Feb-march 2014 CivPro Digest

8/9/2019 Feb-march 2014 CivPro Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/feb-march-2014-civpro-digest 1/11

Thenamaris Philippines, Inc., etc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. 19121,!e"ruar# $, 2%1&'!actsAmanda C. Mendigorin (private respondent) fled a complaint with the Labor Arbiter againstpetitioner Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. or death benefts, !npaid salaries, sic"ness allowance,re!nd o medical e#penses, damages and attorne$%s ees. Private respondent is the widow oseaarer &!illermo M. Mendigorin (&!illermo) who was emplo$ed b$ Thenamaris or ' $ears asan oiler and event!all$, as second engineer in the latter%s vessels. &!illermo was diagnosed withand died o colon cancer d!ring the term o the emplo$ment contract between him and

Thenamaris.

LA prom!lgated his ecision in avor o private respondent. *n appeal, the +LC reversed the

LA%s ecision. Private respondent moved or reconsideration. In a esol!tion dated -!ne ',

'//, however, her motion was denied or lac" o merit. Private respondent, thro!gh co!nsel,

received the -!ne ', '// esol!tion o the +LC on -!l$ 0, '//. 1i#t$2two da$s thereater, or

on 1eptember 0, '//, she fled a Motion or 3#tension o Time to 4ile Petition or Certiorari

beore the CA. Private respondent alleged that she had !ntil 1eptember , '// (as 1eptember 5,

'//, the act!al last da$ or fling, ell on a 1!nda$) within which to fle a petition or certiorari.

6owever, as her co!nsel was then saddled and occ!pied with e7!all$ important cases, it wo!ldbe impossible or him to fle the petition on time, especiall$ since the case involves vol!mino!s

doc!ments necessar$ in the preparation thereo. Accordingl$, private respondent as"ed or an

e#tension o 89 da$s rom 1eptember , '//, or !ntil 1eptember '', '//, within which to fle

the petition. *n 1eptember '', '//, private respondent fled her Petition or Certiorari beore

the CA

In a esol!tion dated +ovember '/, '//, the CA noted that private respondent%s Petition orCertiorari was fled 89 da$s late and s!:ers rom proced!ral infrmities. +onetheless, in theinterest o s!bstantial ;!stice, the CA entertained the petition and directed private respondent toc!re the technical <aws in her petition.

Petitioners fled a Motion or econsideration with Pra$er to ismiss, strongl$ opposing privaterespondent%s Motion or 3#tension to 4ile Petition or Certiorari or being an absol!tel$ prohibitedpleading. Petitioners arg!ed that A.M. +o. /228'21C e:ectivel$ rendered the 5/2da$ period orfling a petition or certiorari non2e#tendible ater it deleted portions o !le 59 pertaining toe#tension o time to fle petition. Th!s, as the r!le now stands, petitions or certiorari m!st befled strictl$ within 5/ da$s rom notice o ;!dgment or rom the order den$ing a motion orreconsideration

Issue =hether or not p!blic respondent ca committed grave ab!se o discretion amo!nting to

lac" or e#cess o ;!risdiction when it noted the petition or certiorari fled b$ the private

respondent instead o dismissing it o!tright or having been fled be$ond the mandator$ and ;!risdictional 5/2da$ period re7!ired b$ section >, r!le 59 o the r!les o co!rt, as amended b$

a.m. no. /228'2sc.

)el* There is merit in the petition. In said case we stated that the general r!le, as laid down in

Lag!na Metts Corporation v. Co!rt o Appeals, is that a petition or certiorari m!st be fled strictl$

within 5/ da$s rom notice o ;!dgment or rom the order den$ing a motion or reconsideration.

This is in accordance with the amendment introd!ced b$ A.M. +o. /228'21C where no provision

or the fling o a motion or e#tension to fle a petition or certiorari e#ists, !nli"e in the original

1ection > o !le 59 which allowed the fling o s!ch a motion b!t onl$ or compelling reason and

in no case e#ceeding 89 da$s. ?nder e#ceptional cases, however, and as held in omdom v.

Third and 4ith ivisions o the 1andiganba$an, the 5/2da$ period ma$ be e#tended s!b;ect to

the co!rt%s so!nd discretion. In omdom, we stated that the deletion o the provisions in !le 59

pertaining to e#tension o time did not ma"e the fling o s!ch pleading absol!tel$ prohibited. @I

s!ch were the intention, the deleted portion co!ld ;!st have simpl$ been reworded to state that

no e#tension o time to fle the petition shall be granted.% Absent s!ch a prohibition, motions or

e#tension are allowed, s!b;ect to the co!rt%s so!nd discretion.@

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_191215_2014.html




Then in Labao v. 4lores, we laid down some o the e#ceptions to the strict application o the 5/2

da$ period r!le, th!sB

TDhere are recogniEed e#ceptions to their strict observance, s!ch asB (8) most pers!asive and

weight$ reasonsF (') to relieve a litigant rom an in;!stice not commens!rate with his ail!re to

compl$ with the prescribed proced!reF (G) good aith o the dea!lting part$ b$ immediatel$

pa$ing within a reasonable time rom the time o the dea!ltF (>) the e#istence o special or

compelling circ!mstancesF (9) the merits o the caseF (5) a ca!se not entirel$ attrib!table to the

a!lt or negligence o the part$ avored b$ the s!spension o the r!lesF () a lac" o an$ showing

that the review so!ght is merel$ rivolo!s and dilator$F (0) the other part$ will not be !n;!stl$

pre;!diced thereb$F () ra!d, accident, mista"e or e#c!sable negligence witho!t appellant%s

a!ltF (8/) pec!liar legal and e7!itable circ!mstances attendant to each caseF (88) in the name o

s!bstantial ;!stice and air pla$F (8') importance o the iss!es involvedF and (8G) e#ercise o

so!nd discretion b$ the ;!dge g!ided b$ all the attendant circ!mstances.

In this case, co!nting 5/ da$s rom her co!nsel%s receipt o the -!ne ', '// +LC esol!tion on

-!l$ 0, '//, private respondent had !ntil 1eptember , '// to fle her petition or a motion or

e#tension, as 1eptember 5, '//, the last da$ or fling s!ch pleading, ell on a 1!nda$. 6owever,

the motion was fled onl$ on 1eptember 0, '//. It is a !ndamental r!le o remedial law that a

motion or e#tension o time m!st be fled beore the e#piration o the period so!ght to be

e#tendedF otherwise, the same is o no e:ect since there wo!ld no longer be an$ period to

e#tend, and the assailed ;!dgment or order will have become fnal and e#ec!tor. Additionall$, as

cited earlier in Labao, there sho!ld be an e:ort on the part o the litigant invo"ing liberalit$ to

satisactoril$ e#plain wh$ he or she was !nable to abide b$ the r!les. 6ere, the reason o:ered or

availing o the motion or e#tension is the heav$ wor"load o private respondent%s co!nsel, which

is hardl$ a compelling or meritorio!s reason as en!nciated in Labao. Time and again, we have

held that the e#c!se o @heav$ wor"load is relative and oten sel2serving. 1tanding alone, it is

not a s!Hcient reason to deviate rom the 5/2da$ r!le.@ Th!s, private respondent%s motion or

e#tension sho!ld have been denied o!tright.

+ennis A.. !una vs. -anila conomic an* Cultural /0ce an* C/A (G.R. No. 19$&2,!e"ruar# &, 2%1&'!actsPetitioner sent a letter to the C*A re7!esting or a @cop$ o the latest fnancial and a!dit report@o the M3C* invo"ing, or that p!rpose, his @constit!tional right to inormation on matters op!blic concern.@ The petitioner made the re7!est on the belie that the M3C*, being !nder the@operational s!pervision@ o the epartment o Trade and Ind!str$ (TI), is a government ownedand controlled corporation (&*CC) and th!s s!b;ect to the a!dit ;!risdiction o the C*A

*n '9 A!g!st '/8/, Assistant Commissioner +aran;o iss!ed a memorand!m reerring thepetitioner%s re7!est to C*A Assistant Commissioner 3mma M. 3spina or @!rther disposition.@ Inthis memorand!m, however, Assistant Commissioner +aran;o revealed that the M3C* was @notamong the agencies a!dited b$ an$ o the three Cl!sters o the Corporate &overnment 1ector.@

Ta"ing the '9 A!g!st '/8/ memorand!m as an admission that the C*A had never a!dited ande#amined the acco!nts o the M3C*, the petitioner fled the instant petition or mandam!s on 01eptember '/8/. Petitioner fled the s!it in his capacities as @ta#pa$er, concerned citiEen, amember o the Philippine ar and law boo" a!thor.@

Petitioner posits that b$ ailing to a!dit the acco!nts o the M3C*, the C*A is neglecting its d!t$!nder 1ection '(8), Article IJ2 o the Constit!tion to a!dit the acco!nts o an otherwise bonafde &*CC or government instr!mentalit$. It is the adamant claim o the petitioner that the M3C*is a &*CC witho!t an original charter or, at least, a government instr!mentalit$, the !nds owhich parta"e the nat!re o p!blic !nds.

C*A, or its part, arg!es that the petition was fled in violation o the doctrine o hierarch$ oco!rts. The C*A a!lts the fling o the instant mandam!s petition directl$ with this Co!rt, when





s!ch petition co!ld have ver$ well been presented, at the frst instance, beore the Co!rt oAppeals or an$ egional Trial Co!rt

Issue =hether or not petitioner violated the hierarch$ o co!rts.

)el* +o. =e r!le that the instant petition raises iss!es o transcendental importance, involvedas the$ are with the perormance o a constit!tional d!t$, allegedl$ neglected, b$ the C*A. Anallegation as serio!s as a violation o a constit!tional or legal d!t$, co!pled with the pressingp!blic interest in the resol!tion o all related iss!es, prompts this Co!rt to p!rs!e a defnitiver!ling thereon, i not or the proper g!idance o the government or agenc$ concerned, then orthe orm!lation o controlling principles or the ed!cation o the bench, bar and the p!blic ingeneral. 4or this p!rpose, the Co!rt invo"es its s$mbolic !nction.

In view o the transcendental importance o the iss!es raised in the mandam!s petition, asearlier mentioned, this Co!rt waives this last proced!ral iss!e in avor o a resol!tion on themerits.

ps. 3icente Afullu4encia an* 5eticia Afulu4encia vs. -etropolitan an6 7 TrustCompan#, et al. (G.R. No. 181&, !e"ruar# , 2%1&'!actsPetitioners, spo!ses Kicente and Leticia A!l!gencia, fled a Complaint or n!llifcation omortgage, oreclos!re, a!ction sale, certifcate o sale and other doc!ments, with damages,against respondents Metropolitan an" Tr!st Co. (Metroban") beore the TC.

Ater the fling o the parties% pleadings and with the concl!sion o pre2trial, petitioners fled aMotion or Iss!ance o 1!bpoena !ces Tec!m Ad Testifcand!m to re7!ire Metroban"%s oHcersto appear and testi$ as the petitioners% initial witnesses d!ring the A!g!st G8, '//5 hearing orthe presentation o their evidence2in2chie, and to bring the doc!ments relative to their loan withMetroban", as well as those covering the e#tra;!dicial oreclos!re and sale o petitioners% '//2s7!are meter land in Me$ca!a$an, !lacan covered b$ Transer Certifcate o Title +o. '/>88 (M).

The Motion contained a notice o hearing written as ollowsB+*TIC3

The ranch Cler" o Co!rtegional Trial Co!rtranch , Malolos, !lacan

&reetingsBPlease s!bmit the oregoing motion or the consideration and approval o the 6on. Co!rtimmediatel$ !pon receipt hereo.

(signed)Kicente C. Angeles

Metroban" fled an *pposition arg!ing that or lac" o a proper notice o hearing, the Motion m!stbe deniedF that being a litigated motion, the ail!re o petitioners to set a date and time or thehearing renders the Motion ine:ective and pro ormaF that p!rs!ant to 1ections 8 and 5 o !le'9 o the !les, Metroban"%s oHcers who are considered adverse parties ma$ not becompelled to appear and testi$ in co!rt or the petitioners since the$ were not initiall$ servedwith written interrogatories

Issue =hether or not the co!rt o appeals committed (reversible) error in holding that thepetitioners m!st frst serve written interrogatories to respondent ban"%s oHcers beore the$ canbe s!bpoenaed

)el* CA did not commit an$ error. As a r!le, in civil cases, the proced!re o calling the adverse

part$ to the witness stand is not allowed, !nless written interrogatories are frst served !pon thelatter. This is embodied in 1ection 5, !le '9 o the !les. *ne o the p!rposes o the above r!leis to prevent fshing e#peditions and needless dela$sF it is there to maintain order and acilitatethe cond!ct o trial. It will be pres!med that a part$ who does not serve written interrogatorieson the adverse part$ beorehand will most li"el$ be !nable to elicit acts !se!l to its case i itlater opts to call the adverse part$ to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process co!ldbe treated as a fshing e#pedition or an attempt at dela$ing the proceedingsF it prod!ces nosignifcant res!lt that a prior written interrogatories might bring.

In the present case, petitioners see" to call Metroban"%s oHcers to the witness stand as theirinitial and main witnesses, and to present doc!ments in Metroban"%s possession as part o their





principal doc!mentar$ evidence. This is improper. Petitioners ma$ not be allowed, at the incipientphase o the presentation o their evidence2in2chie at that, to present Metroban"%s oHcers whoare considered adverse parties as well, based on the principle that corporations act onl$ thro!ghtheir oHcers and d!l$ a!thoriEed agents as their main witnessesF nor ma$ the$ be allowed togain access to Metroban"%s doc!mentar$ evidence or the p!rpose o ma"ing it their own. This istantamo!nt to b!ilding their whole case rom the evidence o their opponent. The b!rden oproo and evidence alls on petitioners, not on Metroban"F i petitioners cannot prove their claim!sing their own evidence, then the adverse part$ Metroban" ma$ not be press!red to hang itselrom its own deense.

Intel Technolo4# Philippines, Inc. vs. National 5a"or Relations Commission an* eremias Ca"iles (G.R. No. 2%%:, !e"ruar# , 2%1&'!actsCabiles was initiall$ hired b$ Intel Phil. on April 85, 8 as an Inventor$ Anal$st. In a letter,dated ecember 8', '//5, Cabiles was o:ered the position o 4inance Manager b$ Intel 6N.eore accepting the o:er, he in7!ired rom Intel Phil., thro!gh an email, the conse7!ences oaccepting the newl$ presented opport!nit$ in 6ong Nong. Intel Phil. replied that he will not beeligible or the retirement beneft given that he has not reached 8/ $ears o service at the timehe moved to 6ong Nong. =e do not ro!nd !p the $ears o service. *n -an!ar$ G8, '//, Cabilessigned the ;ob o:er.

*n 1eptember 0, '//, ater seven () months o emplo$ment, Cabiles resigned rom Intel 6N.

Abo!t two $ears thereater, Cabiles fled a complaint or non2pa$ment o retirement benefts and

or moral and e#emplar$ damages with the +LC egional Arbitration ranch2IK. 6e insisted that

he was emplo$ed b$ Intel or 8/ $ears and 9 months rom April 8 to 1eptember '// a

period which incl!ded his seven () month stint with Intel 6N. Th!s, he believed he was 7!alifed

to avail o the benefts !nder the compan$%s retirement polic$ allowing an emplo$ee who served

or 8/ $ears or more to receive retirement benefts.

The LA, +LC and CA ordered or the pa$ment o the retirement benefts to Cabiles. The$ held

that Cabiles did not sever his emplo$ment with Intel Phil. when he moved to Intel 6N. Intel Phil

fled a petition or review on certiorari !nder !le >9 o the !les o Co!rt. Intel Phil. insists as

serio!s error the CA%s aHrmation o the +LC decision holding it liable or the retirement benefts

claimed b$ Cabiles. It contends that he is dis7!alifed to receive the benefts or his ail!re to

complete the re7!ired minim!m ten (8/) $ears o service as he resigned to ass!me new

responsibilities with Intel 6N e:ective 4ebr!ar$ 8, '//.

Issue =hether or not the petition o Intel Phil. is proper

)el* Oes. As a general r!le, this Co!rt is not a trier o acts and a petition or review oncertiorari !nder !le >9 o the !les o Co!rt m!st e#cl!sivel$ raise 7!estions o law.+evertheless, this Co!rt will not hesitate to deviate rom what are clearl$ proced!ral g!idelinesand dist!rb and stri"e down the fndings o the CA and those o the labor trib!nals i there is ashowing that the$ are !ns!pported b$ the evidence on record or there was a patentmisappreciation o acts. Indeed, that the imp!gned decision o the CA is consistent with thefndings o the labor trib!nals does not per se concl!sivel$ demonstrate its correctness. $ wa$o e#ception to the general r!le, this Co!rt will scr!tiniEe the acts i onl$ to recti$ the pre;!diceand in;!stice res!lting rom an incorrect assessment o the evidence presented.

In contemplating whether to accept the o:er, Cabiles wrote Intel Phil. providing details and

as"ing or clarifcations. There was his acceptance o the act that he wo!ld be ending his

relationship with Intel Phil. as his emplo$er. espite a non2avorable repl$ as to his retirement

concerns, Cabiles still accepted the o:er o Intel 6N. 6is acceptance o the o:er meant letting go

o the retirement benefts he now claims as he was inormed thro!gh email correspondence that

his .9 $ears o service with Intel Phil. wo!ld not be ro!nded o: in his avor.





i4na# ;<I- Philippines, Inc. vs. =nion an6 of the Philippines > =nion an6 of the

Philippines vs. i4na# ;<I- Philippines, Inc. (G.R. No. 1:19% 7 G.R. No. 1:198,

!e"ruar# 12, 2%1&'

!acts

In 80>, Alonso de Leon (Alonso) mortgaged in avor o ?nion an" o the Philippines a real

propert$ registered !nder his name and osario, his name. The propert$ was oreclosed and was

sold to ?nion an". A TCT in the name o ?nion an" was then iss!ed. In 800, osario fled

against Alonso and ?nion an", Civil Case +o. 29'/' or ann!lment o the 80> mortgage,

claiming that Alonso mortgaged the propert$ witho!t her consent, and or reconve$ance.

*n ecember '/, 80, a eed o Absol!te 1ale was e#ec!ted b$ and between ?nion an" and

igna$ whereb$ the propert$ was conve$ed to igna$ or P> million. *ne o the terms o the

deed o sale states that the QK3+* will deend its title to the ParcelRs o Land with

improvementsD thereon against the claims o an$ person whomsoever.S

*n ecember 8', 88, a ecision was rendered in Civil Case +o. 29'/' declaring the

mortgage and oreclos!re as n!ll and void as well as 1ale and mortgage b$ and between ?nion

an" and igna$ 3#2Im Phil. Inc. As a res!lt, igna$ was evicted rom the propert$. igna$ fled

Civil Case +o. >288' or breach o warrant$ against eviction !nder Articles 89> and 89>0 o

the Civil Code, with damages, against ?nion an".

?nion an" interposed a Motion to ismiss gro!nded on lac" o or ail!re to state a ca!se o

action, claiming that it made no warranties in avor o igna$ when it sold the propert$ to the

latter. It interposed a co!nterclaim as well, gro!nded on two promissor$ notes signed b$ 1i$ in

avor o the ban" 8) Promissor$ +ote +o. /28>>5 dated ecember '/, 8/ or the amo!nt o

P8.9 million pa$able on demand with ann!al interest o GG, and ') Promissor$ +ote +o. 82

/'05 dated 4ebr!ar$ '5, 88 or the amo!nt o P' million pa$able on demand with ann!al

interest o G/ which res!lted in o!tstanding liabilities, incl!sive o interest and penalties, in

the total amo!nt o more than P8/.> million as o ecember '/, 85.

=ith respect to the co!nterclaim, the trial co!rt held that the ban"%s co!nterclaim was not at all

connected with igna$%s Complaint, which ma"es it a permissive co!nterclaim or which thedoc"et ees sho!ld accordingl$ be paid. 1ince the ban" did not pa$ the doc"et ees, the trial

co!rt held that it did not ac7!ire ;!risdiction over its co!nterclaimF th!s, it dismissed the same.

CA reversed the trial co!rt%s decision and held that ?nion an" timel$ paid the doc"et ees as

shown b$ *Hcial eceipt +os. >''9 and >'859 to s!ch e:ect and the r!bberstamped

mar" on the ace o the answer itsel.

Issue In a permissive co!nterclaim, when sho!ld the doc"et ees be paid to enable the trial

co!rt to ac7!ire ;!risdiction over the case.

)el* Anent the co!nterclaims interposed b$ deendant or the collection o certain s!m o

mone$ adverted earlier hereo sicD, this Co!rt co!ld not e#ercise ;!risdiction over the same as

deendant did not pa$ the doc"et ees thereor. Altho!gh the co!nterclaims were denominated

as comp!lsor$ in the answer, the matters therein alleged were not connected with the plainti:%s

complaint. The co!nterclaims co!ld stand independentl$ rom the plainti:%s complaint hence

the$ are a sicD permissive co!nterclaims. !ring the pre2trial, this Co!rt had alread$ r!led that





the co!nterclaims were permissive $et the records showed that deendant had not paid the

doc"et ees. This Co!rt thereore has not ac7!ired ;!risdiction over said case.

And i it is tr!e that the ban" paid the doc"et ees on its co!nterclaim as earl$ as in 8>, it

wo!ld have vigoro!sl$ insisted on s!ch act ater being apprised o the trial co!rt%s March '8,

'/// ecision. All it had to do was prove pa$ment b$ presenting to the co!rt the oHcial receipts

or an$ other acceptable doc!mentar$ evidence, and th!s sec!re the proper reversal o the r!ling

on its co!nterclaim. 1till, nothing was heard rom the ban" on the iss!e, !ntil it fled its brie with

the CA on appeal.

Repu"lic of the Philippines, represente* "# the +epartment of Pu"lic ?or6s an*

)i4h@a#s (+P?)' vs. /rti4as an* Compan# 5imite* Partnership (G.R. No. 1:1&9,

-arch $, 2%1&'

!acts

espondent, *rtigas and Compan$ Limited Partnership, is the owner o a parcel o land. ?pon the

re7!est o P=6, respondent *rtigas ca!sed the segregation o its propert$ into fve lots and

reserved one portion or road widening or the C29 <$over pro;ect. The C292*rtigas Aven!e

<$over was completed in 8. *n 4ebr!ar$ 8>, '//8, respondent *rtigas fled with the egional

Trial Co!rt o Pasig a petition or a!thorit$ to sell to the government the portion o the propert$

!sed in the road widening. espondent *rtigas alleged that the P=6 re7!ested the conve$ance

o the propert$ or road widening p!rposes.

espite notice, no one appeared to oppose respondent *rtigas% petition. 4inding merit in

respondent *rtigasU petition, the TC iss!ed an order on -!ne 88, '//8 a!thoriEing the sale o the

s!b;ect lot to petitioner ep!blic o the Philippines.

Petitioner ep!blic o the Philippines fled a motion or reconsideration o the egional Trial Co!rt

order dated -!ne 88, '//8. In an order dated *ctober G, '//8, the egional Trial Co!rt denied

petitioner ep!blic o the PhilippinesU motion or reconsideration. Petitioner ep!blic o the

Philippines fled a notice o appeal on *ctober '>, '//8 to the Co!rt o Appeals. In its appellantUs

brie, petitioner ep!blic o the Philippines arg!ed that the egional Trial Co!rt erred in granting

respondent *rtigas the a!thorit$ to sell its propert$ to the government beca!se the lot can onl$be conve$ed b$ donation to the government in accordance with 1ection 9/ o Presidential ecree

+o. 89'.

CA dismissed petitioner%s appeal or lac" o ;!risdiction beca!se petitioner ep!blic o the

Philippines raised onl$ a 7!estion o law.

Issue =hether or not petitioner !sed the correct mode o appeal

)el* +o. Appeals rom the egional Trial Co!rt to the Co!rt o Appeals !nder !le >8 m!st raise

both 7!estions o act and law. 1ection ' o !le 9/ o the !les o Co!rt provides that appeals

ta"en rom the egional Trial Co!rt to the Co!rt o Appeals raising onl$ p!re 7!estions o law are

not reviewable b$ the Co!rt o Appeals. In which case, the appeal shall not be transerred to the

appropriate co!rt. Instead, it shall be dismissed o!tright.

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_171496_2014.html




Appeals rom the decisions o the egional Trial Co!rt, raising p!rel$ 7!estions o law m!st, in all

cases, be ta"en to the 1!preme Co!rt on a petition or review on certiorari in accordance with

!le >9. An appeal b$ notice o appeal rom the decision o the egional Trial Co!rt in the

e#ercise o its original ;!risdiction to the Co!rt o Appeals is proper i the appellant raises

7!estions o act or both 7!estions o act and 7!estions o law.

There is a 7!estion o law when the appellant raises an iss!e as to what law shall be applied on a

given set o acts. Its resol!tion rests solel$ on the application o a law given the circ!mstances.

The sole iss!e raised b$ petitioner ep!blic o the Philippines to the Co!rt o Appeals is whether

respondent *rtigas% propert$ sho!ld be conve$ed to it onl$ b$ donation, in accordance with

1ection 9/ o Presidential ecree +o. 89'. This 7!estion involves the interpretation and

application o the provision. It does not re7!ire the Co!rt o Appeals to e#amine the tr!th or

alsit$ o the acts presented. +either does it invite a review o the evidence. The iss!e raised

beore the Co!rt o Appeals was, thereore, a 7!estion p!rel$ o law. The proper mode o appeal

is thro!gh a petition or review !nder !le >9. 6ence, the Co!rt o Appeals did not err in

dismissing the appeal on this gro!nd.

esus G. Crisolo4o an* Nanette . Crisoslo4o vs. ?- A4ro<In*ustrial Corporation

(G.R. No. 1989&, -arch $, 2%1&'

!acts

-es!s &. Crisologo and +annette . Crisologo (1po!ses Crisologo) were the plainti:s in two (')

collection cases beore TC against 1o Neng No, the owner o vario!s properties incl!ding two (')

parcels o land (s!b;ect properties), which were attached b$ the petitioners. As a res!lt, the

levies were annotated on the bac" o the said titles.

espondent -3=M Agro2Ind!strial Corporation (-3=M) was the s!ccessor2in2interest o one 1$ 1en

en, the plainti: in another collection case beore TC against 1o Neng No. ased on the decision

rendered, -3=M was able to transer the title o the s!b;ect properties in its name which still bear

the same annotations as well as the notice o lis pendens in connection with the other pending

cases fled against 1o Neng No".

A $ear thereater, 1po!ses Crisologo prevailed in the separate collection case. P!rs!ant to the

motion or e#ec!tion fled b$ 1po!ses Crisologo, a notice o sale was iss!ed. The notice o sale

incl!ded, among others, the s!b;ect properties now, in the name o -3=M. To protect its interest,

-3=M fled a separate action or cancellation o lien with pra$er or the iss!ance o a preliminar$

in;!nction. The egister o eeds o avao Cit$, 1heri: obert Medialdea, -ohn and -ane oes

and all persons acting !nder their direction@ were impleaded as deendants.

1po!ses Crisologo%s co!nsel appeared and fled in open co!rt their Ker$ ?rgent Maniestation

7!estioning the a!thorit$ o the said co!rt to restrain the e#ec!tion proceedings. -3=M opposed

it on the gro!nd that 1po!ses Crisologo were not parties in the case to which the co!rt agreed.

The TC r!led in avor o -3=M, ordered on -an!ar$ 8/, '/88 to cancel all e#isting liens and

enc!mbrances on the TCTs o the s!b;ect properties. eca!se no motion or intervention was

fled prior to the rendition o the ;!dgment, a certifcate, dated March 8, '/88, was iss!ed

declaring the -an!ar$ 8/, '/88 decision fnal and e#ec!tor$.





Issue =hether or not Co!rt o Appeals erred in holding that the action or Cancellation o

Annotations ma$ proceed even witho!t notice to and impleading the part$Ries who ca!sed the

annotations, in clear contravention o the r!le on ;oinder o parties and basic d!e process

)el* In an action or the cancellation o memorand!m annotated at the bac" o a certifcate o

title, the persons considered as indispensable incl!de those whose liens appear as annotations.

6ere, !ndisp!ted is the act that 1po!ses Crisologo%s liens were indeed annotated at the bac" o

TCT +os. G'959 and G'955. Th!s, as persons with their liens annotated, the$ stand to be

benefted or in;!red b$ an$ order relative to the cancellation o annotations in the pertinent TCTs.

In other words, the$ are as indispensable as -3=M itsel in the fnal disposition o the case or

cancellation, being one o the man$ lien holders.

As indispensable parties, 1po!ses Crisologo sho!ld have been ;oined as deendants in the case

p!rs!ant to 1ection , !le G o the !les o Co!rt, to witB

13C. . Comp!lsor$ ;oinder o indispensable parties. Parties in interest witho!t whom no fnal

determination can be had o an action shall be ;oined either as plainti:s or deendants.

It is the d!t$ o TC2r. 8>, ollowing the r!le on ;oinder o indispensable parties, to simpl$

recogniEe them, with or witho!t an$ motion to intervene. e it noted that the e:ect o their non2

participation as indispensable parties is to precl!de the ;!dgment, orders and the proceedings

rom attaining fnalit$. Time and again, the Co!rt has r!led that the absence o an indispensable

part$ renders all s!bse7!ent actions o the co!rt n!ll and void or want o a!thorit$ to act, not

onl$ as to the absent parties b!t even to those present. Conse7!entl$, the proceedings beore

TC2r. 8> were n!ll and void incl!ding the assailed orders, which ma$ be @ignored wherever and

whenever it e#hibits its head.@

urvivin4 )eirs of Alfre*o R. autista, namel# pifania G. autista an* oe# G.

autista vs. !rancisco 5in*o an* ?elhilmina 5in*o, et al. (G.R. No. 2%82$2, -arch 1%,

2%1&'

!acts

Alredo . a!tista (a!tista), petitioner%s predecessor, inherited in 80G a ree2patent land. 6e

sold it to herein respondents, via a notariEed deed o absol!te sale and new TCTs were iss!ed in

the name o respondents. Three $ears ater the sale, a!tista fled a complaint or rep!rchase

against respondents beore the TC, anchoring his ca!se o action on 1ection 88 o

Commonwealth Act +o. (CA) 8>8, otherwise "nown as the @P!blic Land Act,@ which readsB

13CTI*+ 88. 3ver$ conve$ance o land ac7!ired !nder the ree patent or homestead provisions,

when proper, shall be s!b;ect to rep!rchase b$ the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a

period o fve $ears rom the date o the conve$ance.

espondents fled a motion to dismiss, alleging that the complaint ailed to state the val!e o the

propert$ so!ght to be recovered. Moreover, the$ asserted that the total selling price o all the





properties is onl$ si#teen tho!sand fve h!ndred pesos (PhP 85,9//), and the selling price or

mar"et val!e o a propert$ is alwa$s higher than its assessed val!e. 1ince atas Pambansa lg.

(P) 8', as amended, grants ;!risdiction to the TCs over civil actions involving title to or

possession o real propert$ or interest therein where the assessed val!e is more than PhP

'/,///, then the TC has no ;!risdiction over the complaint in 7!estion since the propert$ which

a!tista see"s to rep!rchase is below the PhP '/,/// ;!risdictional ceiling. Acting on the motion,

the TC iss!ed the assailed order dismissing the complaint or lac" o ;!risdiction.

Petitioners arg!e that an action or rep!rchase is not a real action, b!t one incapable o

pec!niar$ estimation, it being o!nded on privit$ o contract between the parties. According to

petitioners, what the$ see" is the enorcement o their right to rep!rchase the s!b;ect propert$

!nder 1ection 88 o CA 8>8.

Issue =hether or not the action fled b$ petitioners is one involving title to or possession o real

propert$ or an$ interest therein or one incapable o pec!niar$ estimation.

)el* The co!rse o action embodied in the complaint b$ the present petitioners% predecessor,

Alredo . a!tista, is to enorce his right to rep!rchase the lots he ormerl$ owned p!rs!ant to

the right o a ree2patent holder !nder 1ec. 88 o CA 8>8 or the P!blic Land Act. The Co!rt r!les

that the complaint to redeem a land s!b;ect o a ree patent is a civil action incapable o

pec!niar$ estimation. It is a well2settled r!le that ;!risdiction o the co!rt is determined b$ the

allegations in the complaint and the character o the relie so!ght.

1ettled ;!rispr!dence considers some civil actions as incapable o pec!niar$ estimation, viEB

8. Actions or specifc perormanceF

'. Actions or s!pport which will re7!ire the determination o the civil stat!sF

G. The right to s!pport o the plainti:F

>. Those or the ann!lment o decisions o lower co!rtsF

9. Those or the rescission or reormation o contractsF

5. Interpretation o a contract!al stip!lation.

The Co!rt fnds that the instant ca!se o action to redeem the land is one or specifc

perormance. At frst bl!sh, it appears that the action fled b$ a!tista involves title to or

possession o the lots he sold to respondents. This proposition is incorrect. The reconve$ance o

the title to petitioners is solel$ dependent on the e#ercise o s!ch right to rep!rchase the lots in7!estion and is not the principal or main relie or remed$ so!ght. Th!s, the action o petitioners

is, in realit$, incapable o pec!niar$ estimation, and the reconve$ance o the lot is merel$ the

o!tcome o the perormance o the obligation to ret!rn the propert$ conormabl$ to the e#press

provision o CA 8>8.

-ar#lou Ca"rera vs. !eliB N4 (G.R. No. 2%1%1, -arch 12, 2%1&'





!acts

4eli# +g (respondent) fled a complaint or s!m o mone$ with the TC against the petitioner andher h!sband Marionilo Cabrera (spo!ses Cabrera). *n A!g!st , '//, the TC rendered aecision, which ordered the spo!ses Cabrera to pa$ the respondent. *n A!g!st 0, '//, thespo!ses Cabrera received a cop$ o the TC ecision dated A!g!st , '//. *n A!g!st 8>, '//,the spo!ses Cabrera fled with the TC a motion or reconsideration, which the$ set or hearingon A!g!st 8, '//. *n even date, the spo!ses Cabrera sent a cop$ o their motion or

reconsideration to the respondent thr! registered mailF it was act!all$ received b$ therespondent on A!g!st '8, '//.

The said motion or reconsideration, however, was not heard on A!g!st 8, '// as the new

acting presiding ;!dge o the said co!rt had ;!st ass!med oHce. The TC iss!ed a notice which

set the said motion or reconsideration or hearing on *ctober '5, '//.

*n 1eptember '/, '//, the respondent fled an opposition to the motion or reconsiderationfled b$ the spo!ses Cabrera. The respondent alleged that the said motion or reconsideration is

a mere scrap o paper since it violated the three2da$ notice re7!irement. The respondent pointedo!t that the spo!ses Cabrera sent to him a cop$ o their motion or reconsideration, which wasset or hearing on A!g!st 8, '//, via registered mail on A!g!st 8>, '//F that he act!all$received a cop$ thereo onl$ on A!g!st '8, '// o!r da$s ater the sched!led hearing thereon. TC denied the motion or reconsideration fled b$ the spo!ses Cabrera. The TC pointed o!tthat the spo!ses Cabrera violated 1ection >, !le 89 o the !les o Co!rt, which mandates thatever$ motion re7!ired to be heard sho!ld be served b$ the movant in s!ch a manner as toens!re its receipt b$ the other part$ at least three da$s beore the date o hearing

Issue =hether or not petitioners violated the three2da$ notice re7!irement.

)el* +o. The general r!le is that the three2da$ notice re7!irement in motions !nder 1ections >

and 9 o the !les o Co!rt is mandator$. It is an integral component o proced!ral d!e process.

As a r!le, a motion witho!t a notice o hearing is considered pro orma and does not a:ect the

reglementar$ period or the appeal or the fling o the re7!isite pleading.

As an integral component o the proced!ral d!e process, the three2da$ notice re7!ired b$ the

!les is not intended or the beneft o the movant. ather, the re7!irement is or the p!rpose o

avoiding s!rprises that ma$ be spr!ng !pon the adverse part$, who m!st be given time to st!d$

and meet the arg!ments in the motion beore a resol!tion o the co!rt.

+evertheless, the three2da$ notice re7!irement is not a hard and ast r!le. =hen the adverse

part$ had been a:orded the opport!nit$ to be heard, and has been indeed heard thro!gh the

pleadings fled in opposition to the motion, the p!rpose behind the three2da$ notice re7!irement

is deemed realiEed. In s!ch case, the re7!irements o proced!ral d!e process are s!bstantiall$

complied with. The test is the presence o opport!nit$ to be heard, as well as to have time to

st!d$ the motion and meaning!ll$ oppose or controvert the gro!nds !pon which it is based.

It is !ndisp!ted that the hearing on the motion or reconsideration fled b$ the spo!ses Cabrerawas reset b$ the TC twice with d!e notice to the partiesF it was onl$ on *ctober '5, '// thatthe motion was act!all$ heard b$ the TC. At that time, more than two months had passed sincethe respondent received a cop$ o the said motion or reconsideration on A!g!st '8, '//. Therespondent was th!s given s!Hcient time to st!d$ the motion and to enable him to meet the



arg!ments interposed therein. Indeed, the respondent was able to fle his opposition thereto on1eptember '/, '//.

Feb-march 2014 CivPro Digest

Documents

Transcript of Feb-march 2014 CivPro Digest