired by the court.

g. Wee v. De Castro - The barangay justice system was established primarily as a means of easing up the congestion of cases in the judicial courts. This

could be accomplished through a proceeding before the barangay courts which, according to the one who conceived of the system, the late Chief Justice

Fred Ruiz Castro, is essentially arbitration in character; and to make it truly effective, it should also be compulsory.

[Type text]


h. Aquino v. Aure - Barangay conciliation proceedings are not a jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction,

which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant

A. CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (4) - The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

B. Batas Pamb. Blg. 129 (1980), Sec. 18 - Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch. – The Supreme Court shall define the territory

over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch

concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be

exercised with a view to making the courts readily accessible to the people of the different parts of the region and making the attendance of litigants and

witnesses as inexpensive as possible.

C. Rep. Act No. 9285 (2004)

D. Cases

1. Claridades v. Mercader, G.R. No. L-20341, May 14, 1966, 17 SCRA 1 (1966) - As plaintiff’s complaint merely seeks the liquidation of his partnership with the defendants, it is to be considered a personal action which may be brought in the place of residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff prayed for the sale of the assets of the partnership, did not change the nature or character of action, such sale being merely a necessary incident of the liquidation of the partnership, which should precede and/or is part of its process of dissolution.

2. Uniwide Holdings, Inc. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 171456, August 9, 2007, 529 SCRA 664 (2007) - Where there is a joinder of causes of action

between the same parties one of which does not arise out of the contract where the exclusive venue was stipulated upon, the complaint may be brought

before other venues provided that such other cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the court and the venue lies therein.

3. Go v. United Coconut Planters. Bank, G.R. No. 156187, November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 264 (2004) - The cancellation of real estate mortgage is a real action because a real estate mortgage is a real right and a real property in itself; it is necessarily an action affecting title to property. A real action should be commenced and tried in the place where the subject property lies.

4. Davao Abaca Plantation Co., Inc. v. Dole Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 134431, December 1, 2000, 346 SCRA 682 (2000)

The action of interpleader, under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rule 62 of the present Rules), is a remedy whereby a person who has personal property in his possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially (anything can be subject-matter of interpleader in the present Rules; not just personal property or performance of obligation), without claiming any right to either, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the said subject-matter, be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing. The remedy is afforded to protect a person not against double liability but against double vexation in respect of one liability. There is no question that the membership fee certificate 201 is a proper subject of an interpleader suit; the issue however, concerns the propriety and timeliness of filing the interpleader according to the circumstances. When to file: A stakeholder should file an action of interpleader within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants. Otherwise, he may be barred by laches or undue delay. A stakeholder's action of interpleader is too late when filed after judgment has been rendered against him in favor of one of the contending claimants, especially where he had notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of the judgment and neglected the opportunity to implead the adverse claimants in the suit where judgment was entered. In the present case, WWGCC is already liable to Lee because of the decision of CFI Manila. WWGCC was aware of the conflicting claims before instituting this interpleader suit. Moreover, it has no justifiable reason as to why it did not implead Tan in the CFI Manila case. WHY? - remedy by interpleader is afforded to protect the party from the annoyance and hazard of two or more actions touching the same property or demand; but one who, with knowledge of all the facts, neglects to avail himself of the relief, or elects to take the chances for success in the actions at law, ought to submit to the consequences of defeat. To permit an unsuccessful defendant to compel the successful plaintiffs to interplead, is to increase instead of to diminish the number of suits; to put upon the shoulders of others the burden which he asks may be taken from his own. ....' Effect when interpleader was filed after final judgment against the stakeholder: if a stakeholder defends a suit filed by one of the adverse claimants and allows said suit to proceed to final judgment against him, he cannot later on have that part of the litigation repeated in an interpleader suit. The interpleader

[Type text]


suit cannot prosper because it was filed much too late. Nature of an interpleader when filed against a judgment creditor: a successful litigant (Lee) cannot later be impleaded by his defeated adversary (WWGCC) in an interpleader suit and be compelled to prove his claim anew against other adverse claimants, as that would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the WWGCC had already been made independently liable in civil case 26044 and, therefore, its present application for interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the said civil case; Lee had already established his rights to membership fee certificate 201 in the aforesaid civil case and, therefore, this interpleader suit would compel him to establish his rights anew, and thereby increase instead of diminish litigations, which is one of the purposes of an interpleader suit, with the possiblity that the benefits of the final judgment in the said civil case might eventually be taken away from him; and because the Corporation allowed itself to be sued to final judgment in the said case, its action of interpleader was filed inexcusably late, for which reason it is barred by laches or unreasonable delay. 5. Infante v. Aran Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 156596, August 24, 2007, 531 SCRA 123 (2007) - The proper venue depends on the determination of

whether the present action for revival of judgment is a real action or a personal action. If it is a real action (i.e., action affects title to or possession of real

property or interest therein), then it must be filed with the court of the place where the real property is located. On the other hand, if it is a personal action,

then it may be filed with the court of the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides.

6. Marcos-Araneta, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA 41 (2008) - Sec. 2 of Rule 4 indicates quite clearly

that when there is more than one plaintiff in a personal action case, the residences of the principal parties should be the basis for determining proper venue.

According to the late Justice Jose Y. Feria, "the word 'principal' has been added [in the uniform procedure rule] in order to prevent the plaintiff from choosing

the residence of a minor plaintiff or defendant as the venue." Eliminate the qualifying term "principal" and the purpose of the Rule would, to borrow from

Justice Regalado, "be defeated where a nominal or formal party is impleaded in the action since the latter would not have the degree of interest in the

subject of the action which would warrant and entail the desirably active participation expected of litigants in a case."

7. Sweet Line, Inc. v. Teves, G.R. No. L-37750, May 19, 1978, 83 SCRA 361 (1978) - Parties can agree to transfer venue from one province to

another, but this requires written agreement by the parties and cannot be unilaterally imposed.

8. Villanueva v. Mosqueda, G.R. No. L-58287, August 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 904 (1982) - The rule in Sec. 1(a), Rule 4 of the ROC that "forcible entry and detainer actions regarding real property shall be brought in the municipality or city in which the subject matter thereof is situated" does not refer to the jurisdiction over the subject matter but only to the place where the ejectment suit may be brought. Sec. 3 of Rule 4 provides that "by written agreement of the parties the venue of an action may be changed or transferred from one province to another". In this case, such an agreement was formalized between the lessor and the lessee. The agreement is valid, binding and enforceable. 9. Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, G.R. No. 104649, February 28, 1994, 230 SCRA 413 (1994) - In the absence of qualifying or

restrictive words, they should be considered merely as an agreement on additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive

but, rather permissive.

10. Spouses Lantin v. Lantion, et al., G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 718 (2006) - 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. 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.

11. Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. v. Cui, G.R. No. 54452, July 20, 1981, 105 SCRA 682 (1981) - A third-party complaint is but ancillary to the

main action and is a procedural device to avoid multiplicity of suits. Because of its nature the prescriptions on jurisdiction and venue applicable to ordinary

suits may not apply. Thus a third-party complaint has to yield to the jurisdiction and venue of the main action

A. Capacity to sue and be sued

1. RULE 3

Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. — Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The

term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may

refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant. (1a)

Section 4. Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)

[Type text]


Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. — A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother,

guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. (5a)

Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. — When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a

transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known.

In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. (15a)

2. Rep. Act No. 5455 (1968), Sec. 1 (1)

Section 1. Definitions and scope of this Act. (1) As used in this Act, the term "investment" shall mean equity participation in any enterprise formed,

organized or existing under the laws of the Philippines; and the phrase "doing business" shall include soliciting orders, purchases, service contracts, opening

offices, whether called "liaison" offices or branches; appointing representatives or distributors who are domiciled in the Philippines or who in any calendar

year stay in the Philippines for a period or periods totaling one hundred eighty days or more; participating in the management, supervision or control of any

domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements, and

contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of,

commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business organization.

3. People's Homesite and Housing Corp. v. Jeremias, G.R. No. L-43252, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 239 (1976) - A party is one who is to be benefited or injured by a judgment or order of a court, and included any person who is a "party to the record.” 4. MR Holdings, Ltd. v. Bajar, G.R. No. 138104, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 617 (2002) - a) if a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine courts; b) if a foreign corporation is not doing business in the Philippines, it needs no license to sue before Philippine courts on an isolated transaction or on a cause of action entirely independent of any business transaction; and c) if a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines with the required license, it can sue before Philippine courts on any transaction. Apparently, it is not the absence of the prescribed license but the "doing (of) business" in the Philippines without such license which debars the foreign corporation from access to our courts. … Single or isolated acts, contracts, or transactions of foreign corporations are not regarded as a doing or carrying on of business. Typical examples of these are the making of a single contract, sale, sale with the taking of a note and mortgage in the state to secure payment therefor, purchase, or note, or the mere commission of a tort. B. Real party in interest

1. RULE 3

Section 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to

the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in

interest. (2a)

2. Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008; 574 SCRA 116 (2008) - Only a spouse can initiate and action to sever the marital bond for marriages solemnized during the Family Code’s effectively, after AM No. 02-11-10-SC was issued in March 15, 2003. But this does not mean that cases celebrated under the Civil Code may be commenced by just anyone. The plaintiff must be a real party-in-interest. It is a basic rule that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of a real party-in-interest. When plaintiff is not a real party-in-interest, the case may be dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action. C. Representative parties

1. RULE 3

Section 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary

capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a trustee of

an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of

an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. (3a)

D. Class suit

1. RULE 3

Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is

impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all

concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)

[Type text]


2. Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. L-63559, May 30, 1986, 142 SCRA 171 (1986) - The case at bar is not a

class suit. It is not a case where one or more may sue for the benefit of all or where the representation of class interest affected by the judgment or decree is

indispensable to make each member of the class an actual party. This is a case where each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the

community. They do not have a common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy.

3. MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 135306, January 28,

2003, 396 SCRA 210 (2003) -An element of a class suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the question of fair and adequate representation of

members of a class, the court must consider (a) whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of the class;

(b) the proportion of those made parties as it so bears to the total membership of the class; and, (c) any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party

to speak for the rest of the class.

E. Joinder of parties

1. RULE 3

Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or

series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or

be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action;

but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any

proceedings in which he may have no interest. (6n)

Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined

either as plaintiffs or defendants. (7)

Section 8. Necessary party. — A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as

to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. (8a)

Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. — Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the

pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the

inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.

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. (8a, 9a)

Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the

reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. (10)

Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for 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 the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against

a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately. (11a)

2. Relucio v. Lopez, G.R. No. 138497, January 16, 2001, 373 SCRA 578 (2001) - Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. The interests of such indispensable party in the subject matter of the suit and the relief are so bound with those of the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. As a rule, an indispensable party’s interest in the subject matter is such that a complete and efficient determination of the equities and rights of the parties is not possible if he is not joined. 3. De Galicia v. Mercado, G.R. No. 146744, March 6, 2006,484 SCRA 131 (2006) - Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,

an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. The interests of such indispensable party in the

subject matter of the suit and the relief are so bound with those of the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute

necessity. As a rule, an indispensable party’s interest in the subject matter is such that a complete and efficient determination of the equities and rights of the

parties is not possible if he is not joined.

4. Nufable v. Nufable, G.R. No. 126950, July 2, 1999, 309 SCRA 694 (1999) - The rule is that indispensable parties (i.e., parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action) shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants, their inclusion as a party being compulsory. On the other hand, in case of proper or necessary parties (i.e., persons who are not indispensable but ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded as between those already parties) the court may, in its discretion, proceed in the action without making such persons parties, and the judgment rendered

[Type text]


shall be without prejudice to the rights of such persons. 5. Puentevella, Jr., et al. v. Far Eastern Air Transport, Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-4958, March 30, 1954, 94 Phil. 644 (1954) - The evident aim and intent of the rules regarding the joinder of indispensable and necessary parties is the complete determination of all possible issues, not only between parties themselves but also as regards to other persons who may be affected by the judgment.

F. Substitution of parties

1. RULE 3

Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his

counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or

representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the

court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court

may order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter

shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be

recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)

Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. — When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its

pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days

after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial

need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his

predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the

application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)

Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be

continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)

Section 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of interest, 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. (20)

Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. — When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant

dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be

allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in

these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)

2. Brioso v. Rili-Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 132765, January 31, 2003, 396 SCRA 549 (2003) - Non-compliance with the rule on substitution of a deceased party renders the proceedings and judgment infirm because the court acquires no jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs. 3. State Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106795, November 16, 1999, 318 SCRA 47 (1999) - A transferee pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the judgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and still be binding on the transferee. Further, a transferee pendente lite may be a proper party in a case but may not necessarily be an indispensable party. G. Alternative & unknown defendants

1. RULE 3

Section 13. Alternative defendants. — 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. (13a)

[Type text]


Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. — Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner

heir devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require, when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly.

(14)

H. Indigent party

1. RULE 3

Section 21. Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and

hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his

family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order

to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered

in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after

hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed

and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without prejudice

to such other sanctions as the court may impose. (22a)

I. Solicitor General

1. RULE 3

Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or

regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or a representative duly designated

by him. (23a)

J. New/additional parties

1. Impleader

a. RULE 6

Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)—party complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.) — party complaint 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. (12a)

Section 12. Bringing new parties. — When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the

determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained. (14)

Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or

cross-claims, including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may also

assert a counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the third-party plaintiff. (n)

RULE 11

Section 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as

the answer to the complaint. (5a)

b. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of the Philippines v. Tempongko, G.R. No. L-24399, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 418 (1969) - The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. Failure of any of said parties in such a case to appeal the judgment as against him makes such judgment final and executory. By the same token, an appeal by one party from such judgment does not inure to the benefit of the other party who has not appealed nor can it be deemed to be an appeal of such other party from the judgment against him. Plaintiff-appellee: Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Phils Defendant and third party plaintiff-appellant: Fernando Tempongko Third party defendant-appellee: Antonio Luna

[Type text]


c. Balbastro, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-33255, November 29, 1972, 48 SCRA 231 (1972) - DOCTRINE: Sec 12 RROC 6—authorizes D to bring into a lawsuit any person “not a party to the action… for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief in respect of his opponent’s claim”

• Crucial characterisitc: orig D is attempting to transfer to 3p-D the liability asserted against him by the orig P

• Requisites: a) 3p-complaint should assert a derivative or secondary claim for relief from 3p-D whether the

basis is indemnity, subrogation, contribution, express or implied warranty or some other theory

b) 3p-D is NOT a party to the action—otherwise, proper procedure for asserting a claim against one who is already a party to the suit is counterclaim or crosslaim (under Sec 6 & 7 of RROC 6)

c) Claim against 3p-D must be based on P’s claim against the orig D (3p-claimant) TEST: whether it arises out of the same transaction on w/c P’s claim is based OR 3p’s claim, although arising out of another or diff contract/transaction, is connected w/ P’s claim

2. Intervention

a. RULE 19

Intervention

Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against

both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with

leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of

the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. (2[a], [b]a, R12)

Section 2. Time to intervene. — The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-

intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties. (n)

Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or

an answer-in-intervention if he unites with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter. (2[c]a, R12)

Section 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. — The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order

admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. (2[d]a, R12)

b. Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA 238 (1979) The action of interpleader, under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rule 62 of the present Rules), is a remedy whereby a person who has personal property in his possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially (anything can be subject-matter of interpleader in the present Rules; not just personal property or performance of obligation), without claiming any right to either, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the said subject-matter, be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing. The remedy is afforded to protect a person not against double liability but against double vexation in respect of one liability. There is no question that the membership fee certificate 201 is a proper subject of an interpleader suit; the issue however, concerns the propriety and timeliness of filing the interpleader according to the circumstances. When to file: A stakeholder should file an action of interpleader within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants. Otherwise, he may be barred by laches or undue delay. A stakeholder's action of interpleader is too late when filed after judgment has been rendered against him in favor of one of the contending claimants, especially where he had notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of the judgment and neglected the opportunity to implead the adverse claimants in the suit where judgment was entered. In the present case, WWGCC is already liable to Lee because of the decision of CFI Manila. WWGCC was aware of the conflicting claims before instituting this interpleader suit. Moreover, it has no justifiable reason as to why it did not implead Tan in the CFI Manila case. WHY? - remedy by interpleader is afforded to protect the party from the annoyance and hazard of two or more actions touching the same property or demand; but one who, with knowledge of all the facts, neglects to avail himself of the relief, or elects to take the chances for success in the actions at law, ought to submit to the consequences of defeat. To permit an unsuccessful defendant to compel the successful plaintiffs to interplead, is to increase instead of to diminish the number of suits; to put upon the shoulders of others the burden which he asks may be taken from his own. ....'

[Type text]


Effect when interpleader was filed after final judgment against the stakeholder: if a stakeholder defends a suit filed by one of the adverse claimants and allows said suit to proceed to final judgment against him, he cannot later on have that part of the litigation repeated in an interpleader suit. The interpleader suit cannot prosper because it was filed much too late. Nature of an interpleader when filed against a judgment creditor: a successful litigant (Lee) cannot later be impleaded by his defeated adversary (WWGCC) in an interpleader suit and be compelled to prove his claim anew against other adverse claimants, as that would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the WWGCC had already been made independently liable in civil case 26044 and, therefore, its present application for interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the said civil case; Lee had already established his rights to membership fee certificate 201 in the aforesaid civil case and, therefore, this interpleader suit would compel him to establish his rights anew, and thereby increase instead of diminish litigations, which is one of the purposes of an interpleader suit, with the possiblity that the benefits of the final judgment in the said civil case might eventually be taken away from him; and because the Corporation allowed itself to be sued to final judgment in the said case, its action of interpleader was filed inexcusably late, for which reason it is barred by laches or unreasonable delay. 3. Interpleader

a. Rule 62

Interpleader

Section 1. When interpleader proper. — Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person who claims no

interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting

claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. (1a, R63)

Section 2. Order. — Upon the filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another. If the

interests of justice so require, the court may direct in such order that the subject matter be paid or delivered to the court. (2a, R63)

Section 3. Summons. — Summons shall be served upon the conflicting claimants, together with a copy of the complaint and order. (3, R63)

Section 4. Motion to dismiss. — Within the time for filing an answer, each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of impropriety of the

interpleader action or on other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16. The period to file the answer shall be tolled and if the motion is denied, the movant

may file his answer within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial. (n)

Section 5. Answer and other pleadings. — Each claimant shall file his answer setting forth his claim within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons

upon him, serving a copy thereof upon each of the other conflicting claimants who may file their reply thereto as provided by these Rules. If any claimant fails

to plead within the time herein fixed, the court may, on motion, declare him in default and thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect to

the subject matter.

The parties in an interpleader action may file counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by these

Rules. (4a, R63)

Section 6. Determination. — After the pleadings of the conflicting claimants have been filed, and pre-trial has been conducted in accordance with the Rules,

the court shall proceed to determine their respective rights and adjudicate their several claims. (5a, R63)

Section 7. Docket and other lawful fees, costs and litigation expenses as liens. — The docket and other lawful fees paid by the party who filed a complaint

under this Rule, as well as the costs and litigation expenses, shall constitute a lien or change upon the subject matter of the action, unless the court shall

order otherwise. (6a, R63)

b. Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Lee E. Won, G.R. No. L-23851, March 26, 1976, 70 SCRA 165 (1976) - The action of interpleader, under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rule 62 of the present Rules), is a remedy whereby a person who has personal property in his possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially (anything can be subject-matter of interpleader in the present Rules; not just personal property or performance of obligation), without claiming any right to either, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the said subject-matter, be required to litigate among themselves in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing. The remedy is afforded to protect a person not against double liability but against double vexation in respect of one liability. There is no question that the membership fee certificate 201 is a proper subject of an interpleader suit; the issue however, concerns the propriety and timeliness of filing the interpleader according to the circumstances. When to file: A stakeholder should file an action of interpleader within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without waiting to be sued by either of the

[Type text]


contending claimants. Otherwise, he may be barred by laches or undue delay. A stakeholder's action of interpleader is too late when filed after judgment has been rendered against him in favor of one of the contending claimants, especially where he had notice of the conflicting claims prior to the rendition of the judgment and neglected the opportunity to implead the adverse claimants in the suit where judgment was entered. In the present case, WWGCC is already liable to Lee because of the decision of CFI Manila. WWGCC was aware of the conflicting claims before instituting this interpleader suit. Moreover, it has no justifiable reason as to why it did not implead Tan in the CFI Manila case. WHY? - remedy by interpleader is afforded to protect the party from the annoyance and hazard of two or more actions touching the same property or demand; but one who, with knowledge of all the facts, neglects to avail himself of the relief, or elects to take the chances for success in the actions at law, ought to submit to the consequences of defeat. To permit an unsuccessful defendant to compel the successful plaintiffs to interplead, is to increase instead of to diminish the number of suits; to put upon the shoulders of others the burden which he asks may be taken from his own. ....' Effect when interpleader was filed after final judgment against the stakeholder: if a stakeholder defends a suit filed by one of the adverse claimants and allows said suit to proceed to final judgment against him, he cannot later on have that part of the litigation repeated in an interpleader suit. The interpleader suit cannot prosper because it was filed much too late. Nature of an interpleader when filed against a judgment creditor: a successful litigant (Lee) cannot later be impleaded by his defeated adversary (WWGCC) in an interpleader suit and be compelled to prove his claim anew against other adverse claimants, as that would in effect be a collateral attack upon the judgment In fine, the instant interpleader suit cannot prosper because the WWGCC had already been made independently liable in civil case 26044 and, therefore, its present application for interpleader would in effect be a collateral attack upon the final judgment in the said civil case; Lee had already established his rights to membership fee certificate 201 in the aforesaid civil case and, therefore, this interpleader suit would compel him to establish his rights anew, and thereby increase instead of diminish litigations, which is one of the purposes of an interpleader suit, with the possiblity that the benefits of the final judgment in the said civil case might eventually be taken away from him; and because the Corporation allowed itself to be sued to final judgment in the said case, its action of interpleader was filed inexcusably late, for which reason it is barred by laches or unreasonable delay. c. United Coconut Planters Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. Nos. 72664-65, March 20, 1990, 183 SCRA 368 (1990) - (1)

A compulsory counterclaim is “one which arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the

opposing party’s claim.” Interpleader is a proper remedy where a bank which had issued a manager’s check is subjected to opposing claims by

persons who respectively claim a right to the funds covered by the manager’s check.

d. Pasricha, et al. v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 673 (2008) - Otherwise stated, an action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or on the right to collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against double liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one liability

A. Issuance and contents of the Summons

1. RULE 14

Section 1. Clerk to issue summons. — Upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue

the corresponding summons to the defendants. (1a)

Section 2. Contents. — The summons shall be directed to the defendant, signed by the clerk of court under seal and contain (a) the name of the court and

the names of the parties to the action; (b) a direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these Rules; (c) a notice that unless the defendant so

answers plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be granted the relief applied for.

B. Service of Summons

1. By whom issued

a. RULE 14

Section 1. Clerk to issue summons. — Upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue

the corresponding summons to the defendants.

[Type text]


Section 5. Issuance of alias summons. — If a summons is returned without being served on any or all of the defendants, the server shall also serve a copy

of the return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating the reasons for the failure of service, within five (5) days therefrom. In such a case, or if the summons has been

lost, the clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue an alias summons.

2. By whom made

a. RULE 14

Section 3. By whom served. — The summons may be served by the sheriff, his deputy, or other proper court officer, or for justifiable reasons by any

suitable person authorized by the court issuing the summons.

b. Bello v. Ubo - Sec. 5, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, expressly provides that summons may be served by the sheriff or other proper court

officer of the province or, for special reasons, by a person especially authorized to serve the summons by the judge of the court which issued the same.

Contrary to appellee's contention, this enumeration is exclusive.

3. Modes of Service

a. RULE 14

Section 6. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handling a copy thereof to the defendant in person,

or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (7a)

Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section,

service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing

therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. (8a)

Section 8. Service upon entity without juridical personality. — When persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the

name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the

person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind individually any person whose connection with

the entity has, upon due notice, been severed before the action was brought. (9a)

Section 9. Service upon prisoners. — When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him by the officer

having the management of such jail or institution who is deemed deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose. (12a)

Section 10. Service upon minors and incompetents. — When the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent, service shall be made upon

him personally and on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none his guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff. In the case of

a minor, service may also be made on his father or mother. (l0a, 11a)

Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. — When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws

of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or

in-house counsel. (13a)

Section 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entities. — When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the

Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government

official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. (14a)

Section 13. Service upon public corporations. — When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor General;

in case of a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected on its executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the

law or the court may direct. (15)

Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown

owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon

him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order. (16a)

Section 15. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of

the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or

contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant

has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by

[Type text]


publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of

the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order

granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. (17a)

Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the

Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section. (18a)

Section 17. Leave of court. — Any application to the court under this Rule for leave to effect service in any manner for which leave of court is necessary

shall be made by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application. (19)

Section 20. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a

motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

b. Sps. Laus v. CA - Substituted service must be strictly complied with because this method of service is “in derogation of the common law; it is a method

extraordinary in character, and hence may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute.”

c. Keister v. Navarro - Substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service and as such, there must be proof that regular service could not be

performed. In case substituted service is warranted, the rules laid out by the Rules of Court must be followed strictly.

d. Summit Trading v. Avendaño - While Summit Trading is technically correct in contending that there was no strict compliance with section 13, we cannot

close our eyes to the realities of the situation. Saquilayan, is the president’s secretary and may be regarded as an "agent" within the meaning of section 13.

She could have easily notified the president that an action was filed against the corporation just as she had apprised him of the judgment in this case.

e. Cariaga v. Malaya - Under Section 17, extraterritorial service of summons is proper: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2)

when the action relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or

contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such an action consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the

Philippines; and (4) when defendant non-resident's property has been attached within the Philippines (Sec. 17, Rule 14, Rules of Court).

In any of such four cases, the service of summons may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines in three ways: (1) by personal service; (2) by

publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of

the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant; and (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.

f. Rebollido v. CA - Summons may be served on a dissolved company through the same means as how summons is served through a company in its

regular operations. If there is substantial compliance with the requirements of summons, the Court will deem this as having served summons and will have

acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.

g. Magdelena Estate v. Nieto - In an action strictly in personam, like the one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the

acquisition of jurisdiction divert the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. Summons by publication

cannot —consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights—confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant. Due process of law requires

personal service to support a personal judgment, and, when the proceeding is strictly in personam brought to determine the personal rights and obligations

of the parties, personal service within the state or a voluntary appearance in the case is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute

compliance with the constitutional requirement of due process.

h. UCPB v. Ongpin - if a defendant is a non-resident and his property in the Philippines has been attached, service may, by leave of court, be effected

outside the Philippines or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. If the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown & can't be ascertained by

diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, likewise be effected by publication.

i. Guiguinto Credit Coop v. Torres - Statutes prescribing modes other than personal service of summons must be strictly complied with to give the court

jurisdiction, and such compliance must appear affirmatively on the return. Undue haste to serve the summons at the first attempt without making sure that

personal service was an impossibility would render a decision null and void due to failure to acquire jurisdiction over the defendants..

j. Guanzon v. Arradaza - Substituted service of summons is valid and is recognized in our Rules of Court.

k. Potenciano v. Barnes - Summons served to a Lawyer not officially representing a client is not enough for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the

defendant of client of the Lawyer.

[Type text]


l. Mangila v. CA - The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service of summons on the defendant whether by

personal service, substituted service or by publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of summons does not confer

a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service.

m. Montefalcon v. Vasquez - For a person temporarily out of the country can be summoned through a substituted service. The summon is to be sent to the

address where the person summoned is living at the time the service was made even though he may be temporarily out of the country.

n. Perkin Elmer Singapore v. Dakila Trading Corp - Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the

defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance

in court and their submission to its authority. When the case instituted is an action in rem or quasi in rem, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to hear

and decide the case because, in actions in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on

the court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.

o. Regner v. Logarta - Under Section 1, Rule 14 of the Rules, the clerk of court has the duty to serve summons, but this does not relieve the petitioner of

her own duty as the plaintiff in a civil case to prosecute the case diligently.

p. Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro - A writ of preliminary attachment shall only apply, among other grounds, when the defendant

cannot be served summons, whether personally or substituted

q. Spouses Mason v. CA - The rule on service of summons set forth in Sec. 11, Rule 14, ROC must be strictly complied with.

r. Millenium Industrial Corp. v. Tan - There must be direct evidence showing that the corporation had received summons from a person not enumerated in

Section 13 of Rule 14 for the substantial compliance rule to take effect.

4. Proof of service; alias summons

a. Rule 14

Section 5. Issuance of alias summons. — If a summons is returned without being served on any or all of the defendants, the server shall also serve a

copy of the return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating the reasons for the failure of service, within five (5) days therefrom. In such a case, or if the summons has

been lost, the clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue an alias summons.

Section 18. Proof of service. — The proof of service of a summons shall be made in writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place, and date of

service; shall specify any papers which have been served with the process and the name of the person who received the same; and shall be sworn to when

made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy. (20)

Section 19. Proof of service by publication. — If the service has been made by publication, service may be proved by the affidavit of the printer, his

foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager, to which affidavit a copy of the publication shall be attached and by an affidavit

showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his

last known address.

b. Mechanical Appliance v. Castleman - Sheriff’s false return of the summons is not conclusive on the defendant if defendant is a company and such

service was done in a state where it doesn’t do business.

c. Hock v. CA - Failure to identify a defendant by her by her correct name and to give the correct address of the premises (subject matter of the case) not

only in the complaint but also in the summons, results in a failure to implead her as defendant and in a failure to serve summons to her.

5. Return of Service

a. Rule 14

Section 4. Return. — When the service has been completed, the server shall, within five (5) days therefrom, serve a copy of the return, personally or by

registered mail, to the plaintiff's counsel, and shall return the summons to the clerk, who issued it, accompanied by proof of service. (6a)

Section 5. Issuance of alias summons. — If a summons is returned without being served on any or all of the defendants, the server shall also serve a

copy of the return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating the reasons for the failure of service, within five (5) days therefrom. In such a case, or if the summons has

been lost, the clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue an alias summons.

C. Voluntary Appearance.

[Type text]


1. Rule 14. Section 20. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The

inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary

appearance.

2. UCPB v. Ongpin - Special appearance through counsel not deemed voluntary appearance or submission to court's jurisdiction when such appearances

are precisely for the purpose of attacking said court's jurisdiction over the person of the party.

3. Orosa v. CA - Although the rules on substituted service must be strictly followed, filing a motion for additional time to file answer instead of entering a

special appearance questioning the propriety of the service of summons serve as a waiver of any flaw in the court’s jurisdiction from a defective service of

summons. Also, the certificate of service of summons by the sheriff is prima facie evidence of the facts set out in the certificate.

A. Pleadings in general 1. Rule 6, Secs. 1-2 Section 1. Pleadings defined. — Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. (1a) Section 2. Pleadings allowed. — The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention. Rule 8, Sec. 1 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. 2. Batas Pamb. Blg. 129 (1980), Sec. 36. Summary procedures in special cases. – In Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate one or more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, those involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations of the rental law, and such other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-extendible. 3. REV. RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE B. Complaint 1. Generally

a. Rule 6, Sec. 3 Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint. Rule 2, Secs. 1 & 2 Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. — Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n) Section 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. b. Batas Pamb. Blg. 129 (1980), Sec. 33 (1) Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over 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 of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are several claims or causes of action 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 causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;

2. Splitting & joinder of causes of action

[Type text]


a. Rule 2, Secs. 3-6 Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. (3a) Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a) Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, 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 or actions governed by special rules; (c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court 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 action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a) Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.

b. De Luzuriaga, Sr. v. Adil, G.R. No. L-58912, May 7, 1985 136 SCRA 279 (1985) - If two or more complaints are brought from different parts of a single

cause of action, the filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of the other or others, and a judgment upon the merits in anyone is available as a bar in

the others.

3. Alternative C. Answer 1. Rule 6, Secs. 4-5 Section 4. Answer. — An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses. (4a) Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or affirmative. (a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action. (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance. Rule 8, Secs. 10 and 11 Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. (10a) Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath. Rule 9, Secs. 1-2 Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. (2a) Section 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. — A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred. 2. Home Ins. Co. v. Eastern Shipping Lines, 123 SCRA 424 (1983) - Sec. 4, Rule 8 of the RoC requires that a party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are particularly within the pleader's knowledge D. Counterclaim and cross-claim 1. Rule 6, Secs. 6-9, 12

[Type text]


Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. (6a) Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — 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 Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. (n)

Section 8. Cross-claim. — 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 or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant. (7)

Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-crossclaims. — A counter-claim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant. A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.

Section 12. Bringing new parties. — When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained.

Rule 9, Sec. 2 Section 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. — A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred. Rule 11, Secs. 8-10 Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein. (8a, R6)

Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. — A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment. (9, R6) Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. — When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment. 2. International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90530, October 7, 1992, 214 SCRA 456 (1992) - : A counterclaim is compulsory where (1) it arises out of or is necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim (2) it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction and (3) the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. 3. Spouses Meliton v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 101883, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 485 (1992) – Compulsory counter claims test: logical relationship between the claim alleged in the complaint and that in the counterclaim where conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time, as where they involve many of the same factual and/or legal issues. 4. Alday v. FGU Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 138822, January 23, 2001, 350 SCRA 113 (2001) - Criteria or tests for determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive in nature (Valencia v.CA) o Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same? o Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? o Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s counterclaim. o In there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? o Compelling test of compulsoriness which requires a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim- Would conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties entail a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court? 6. Cruz-Agana v. Santiago-Lagman, G.R. No. 139018, April 11, 2005, 455 SCRA 203 (2005) - A compulsory counter claim is not an initiaory pleading, thus it does not require a certificate of non-forum shopping. 7. Ruiz, Jr., et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 101566, August 17, 1992, 212 SCRA 660 (1992) - The cross-claimants cannot claim more rights than the plaintiffs themselves, on whose cause of action the cross-claim depended. The dismissal of the complaint divested the cross-claimants of whatever appealable interest they might have had before and also made the cross-claim itself no longer viable E. Reply 1. Rule 6, Sec. 10 Section 10. Reply. — A reply 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 new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. F. Formal requirements of pleadings

[Type text]


1. Rule 7 Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets 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 be 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. (1a, 2a) Section 2. The body. — The body of the pleading sets fourth its designation, the allegations of the party's claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading. (n) (a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so numbered to be readily identified, each of which shall contain a statement of a single set of circumstances so far as that can be done with convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its number in all succeeding pleadings. (3a) (b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action are joined the statement of the first shall be prefaced by the words "first cause of action,'' of the second by "second cause of action", and so on for the others. When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed to one of several causes of action in the complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words "answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to the second cause of action" and so on; and when one or more paragraphs of the answer are addressed to several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by words to that effect. (4) (c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable. (3a, R6) (d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (n) Section 3. Signature and address. — 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. 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. 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 this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (5a) Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit .(5a) A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief", or upon "knowledge, information and belief", or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (6a) Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action 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 therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter 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. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. 2. Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149576, August 8, 2006, 498 SCRA 220 (2006) - Doctrine of adoptive admission – a third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party embracing or espousing it. 3. Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128550, March 16, 2000, 336 SCRA 419 (2000) - The petitioner must sign the certification against non-forum shopping personally because it is only him who has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies. Even his counsel may be unaware of such fact, for his counsel may only be aware of the action for which he has been retained, but not of other actions he has commenced. For corporations or juridical persons, it may be signed by a duly authorized officer, in accordance with its procedure for entering into valid transactions. 4. Kaunlaran Lending Investors, Inc., et al. v. Uy, G.R. No. 154974, February 4, 2008, 543 SCRA 474 (2008) - Verification & certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by a specifically authorized officer or agent who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed. Defective if merely signed by the regular officers of a corporation since they may not even know the details required in a certificate for non-forum shopping 5. Spouses Valmonte v. Alcala, et al., G.R. No. 168667, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 536 (2008) - Generally, a pleading is not required to be verified unless required by law or by the Rules of Court. One such requirement is found in Section 1 of Rule 42 which requires a party appealing from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to file a verified petition for review with the CA. Verification, when required, is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations of a pleading are true and correct; are not speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good faith. To achieve this purpose, the verification of a pleading is made through an affidavit or sworn statement confirming that the affiant has read the pleading whose allegations are true and correct of the affiant's personal knowledge or based on authentic records. G. Detail in pleading 1. Rule 8, Secs. 1-9 Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which

[Type text]


the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts. (1) If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. (n) Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. (2) Section 3. Conditions precedent. — In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. (3) Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of person that is made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. (4) Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.(5a) Section 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it. (6) Section 7. Action or defense based on document. — Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. (7) Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a) Section 9. Official document or act. — In pleading an official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law. Rule 12 Section 1. When applied for; purpose. — Before responding to a pleading, a party may move for a definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any matter which is not averted with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him properly to prepare his responsive pleading. If the pleading is a reply, the motion must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof. Such motion shall point out the defects complained of, the paragraphs wherein they are contained, and the details desired. (1a) Section 2. Action by the court. — Upon the filing of the motion, the clerk of court must immediately bring it to the attention of the court which may either deny or grant it outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be heard. (n) Section 3. Compliance with order. — If the motion is granted, either in whole or in part, the compliance therewith must be effected within ten (10) days from notice of the order, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The bill of particulars or a more definite statement ordered by the court may be filed either in a separate or in an amended pleading, serving a copy thereof on the adverse party. (n) Section 4. Effect of non-compliance. — If the order is not obeyed, or in case of insufficient compliance therewith, the court may order the striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof to which the order was directed or make such other order as it deems just. (1[c]a) Section 5. Stay of period to file responsive pleading. — After service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite pleading, or after notice of denial of his motion, the moving party may file his responsive pleading within the period to which he was entitled at the time of filing his motion, which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event. (1[b]a) Section 6. Bill a part of pleading. — A bill of particulars becomes part of the pleading for which it is intended. 2. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. v. First Farmers Milling Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-29041, March 24, 1981, 103 SCRA 436 (1981) -

Complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action of the plaintiff. “Ultimate facts” are the important and

substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the plaintiff’s primary right and duty, or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions by the

defendant.

3. Far East Marble v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 94093, August 10, 1993, 225 SCRA 249 (1993) - The Court explained that complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient notice of the cause of action even though the allegation may be vague or indefinite, for in such case, the recourse of the defendant would be to file a motion for a bill of particulars. It is indeed the better rule that, pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should be liberally construed so that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims so as to avoid possible denial of substantial justice due to legal technicalities. 4. Filipinas Textile, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119800, November 12, 2003 415 SCRA 635 (2003) - the admission of the genuineness and due execution of a document means that the party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily signed the document or it was signed by another for him and with his authority; that when it was signed it reflected the true intention of the parties; that the document was delivered; and that any formalities required by law, that may be lacking are deemed to have been waived 5. Toribio v. Bidin, G.R. No. 57821, January 17, 1985134, SCRA 162 (1985) - Section 8 also applies to actionable documents as a basis of a DEFENSE. Plaintiff must deny due execution and genuineness under oath and set forth the facts according to him. H. Amended and supplemental pleadings 1. Rule 10 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

[Type text]


Section 1. Amendments in general. — Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. (1) Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. (2a) Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as provided in the next preceding section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard. (3a) Section 4. Formal amendments. — 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. (4a) Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — 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 effect 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. (5a) Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. — Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading. (6a) Section 7. Filing of amended pleadings. — When any pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading, incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate marks, shall be filed. (7a) Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. 2. Keramik Industries, Inc. v. Guerrero, G.R. No. L-38866, November 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 265 (1974) - Motion for submission of amended complaint with alternative cause of action, when not dismissible: The motion for submission of an amendment complaint with an alternative cause of action, when the latter does not change the theory, and is related to the major premise, of the complaint to be amended should not be dismissed. To do so would be tantamount to making the complainant file a separate action for the same issue, and is repugnant to the discouragement against multiplicity of suits. 3. R & B Surety & Ins. Col, Inc. v. Savellano, G.R. No. L-45234, May 8, 1985, 136 SCRA 312 (1985) - The court may grant an amendment of the answer and change their position in their previous pleadings as long as they do not change their theory (that they are not liable). The reason of such non-liability may be changes as in this case. 4. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 133657, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 499 (2002) - The right granted to the plaintiff under procedural law to amend the complaint before an answer has been served is not precluded by the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other proceeding contesting its sufficiency. Were we to conclude otherwise, the right to amend a pleading under Sec. 2, Rule 10 will be rendered nugatory and ineffectual, since all that a defendant has to do to foreclose this remedial right is to challenge the adequacy of the complaint before he files an answer. 5. Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 81024, February 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 533 (2000) - A supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies, not dispense with the original complaint. The supplemental and original complaint must bear the same CoA. 6. Cagungun, et al. v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 158674, October 17, 2005, 473 SCRA 259 (2005) - It is thus clear that when there is an objection on the evidence presented because it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, an amendment must be made before accepting such evidence. If no amendment is made, the evidence objected to cannot be considered. I. Periods for pleading 1. Rule 11 When to File Responsive Pleadings Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court. (la) Section 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity. — Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity and service of summons is made on the government official designated by law to receive the same, the answer shall be filed within thirty (30) days after receipt of summons by such entity. (2a) Section 3. Answer to amended complaint. — When the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the same within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy thereof. Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint within ten (l0) days from notice of the order admitting the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed. This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention. (3a) Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. — A counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within ten (10) days from service. (4) Section 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the answer to the complaint. (5a) Section 6. Reply. — A reply may be filed within ten (10) days from service of the pleading responded to. (6) Section 7. Answer to supplemental complain. — A supplemental complaint may be answered within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed. (n) Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein. (8a, R6)

[Type text]


Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. — A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment. (9, R6) Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. — When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment. (3, R9) Section 11. Extension of time to plead. — Upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the court may extend the time to plead provided in these Rules. The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules. Rule 22 Computation of Time Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day. (a) Section 2. Effect of interruption. — Should an act be done which effectively interrupts the running of the period, the allowable period after such interruption shall start to run on the day after notice of the cessation of the cause thereof. The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be excluded in the computation of the period. 2. Alarilla v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 144697, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 601 (2003) - Sec. 1, Rule 22 of the RoC provides that where the last day of the period for doing an act as provided by law falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time should not run until the next working day. J. Filing and service of pleadings & other papers 1. Rule 13 Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the filing of all pleadings and other papers, as well as the service thereof, except those for which a different mode of service is prescribed. (n) Section 2. Filing and service, defined. — Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court. Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side. (2a) Section 3. Manner of filing. — 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. (1a) Section 4. Papers required to be filed and served. — Every judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent to the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected. (2a) Section 5. Modes of service. — Service of pleadings motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall be made either personally or by mail. (3a) Section 6. Personal service. — Service of the papers may be made by delivering personally a copy to the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then residing therein. (4a) Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered mail shall be made 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, 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 undelivered. If no registry service is available in the locality of either the senders or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail. (5a; Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998) Section 8. Substituted service. — If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of such delivery. (6a) Section 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or resolutions. — Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party. (7a) Section 10. Completeness of service. — Personal service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. 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 date is earlier. (8a) Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (n) Section 12. Proof of filing. — 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,

[Type text]


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 on a copy of the same; if filed by registered mail, 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. (n) Section 13. Proof of Service. — Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall 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. (10a) Section 14. Notice of lis pendens. — In an action affecting the title or the right of possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in which the property is situated notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a description of the property in that province affected thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the parties designated by their real names. The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.

Civ Pro 1

Documents

Transcript of Civ Pro 1