CIVPRO SPECPRO Part 1REM.doc
Short Description
Download CIVPRO SPECPRO Part 1REM.doc...
Description
Pointers in Remedial Law 2016 BAR EXAMS By Professor Professo r Victoria V. V. Loanon Loano n !it" t"e Assistance of Atty. #ara" S$are
PAR% &' %"e Velasco (ases PR&)(&PLE *+ ,-&(&AL /&ERAR(/ Mendoa et al. 3. Villas et al4 5$estion: X filed a Petition with the Supreme Court but failed to cite the particular rule upon which the petition was based. What are the corresponding effects if the petition will be treated as one filed under Rule 65 or one filed under Rule 45 Answer' !f the petition is to be treated as a petition filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court" the petition must be dismissed outright for ha#ing been filed prematurel$. prematurel$. %he principle of hierarch$ of courts should be applied. &eril$" a direct in3ocation of t"e S$reme (o$rt7s ori8inal 9$risdiction to iss$e t"ese writs s"o$ld :e allowed only w"en t"ere are secial and imortant reasons t"erefore t"eref ore clearly and secifically set o$t in t"e etition. *n t"e ot"er "and direct reco$rse to t"is (o$rt "as :een allowed for etitions filed $nder R$le ;< w"en only =$estions of law are raised. %hus" the Court ruled in Barcenas in Barcenas v. v. Tomas Tomas that Section ' of Rule 45 clearl$ states that the following following ma$ be appealed to the Supreme Supreme Court through through a petition petition for re#iew b$ certiorari: certiorari: 14 9$d8ments> 24 final orders> or ?4 resol$tions of t"e (o$rt of Aeals t"e Sandi8an:ayan t"e Re8ional %rial (o$rt or similar co$rts w"ene3er a$t"oried :y law. %he appeal must in#ol#e onl$ (uestions of law" not of fact. !n this case" the Court e)ercised liberalit$ and considered the instan instantt petitio petition n as one filed filed under Rule 45. !n Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowners Association, Inc." Inc." citing citing Republic v. Court of Appeals" Appeals " the Court noted that with the liberal spirit per#ading the Rules of Court and in the interest of *ustice" it has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as ha#ing been filed under Rule 45" especiall$ if filed within the reglementar$ reglementar $ period for filing a petition for re#iew. re#iew. *(%R&)E *+ )*)@&)%ER+ERE)(E *R *(%R&)E *+ ,-&(&AL S%AB&L&% Rom:e Eimtrade 3s. So$ses Peralta4 5$estion' X Corporation filed a Petition for the +eclaration of a State of Suspension of Pa$ments with ,ppro#al of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan with the R%C -R%C , which then issued a sta$ order in X Corporation/s fa#or. %hereafter" R%C , dismissed the petition for rehabilitation of X Corporation because of misrepresentations about its financial status in its petition. 0n the other hand" hand" respon responden dentt 1 Corpor Corporatio ation n initiat initiated ed a forecl foreclosu osure re proceed proceeding ing agains againstt X Corpor Corporati ation/ on/ss properties. 2owe#er" 1 Corporation was pre#ented b$ the issuance of %R0 and in*unction issued b$ another R%C -R%C -R%C 3 filed fil ed b$ X Corporation +id R%C 3 interfere with the *urisdiction *uris diction of R%C , in issuing the %R0 and in*unction o. %"e re"a: Answer' o re"a:ilit ilitati ation on case case is distin distinct ct and dissim dissimila ilarr from from t"e ann$lm ann$lment ent of foreclos$re case in t"at t"e first case is a secial roceedin8 w"ile t"e second is a ci3il action. &ndeed t"e two cases are different wit" resect to t"eir nat$re $rose and t"e reliefs so$8"t s$c" t"at t"e in9$ncti3e writ iss$ed in t"e ann$lment of foreclos$re case did not interfere wit" t"e re"a:ilitation case. %he purpose of the rehabilitation case and the reliefs pra$ed for b$ Rombe are the suspension suspension of pa$ments pa$ments because it foresees foresees the impossibilit impossibilit$ $ of meeting meeting its debts when the$ respecti#el$ fall due" and the appro#al of its proposed rehabilitation plan. %he ob*ecti#e and the reliefs sought b$ Rombe in the annulment of foreclosure case are" among others" to annul the unilateral increase in the interest rate and to cancel the auction of the mortgaged properties.
' P a g e
MEA)& MEA)&)C )C *+ ,-R&S ,-R&S& &(%& (%&*) *) *VER *VER %/E S-B,E( S-B,E(% % MA%%E MA%%ER R (o9$an8 (o9$an8co co ,r. ,r. 3. Re$:lic4 5$estion' a$ sub*ect matter *urisdiction be conferred b$ the ac(uiescence of the parties Answer: o. ,$risdiction o3er a s$:9ect matter is conferred :y law not :y t"e consent or ac=$iescence of any or all of t"e arties . !n turn" the issue on whether a suit comes within the penumbra of a statutor$ conferment is determined b$ the allegations in the complaint" c omplaint" regardless of whether or not the suitor will be entitled to reco#er upon all or part of the claims asserted. ,-R&S&(%&*) *+ A) AM&)&S%RA%&VE ACE)( Baltaar 3s. *m:$dsman4 5$estion: X was hired b$ 7 to ser#e as a fishpond watchman o#er 7/s 89hectare fishpond. 2owe#er" X/s salaries and '; share in the har#est as agreed upon b$ them remained unpaid. X then filed with the Pro#incial ,grarian Reform ,d*udication 3oard -P,R,3 a Complaint for aintenance of Peaceful Possession" Collection of Sum of one$ and Super#ision of 2ar#est" alleging that he is an agricultural tenant in possession of the fishpond and is about to be e*ected from it. %he case was assigned to a Pro#incial ,d*udicator of +,R,3. 7 contends that the issue does not present an agrarian dispute< that X is not an agricultural tenant as alleged" but is a watchman watchman and therefore" therefore" the case is outside outside the *urisdiction *urisdiction of the +epartment +epartment of ,grarian Reform ,d*udication 3oard -+,R,3. Should +,R,3 ta=e cogni>ance of the case Answer: 7es. ?urisdiction o#er the sub*ect matter is determined b$ the allegations of the complaint. %"e nat$re of an action is determined :y t"e material a3erments in t"e comlaint and t"e c"aracter of t"e relief so$8"t not :y t"e defenses asserted in t"e answer or motion to dismiss . @i#en that X/s complaint and its attachment clearl$ spells out the *urisdictional allegations that he is an agricultural tenant in possession of the fishpond and is about to be e*ected from it" clearl$" the Pro#incial ,d*udicator could not be faulted in assuming *urisdiction as said allegations characteri>e an agricultural dispute. 3esides" whate#er defense asserted in an answer or motion to dismiss is not to be considered in resol#ing the issue on *urisdiction as it cannot be made dependent upon the allegations of the defendant. *(%R&)E *+ A/ERE)(E *+ ,-R&S&(%&*) Peole 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 accused in a crimina criminall case for #iolati #iolation on of Sec. Sec. 6A of P+ 85 -Cutting -Cutting"" 5$estion' X was the accused gathering andBor collecting timber or other products without license< orestr$ Reform Code" as amended amended b$ D0 E88 filed filed before before the R%C. %he %he offen offense se is punish punished ed with the penalt penalt$ $ of prisiόn correccional in in its medium and ma)imum period" if the #alue of the thing stolen is more than 6" pesos but does not e)ceed 'E" pesos.F +uring the proceedings" Republic ,ct 86G'" a law e)panding the *urisdiction of the %Cs to include criminal cases punishable b$ not more than 6 $ears of imprisonment" too= effect. X was con#icted b$ the R%C. Hpon appeal to the C," the C, granted X/s appeal and dismissed the case for lac= of *urisdiction of the R%C. !s the C, correct Answ Answer er'' o. ,s a general rule" the *urisdiction of a court to tr$ a criminal action is to be determined b$ the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Where a court has alread$ obtained and is e)ercising *urisdiction o#er a contro#ers$" its *urisdiction to proceed to the final determ determinat ination ion of the cause cause is not affected affected b$ new legisla legislatio tion n placin placing g *urisd *urisdicti iction on o#er o#er such such ecetio tion n to t"e r$le r$le is w"ere w"ere t"e stat$t stat$tee er eres essly sly proceedings in another tribunal. %"e ece ro3ides or is constr$ed to t"e effect t"at it is intended to oerate as to actions endin8 :efore its enactment. Where a statute changing the *urisdiction of a court has no retroacti#e effect" it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of a statute. !"ere a co$rt ac=$ired 9$risdiction o3er an action its 9$risdiction contin$es to t"e final concl$sion of t"e case. S$c" 9$risdiction is not affected :y new le8islation lacin8 9$risdiction o3er s$c" dis$te in anot"er co$rt or tri:$nal $nless t"e stat$te ro3ides for retroacti3ity.
E P a g e
,-R&S&(%&*) *+ (*-R%S PLEASE REA %/&S (ARE+-LL4 S-PREME (*-R% Star Electric (or 3s. RDC (onstr$ction4 5$estion: !n what instances ma$ the Supreme Court resol#e not onl$ (uestions of law but (uestions of fact as well ,nswer: !t is an established rule that in the e)ercise of its power of re#iew under Rule 45" the Supreme Court onl$ resol#es (uestions of law and not (uestions of facts. 2owe#er" this rule is not absolute. ?urisprudence has recogni>ed se#eral e)ceptions in which factual issues ma$ be resol#ed b$ the Supreme Court" such as ' 14 w"en t"e findin8s are 8ro$nded entirely on sec$lation s$rmises or con9ect$res> 24 w"en t"e inference made is manifestly mistaen a:s$rd or imossi:le> ?4 w"en t"e 9$d8ment is :ased on a misare"ension of facts> ;4 w"en t"e findin8s of facts are conflictin8> 64 w"en t"e findin8s are contrary to t"e trial co$rt> F4 w"en t"e facts set fort" in t"e etition as well as in t"e etitionerGs main and rely :riefs are not dis$ted :y t"e resondent> H4 w"en t"e findin8s of fact are remised on t"e s$osed a:sence of e3idence and contradicted :y t"e e3idence on record> or I4 w"en t"e (o$rt of Aeals manifestly o3erlooed certain rele3ant facts not dis$ted :y t"e arties w"ic" if roerly considered wo$ld 9$stify a different concl$sion. REV&E! *+ +A(%-AL +&)&)CS Estate of t"e late 3da. e Panlilio 3. ion4 5$estion 5$estion'' a$ the Supreme Court re#iew the factual findings of the P,R,+" +,R,3 and the C, Answer' Answer' o. %"e S$reme (o$rt is not a trier of facts and is not tased to cali:rate and assess t"e ro:ati3e wei8"t of e3idence add$ced :y t"e arties d$rin8 trial all o3er a8ain. 2owe#er" 2owe#er" in rare occasions" e)ceptions e)ceptions are allowed. allowed. One exception is when there are competing factual findings by the different triers of fact, such as those made by the quasi-agencies on the one hand and the CA on the other " this Court is compelled to go o#er the records of the case" as well as the submissions of the parties" and resol#e the factual issues. A))-LME)% *+ +&)&)CS &) A) ARB&%RA%&*) (ASE Please read 3ery caref$lly4 (*-R% *+ APPEALS iesel (onstr$ction 3. -PS&4 5$estion' a$ the Court of ,ppeals annul the findings of a highl$ speciali>ed agenc$ such as the Construction !ndustr$ ,rbitration Commission -C!,C Answer' 7es. %he C, was correct in holding that it ma$ #alidl$ re#iew and e#en o#erturn such conclusion conclusion of the facts b$ the C!,C when the matter !S 0% ade(uatel$ ade(uatel$ supported supported b$ substantial substantial e#idence dul$ adduced on record comes to the fore and is raised as an issue. !n conte)t" what the appellate court said is that the said mem:ers do not really en9oy a secial ad3anta8e o3er t"e mem:ers of t"e (A in terms of fles"in8 o$t t"e facts from t"e e3idence on record. %he fact remains that the C, stands *ustified in re#iewing the C!,C decision. ,-R&&(%&*) *+ SA)&CA)BAA) *VER S/ARES *+ S%*(JS *+ A SE5-ES%ERE SE5-ES%ERE PR&VA PR&VA%E (*MPA) ($enca 3. P(CC4 5$estion 5$estion'' H2C shares were se(uestered b$ the PC@@ for being the alleged ill9gotten wealth of form former er Presi Preside dent nt arco arcoss and and Cuen Cuenca. ca. , ci#il ci#il case case was was filed filed with with the the R%C in#o in#ol# l#in ing g the the performance of contractual obligations relati#e to the said H2C shares" particularl$" the transfer transfe r of stoc= and subscription rights thereof. +oes the R%C ha#e *urisdiction to decide the case Answer' one. Hnder D0 '4" Section E: %he Presidential Commission on @ood @o#ernment shall file all such cases" whether ci#il or criminal" with the Sandiganba$an" which shall ha#e e)clusi#e and original *urisdiction thereof.F %"$s %" $s it is clea clearr t"at t"at it is t"e t"e Sand Sandi8 i8an an:a :aya yan n and and not not t"e t"e Maa Maati ti (ity (ity R%( t"at t"at "as "as 9$risdiction o3er t"e dis$ted -/( and P)(( s"ares :ein8 t"e alle8ed ill@8otten wealt" of former President +erdinand E. Marcos and etitioner ($enca. %he benchmar= benchmar= is whether whether said
I P a g e
H2C shares are alleged to be ill9gotten wealth of the arcoses and their percei#ed cronies. ore importantl$" the interests of orderl$ administration of *ustice dictate that all incidents affecting the H2C shares and PC@@Js right of super#ision or control o#er the H2C must be addressed to and resol#ed b$ the Sandiganba$an. &ndeed t"e law and co$rts frown $on slit 9$risdiction and t"e res$l res$lta tant nt m$lti m$ltilic licity ity of s$its s$its w"ic" w"ic" res$l res$ltt in m$c" m$c" lost lost time time wasted wasted effor effort t more more eenses and irreara:le in9$ry to t"e $:lic interest. ,-R&S&( ,-R&S&(%&*) %&*) *+ REC&*)AL REC&*)AL %R&AL (*-R%S (*-R%S *VER MA%%ER MA%%ERS S &)(AP &)(APABLE *+ PE(-)&AR ES%&MA%&*) S$r3i3in8 "eirs of Alfredo Ba$tista 3. Lindo et al4 complaint int to redeem redeem a land land sub*ect sub*ect of a free patent patent a ci#il ci#il action action incapabl incapablee of 5$estion 5$estion'' !s a compla pecuniar$ estimation" hence within the *urisdiction of the R%C R%C Answer' 7es. !n determining whether an action is one the sub*ect matter of which is not capable of pecuniar$ estimation" the Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remed$ sought. &f it is rimarily for t"e reco3ery of a s$m of money t"e claim claim is consi consider dered ed caa: caa:le le of ec ec$n $niar iary y estima estimatio tion n and w"et"e w"et"err 9$r 9$risd isdict iction ion is in t"e m$nicial co$rts or in t"e R%(s wo$ld deend on t"e amo$nt of t"e claim. 3ut where the basic issue is something other than the right to reco#er a sum of mone$" where the mone$ claim is purel$ incidental to" or a conse(uence of" the principal relief sought" the Court has considered such actions as cases where the sub*ect of the litigation ma$ not be estimated in terms of mone$" and" hence" are incapable of pecuniar$ estimation. %hese cases are cogni>able e)clusi#el$ b$ R%Cs. %he instant cause of action to redeem the land is one for specific performance. &t is clear t"at "is action is for secific erformance or if not strictly s$c" action t"en it is ain or analo8o$s to one of secific erformance. S$c" :ein8 t"e case "is action for secific erformance is incaa:le of ec$niary estimation and co8nia:le :y t"e R%(. 2a#ing full$ participated in all stages of the case" and e#en in#o=ing in#o=ing the R%CJs %CJs authorit$ authorit$ b$ as=ing for affirmati#e affirmati#e reliefs" respondents respondents can no longer assail the *urisdiction of the said trial court. Simpl$ put" considering the e)tent of their participation in the case" the$ are" as the$ should be" considered estopped from raising lac= of *urisdiction as a ground for the dismissal of the action. ,-R&S ,-R&S&(% &(%&*) &*) *+ S/AR&G S/AR&GA A (*-R (*-R%S &) A) A(%&*) A(%&*) +*R 5-&E%& 5-&E%&)C )C *+ %&%LE %&%LE %omawis 3. Balindon84 5$estion' Pri#ate respondents filed with the Sharia +istrict Court -S+C an action for (uieting of title of a parcel of land against %omawis who argued that S+C does not ha#e *urisdiction o#er the case. %he respondent *udge asserted that S+C has original original *urisdiction *urisdiction o#er the case" concurrentl$ concurrentl$ with the RTC b$ force of ,rticle '4I" paragraph E-b of Presidential +ecree o. -P+ 'AI or the Code of uslim Personal Kaws of the Philippines. !s the *udge correct Answer' 7es. %he allegations" as well as the relief sought b$ pri#ate respondents" the elimination of the cloud of doubts on the title of ownership on the sub*ect land" are within the S+Cs *urisdiction to grant. !e "a3e "eld t"at a 8eneral law and a secial law on t"e same s$:9ect are stat$tes in pari materia and s"o$ld :e read to8et"er and "armonied if ossi:le wit" a 3iew to 8i3in8 effect to :ot". &n t"e instant case we aly t"e rincile generalia specialibus non derogant. derogant. A 8eneral law does not n$llify a secial law. %he general law will $ield to the special law in the specific and particular sub*ect embraced in the latter. 3P 'EG and P+ 'AI must be construed together" then b$ ta=ing P+ 'AI as an e)ception to the general law to reconcile the two laws. Moreo3er , t"e 9$risdiction of t"e co$rt :elow cannot :e made to deend $on defenses set $ in t"e answer in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration :$t only $on t"e alle8ations of t"e comlaint (&V&L PR*(E-RE (A-SE *+ A(%&*)> MEA)&)C *+ (A-SE *+ A(%&*) St. Mic"ael Sc"ool 3. Masaito e3eloment (or4 Please read caref$lly4 5$estion' What are the re(uirements to establish a cause of action in an easement complaint under
4 P a g e
,rticle 64G -Dasement of Right of Wa$ of the Ci#il Code Answer' or a complaint to state a cause of action in an easement case " more specificall$" ,rt. 64G of the Ci#il Code has laid down the following re(uirements: - 14 t"e dominant estate is s$rro$nded :y ot"er immo3a:les and "as no ade=$ate o$tlet to a $:lic "i8"way> 24 t"ere is ayment of roer indemnity> and ?4 t"e isolation is not d$e to t"e acts of t"e rorietor of t"e dominant estate. %he Complaint" first " asserts that petitioners ha#e a right to an easement of right9of9wa$ that cuts across respondentsJ propert$< second " it refers to respondentsJ correlati#e obligation not to fence off and close the single gate which is used as the onl$ entr$ and e)it points of the school population< and third " it refers to respondentsJ e)pansion and e)cessi#e terms and conditions" constituting the acts #iolating petitionersJ right. 2ence" the ComplaintJs material allegations are enough to entitle petitioners to a fa#orable *udgment if these are assumed to be true. +A&L-RE %* S%A%E A (A-SE *+ A(%&*) Vitan8col 3. )ew Vista Proerties4 5$estion' !s a lac= of cause of action a ground for dismissal under Rule '6 Answer' o. Kac= of cause of action is not a ground for a dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss under Rule '6 of the Rules of Court" for t"e determination of a lac of ca$se of action can only :e made d$rin8 andKor after trial. What is dismissible via that mode is failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. %he rule is that in a motion to dismiss" a defendant h$potheticall$ admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiffJs complaint. When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action" a ruling thereon should" as rule" be based onl$ on the facts alleged in the complaint. E+&)&%&*) *+ (A-SE *+ A(%&*) Basic information t"at yo$ need to remem:er.4 B+ (or 3. M&AA4 5$estion' X Corporation" 7 Corporation and two other corporations formed the %03 Consortium" a distinct corporation" for purposes of bidding for the construction of the ,!, !! Pro*ect. %he anila !nternational ,irport ,uthorit$ -!,, awarded the contract to %03 Consortium. Kater" the members of %03 had serious business differences. X Corporation filed a complaint against the other corporations to recei#e what it alleged to be its share in the pro*ect. X Corporation li=ewise filed a complaint against !,, to en*oin it from directl$ pa$ing 7 corp. +oes X Corporation ha#e a cause of action against !,, Answer' one. A ca$se of action is defined as an act or omission :y w"ic" a arty 3iolates a ri8"t of anot"er. &t "as t"ree elements' 14 a ri8"t eistin8 in fa3or of t"e laintiff 24 a d$ty on t"e art of t"e defendant to resect t"e ri8"t of t"e laintiff and ?4 a :reac" of t"e defendant7s d$ty. 3 Corp has no right of action against !,, for the following reasons: -' %here is no contractual relation between !,, and 3 Corp. %he agreement o#er the ,!, %erminal !! Pro*ect was between !,, and %03 Consortium" as the contractor. rom the start" !,, recogni>ed %03 Consortium as a corporation with a distinct personalit$ from its component corporations. -E %he reliefs pra$ed for b$ 3 Corp. are based on the consortium agreement" which is a contract among 3 Corp. and the other members of the consortium. !,, is not pri#$ of" and is therefore a stranger to the consortium agreement. !f 3 Corp. wants its share in the consortium" its recourse is against %03 Consortium" not !,,. PAR%&ES %* (&V&L A(%&*)S' LECAL S%A)&)C A) (APA(&% %* S-E Sama"an8 Ma8sasaa 3. Mos=$era4 5$estion' ,n association of farmer9beneficiaries filed a case against 1 alleging that the land the$ tilled was sold to 1 without a +,R clearance" in #iolation of Section 69+ of C,RK. 1 applied for e)emption from the co#erage of C,RK alleging that the propert$ is abo#e 'A; slope and unfit for culti#ation. %he D)ecuti#e Secretar$ e)empted the propert$ from C,RK co#erage. %he case subse(uentl$ reached the C, where it ruled that the association is not a real part$9in9interest and has no legal standing to sue< that it is not an actual grantee of the land but mere (ualified
5 P a g e
beneficiar$. !s the C, correct Answer' 7es. ,ccording to Sec. E of Rule I of the Rules of Court" a real arty@in@interest is t"e arty w"o stands to :e :enefited or in9$red :y t"e 9$d8ment in t"e s$it or t"e arty entitled to t"e reliefs of t"e s$it. %he Supreme Court stood b$ its ruling in ortich v. Corona that farmer9 beneficiaries" who are not appro#ed awardees of C,RP" are not real parties9in9interest for being mere recommendees. !n the case at bar" members of petitioner !amahan are mere (ualified beneficiaries of C,RP but the$ ha#e not $et been appro#ed as awardees" actuall$ awarded lands" or granted CK0,s. ,-R&S&(%&*) *+ (&A( &) ARB&%RA%&*) PR*(EE&)CS LECAL S%A)&)C *+ A %RA)S+EREE !"#!"$! %&$! Please read caref$lly4 /erita8e Par Mana8ement 3. (&A(4 5$estion' Public Dstates ,uthorit$ -PD, was designated to de#elop the 2eritage Par= in %aguig. PD, entered into an agreement with X where X undertoo= to perform all landscaping wor=s on the 2eritage Par=. +ue to dela$s" the contract period was e)tended and among the causes of dela$ was PD,Js inabilit$ to deli#er to X some 45 hectares of the propert$ due to the presence of s(uatters and a public cemeter$. X filed a Complaint with the C!,C see=ing to collect from PD, damages. PD, e)ecuted a +eed of ,ssignment in fa#or of 2eritage which then filed a petition for prohibitionBin*unction with %R0 against the C!,C and X" claiming that when PD, transferred its rights and obligations o#er the pro*ect to 2eritage Par=" the C!,C lost its *urisdiction. !s 2eritage correct Answer' o. ,$risdiction once ac=$ired is not lost $on t"e instance of t"e arties :$t contin$es $ntil t"e case is terminated . Certainl$" it would be the height of in*ustice to allow parties that disagree with the decision of a *udicial tribunal to annul the same through the e)pedient of transferring their interests or rights in#ol#ed in the case. A transferee pendente lite stands in eactly t"e same osition as its redecessor@in@interest t"e ori8inal defendant and is :o$nd :y t"e roceedin8s "ad in t"e case :efore t"e roerty was transferred to it. -L%&MA%E +A(%S &) PLEA&)CS (*MPLA&)% Locsin et al 3s. Sandi8an:ayan4 5$estion' What are Lultimate factsF under Section ' of Rule A Answer' Sec. '" Rule A of the Rules of Court pro#ides: LD#er$ pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form" a plain" concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the part$ pleading relies for his claim or defense" as the case ma$ be" omitting the statement of mere e#identiar$ facts.F -ltimate facts mean t"e imortant and s$:stantial facts w"ic" eit"er directly form t"e :asis of t"e laintiffs rimary ri8"t and d$ty or directly mae $ t"e wron8f$l acts or omissions of t"e defendant . E++E(% *+ +A&L-RE %* +&LE A)S!ER Macalinao 3. BP&4 5$estion' X is a credit card holder. or failure to pa$ the charges and balance under his credit card" the ban= initiated a complaint against X. X failed to file an ,nswer. %hus" the ban= e#entuall$ won the case after *udgment was rendered in accordance with the Rule on Summar$ Procedure. When the case reached the C," the C, modified the amount due. X filed with the SC a petition as=ing for the dismissal of the case or its remand to the lower court for a more appropriate disposition. !s X correct Answer' o. A laintiff s"o$ld not :e made to s$ffer for t"e resondent7s fail$re to file an answer and concomitantly to allow t"e latter to s$:mit additional e3idence :y dismissin8 or remandin8 t"e case for f$rt"er recetion of e3idence. 3ased on the records" the summons and a cop$ of the complaint were ser#ed upon petitioner acalinao and her husband failed to file their ,nswer despite ser#ice of summons. %hus" respondent 3P! mo#ed that *udgment be rendered accordingl$. %hus" a dismissal of the case would cause great in*ustice to respondent 3P!. Similarly a remand of t"e case for f$rt"er recetion of e3idence wo$ld $nd$ly rolon8 t"e roceedin8s
6 P a g e
of t"e instant case and render in$tile t"e roceedin8s cond$cted :efore t"e lower co$rts. (*MP-LS*R (*-)%ER(LA&M Metro:an 3. (PR Promotions4 5$estion' X obtained a loan from etroban= secured b$ a real estate mortgage. or failure to pa$ despite demands" etroban= filed a petition for e)tra*udicial foreclosure of the mortgage. otwithstanding foreclosure" etroban= alleged that there remained a deficienc$ balance plus other charges as agreed in the RD. or failure to pa$ the deficienc$" etroban= filed a collection suit. %he R%C ruled in etroban=/s fa#or. %he C, howe#er re#ersed the decision and ordered etroban= to refund an amount representing an alleged remainder in the proceeds of the foreclosed propert$" which X alleged in his appeal brief before the C,. !s the C, correct Answer' o. Respondents belatedl$ raised their compulsor$ counterclaim. A co$nterclaim is com$lsory if' a4 it arises o$t of or is necessarily connected wit" t"e transaction or occ$rrence w"ic" is t"e s$:9ect matter of t"e oosin8 arty7s claim> :4 it does not re=$ire for its ad9$dication t"e resence of t"ird arties of w"om t"e co$rt cannot ac=$ire 9$risdiction> and c4 t"e co$rt "as 9$risdiction to entertain t"e claim :ot" as to its amo$nt and nat$re ecet t"at in an ori8inal action :efore t"e R%( t"e co$nterclaim may :e considered com$lsory re8ardless of t"e amo$nt. !t is e#ident that a claim for reco#er$ of the e)cess in the bid price #is9M9#is the amount due should be interposed as a compulsor$ counterclaim in an action for reco#er$ of a deficienc$ filed b$ the mortgagee against the debtor9mortgagor. irst " in both cases" substantiall$ the same e#idence is needed in order to pro#e their respecti#e claim. !econd " ad*udication in fa#or of one will necessaril$ bar the other since these two actions are absolutel$ incompatible with each other< a debt cannot be full$ paid and partiall$ unpaid at the same time. Third " these two opposing claims arose from the same set of transactions. ,nd finall"" if these two claims were to be the sub*ect of separate trials" it would definitel$ entail a substantial and needless duplication of effort and time b$ the parties and the court" for said actions would in#ol#e the same parties" the same transaction" and the same e#idence. '!( )*#&CA$A (lar e3eloment 3. Mondra8on4 5$estion' What are the re(uisites of res *udicata Answer' Res *udicata means a matter or thing ad*udged" *udiciall$ acted upon or decided" or settled b$ *udgment. !ts re(uisites are: 14 t"e former 9$d8ment or order m$st :e final> 24 t"e 9$d8ment or order m$st :e one on t"e merits> ?4 it m$st "a3e :een rendered :y a co$rt "a3in8 9$risdiction o3er t"e s$:9ect matter and arties> and ;4 :etween t"e first and second actions t"ere m$st :e identity of arties s$:9ect matter and ca$ses of action. +*R-M S/*PP&)C ($enca 3. Atas4 5$estion' X was the incorporator and President of ,3C Corporation which was granted a franchis e to construct the toll facilities of orth Ku>onBSouth Ku>on D)presswa$s. !n the course of its operations" ,3C incurred credit obligations from #arious @o#ernment inancial !nstitutions -@!s. %hen President arcos issued a Ketter of !nstruction directing the creditor @!s to con#ert into ,3Cs shares of stoc=. X filed with the Securities and D)change Commission -SDC a case to determine whether the @!s are stoc=holders of ,3C Corporation and their respecti#e number of shares. X li=ewise filed a ci#il case for the enforcement and compliance of the said Ketter of !nstruction. +id X commit forum shopping Answer' 7es. %here is forum shopping when a part$ repetiti#el$ a#ails of se#eral *udicial remedies in different courts" simultaneousl$ or successi#el$" all substantiall$ founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances" and all raising substantiall$ the same issues either pending in or alread$ resol#ed ad#ersel$ b$ some other court . +or$m s"oin8 is an act of malractice t"at is ro"i:ited and condemned :eca$se it trifles wit" t"e co$rts and a:$ses t"eir rocesses. &t de8rades t"e administration of 9$stice and adds to t"e already con8ested co$rt docets. , close perusal of both the ,mended Complaint in SDC and the ,mended Complaint in Ci#il Case shows that both cases are deri#ed from the same factual issues
8 P a g e
in#ol#ing substantiall$ the same parties. ,lthough the actions seem to be different" $et it can be seen that there is a splitting of a cause of action.
VER&+&(A%&*) A) (ER%&+&(A%&*) ACA&)S% +*R-M S/*PP&)C (a8ayan Valley r$8 (or. 3. (&R4 5$estion' Which officials and emplo$ees of a compan$ ma$ #alidl$ sign the &erification and Certification of on9orum Shopping e#en without a board resolution Answer' %he following officials or emplo$ees of the compan$ can sign the #erification and certification without need of a board resolution: -' the Chairperson of the 3oard of +irectors" -E the President of a corporation" -I the @eneral anager or ,cting @eneral anager" -4 Personnel 0fficer" and -5 an Dmplo$ment Specialist in a labor case. %his complies with Sections 4 and 5" Rule 8 of the 'GG8 Re#ised Rules on Ci#il Procedure %he rationale applied in the foregoing is to *ustif$ the authorit$ of corporate officers or representati#es of the corporation to sign the #erification or certificate against forum shopping" being in a position to #erif$ the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.F %&$&( !"#!"C&A S$:ic %elecom 3. SBMA4 5$estion' What factors will indicate that there e)ists litis pendencia Answer' or litis pendentia to e)ist" the following re(uisites or elements must concur: -a identit$ of parties" or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions< -b identit$ of rights asserted and relief pra$ed for" the relief being founded on the same facts< and -c identit$ with respect to the two -E preceding particulars in the two -E cases is such that an$ *udgment that ma$ be rendered in the pending case" regardless of which part$ is successful" would amount to res *udicata in the other case ELEME)%S *+ %&$&( !"#!"C&A + +or:es Par Assoc 3. Pa8rel &nc.4 5$estion' What are the elements of litis pendentia Answer' %he essential elements of litis pendentia are as follows: 14 identity of arties or reresentation in :ot" cases> 24 identity of ri8"ts asserted and reliefs rayed for> ?4 reliefs fo$nded on t"e same facts and t"e same :asis> and ;4 identity of t"e two recedin8 artic$lars s"o$ld :e s$c" t"at any 9$d8ment w"ic" may :e rendered in t"e ot"er action will re8ardless of w"ic" arty is s$ccessf$l amo$nt to res udicata in t"e action $nder consideration. E)&AL -)ER *A%/ @ ALLECA%&*)S &) A PLEA&)C (asent Realty 3. P"ilBanin8 (or4 5$estion' Phil3an= was the assignee of two promissor$ notes issued b$ X Corporation. Hpon due date" X Corporation failed to pa$ Phil3an= which promoted the latter to file a collection case. X corp. answered that the complaint stated no cause of action because the parties e)ecuted a Dacion en #a$o with the intention of e)tinguishing X Corporation/s obligations" as e#idenced b$ a Confirmation Statement. Phil3an= did not file an$ Repl$. X corp. claims that the failure to file a Repl$ to the ,nswer which raised the defense of Dacion en #a$o constituted an admission of the genuineness and e)ecution of the documents such as the Confirmation Statement. !s X corporation correct Answer' 7es. Rule A" Section A specificall$ applies to actions or defenses founded upon a written instrument and pro#ides the manner of den$ing it which must be under oath and specifically denies the instrument otherwise its genuineness and due execution shall be admitted . !t is more controlling than Rule 6" Section ' which merel$ pro#ides the effect of failure to file a Repl$ which is all the new matters alleged in the ,nswer were deemed contro#erted. %hus" where the defense in
A P a g e
the ,nswer is based on an actionable document" a Repl$ specificall$ den$ing it under oath must be made< otherwise" the genuineness and due e)ecution of the document will be deemed admitted M*%&*) %* &SM&SS )*% A RESP*)S&VE PLEA&)C Marcos@Araneta 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 5$estion' !s a otion to +ismiss a responsi#e pleading the filing of which will preclude the amendment of the Complaint Answer' o. ,ccording to Sec. E Rule ' of the Rules of Court" , part$ ma$ amend his pleading once as a matter of right at an$ time before a responsi#e pleading is ser#ed. Resonsi3e leadin8s are t"ose w"ic" see affirmati3e relief andKor set $ defenses. A motion to dismiss is not a resonsi3e leadin8. ,ccording the Sec. E Rule 4 indicates (uite clearl$ 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 #enue. S-MM*)S' S-BS%&%-%E SERV&(E Carcia 3. Sandi8an:ayan4 PLEASE (*MM&% %* MEM*R4 5$estion' What are the re(uirements for a #alid substituted ser#ice of summons Answer' %he following are the re(uirements for substituted ser#ice of summons to be #alid ' 14 &mossi:ility of romt ersonal ser3ice> 24 Secific details in t"e ret$rn> and ?4 S$:stit$ted ser3ice effected on a erson of s$ita:le a8e and discretion residin8 at defendant7s "o$se or residence> or on a cometent erson in c"ar8e of defendant7s office or re8$lar lace of :$siness. rom the foregoing re(uisites" it is apparent that no #alid substituted ser#ice of summons was made on petitioner and her children" as the ser#ice made through a*. @en. @arcia did not compl$ with the first two -E re(uirements mentioned abo#e for a #alid substituted ser#ice of summons. oreo#er" the third re(uirement was also not strictl$ complied with as the substituted ser#ice was made not at petitionerJs house or residence but in the PP +etention Center where a*. @en. @arcia is detained" e#en if the latter is of suitable age and discretion. 2ence" no #alid substituted ser#ice of summons was made. !t was also held that @arcia did not #oluntaril$ appear before the court" because the pleadings filed b$ petitioner were filed solel$ for special appearance with the purpose of challenging the *urisdiction of the Sandiganba$an o#er her person and that of her three children. &)VAL& SERV&(E *+ S-MM*)S Manotoc 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 5$estion' , foreign courtJs *udgment in#ol#ing the death of X committed b$ the Philippine ilitar$ !ntelligence 0fficials allegedl$ under the command of !melda anotoc was sought to be enforced. %he trial court issued the summons which" along with the cop$ of the Complaint" was ser#ed b$ the sheriff upon anotoc/s resident careta=er. %he trial court declared anotoc in default for failure to file her ,nswer. anotoc mo#ed to dismiss on the ground of lac= of *urisdiction of the trial court o#er her person due to an in#alid substituted ser#ice of summons which the court denied. !s the position of anotoc tenable Answer' 7es. !n an action strictly in ersonam ersonal ser3ice on t"e defendant is t"e referred mode of ser3ice t"at is :y "andin8 a coy of t"e s$mmons to t"e defendant in erson. !f defendant" for e)cusable reasons" cannot be ser#ed with the summons within a reasonable period" then substituted ser#ice can be resorted to. While substituted ser#ice of summons is permitted" it is e)traordinar$ in character and in derogation of the usual method of ser#ice. 2ence" it must faithfull$ and strictl$ compl$ with the prescribed re(uirements and circumstances authori>ed b$ the rules. or the presumption of regularit$ in the performance of official dut$ to appl$" the SheriffJs Return must show that serious efforts or attempts were e)erted to personall$ ser#e the summons and that said efforts failed. %hese facts must be specificall$ narrated in the Return. !t must clearl$ show that the substituted ser#ice must be made on a person of suitable age and discretion li#ing in the dwelling or residence of defendant.
G P a g e
M*%&*) %* &SM&SS 5$intos 3. )icolas4 5$estion' %he court dismissed an action for partition for failure of the parties and their counsels to appear despite notice. !t was not mentioned in the decision whether the dismissal was with or without pre*udice. a$ a co9owner later as= for partition of the propert$ b$ wa$ of a counterclaim in a case for Nueting of %itle" or should the counterclaim for partition be considered alread$ barred b$ the prior *udgment of dismissal Answer' %"e co$nterclaim for artition is not :arred :y rior 9$d8ment . ismissal wit" re9$dice $nder R$le 1F Sec. ? of t"e R$les of (o$rt cannot defeat t"e ri8"t of a co@owner to as for artition at any time pro#ided that there is no actual ad*udication of ownership of shares $et. 3etween dismissal with pre*udice under Rule '8" Sec. I and the right granted to co9owners under ,rt. 4G4 of the Ci#il Code" the latter must pre#ail. %o construe otherwise would diminish the substanti#e right of a co9owner through the promulgation of procedural rules. Substanti#e law cannot be amended b$ a procedural rule. %he Court held that ,rt. 4G4 is an e)ception to Rule '8" Sec. I of the Rules of Court to the effect that e#en if the order of dismissal for failure to prosecute is silent on whether or not it is with pre*udice" it shall be deemed to be without pre*udice. ABS*L-%E &E)%&% )*% )E(ESSAR +*R '!( )*#&CA$A %* EX&S% P.L. -y Realty (or 3. ALS Mana8ement4 5$estion' !s absolute identit$ of parties necessar$ for res %udicata to appl$ Answer' o. ,bsolute identit$ of parties is not re(uired for res %udicata to appl$< s$:stantial identity is s$fficient. '!( )*#&CA$A, RE5-&S&%ES (ano 3. So$ses ,ose4 5$estion' What are the re(uisites for the application of Res &udicata Answer' Res %udicata operates as bar b$ prior *udgment if the following re(uisites concur: 14 t"e former 9$d8ment or order m$st :e final> 24 t"e 9$d8ment or order m$st :e on t"e merits> ?4 t"e decision m$st "a3e :een rendered :y a co$rt "a3in8 9$risdiction o3er t"e s$:9ect matter and t"e arties> and ;4 t"ere m$st :e :etween t"e first and second action identity of arties of s$:9ect matter and of ca$ses of action. '!( )*#&CA$A, &)%ERPLEAER Bliss e3eloment 3. ia4 5$estion' 3+C sold its propert$ to Sps. elga>o" both of whom are now deceased. +ia> claimed to be the transferee of the said propert$ and traced his right from one +omingo %apa$. +ia> then paid 3+C the amorti>ations due on the propert$" and 3+C issued a permit to occup$ the propert$ in fa#or of +ia>. +ia> then introduced impro#ements on the propert$. , contract to sell was later issued in fa#or of +ia>. ,rre>a howe#er claims that the heirs of Sps. elga>o sold to him the rights o#er the propert$. %o resol#e the conflicting claims" 3+C filed a complaint for !nterpleader. %he R%C ruled that ,rre>a had a better right o#er the propert$" which decision became final and e)ecutor$. Kater" +ia> filed a complaint for sum of mone$ against 3+C" ,rre>a and %apa$. ,rre>a filed a otion to +ismiss" citing res %udicata. !s the complaint barred b$ res %udicata because of the pre#ious decision of the court in the interpleader case Answer' o. %he essential elements of res %udicata are not present. irst" the interpleader case was between ,rre>a and +ia>. While it was 3+C that initiated the interpleader case" the opposing parties in that prior case is" in fact" ,rre>a and +ia>. Second" the issues resol#ed in the interpleader case re#ol#ed around the conflicting claims of ,rre>a and +ia>" and not whate#er claim either of them ma$ ha#e against 3+C. %hus" there is no identit$ of parties" nor identit$ of sub*ect matter" between the interpleader case and the one at bar. '!( )*#&CA$A, LAB*R (ASE *riental S"i mana8ement 3. Bastol4 5$estion' X" a seaman who was repatriated because of heart disease" won in the Kabor ,rbiter le#el on his claim for disabilit$ benefits against his emplo$er ,3C. %he KRC howe#er remanded the
' P a g e
case to the Kabor ,rbiter for the conduct of clarificator$ hearings for a more certain determination of the state of health of X. Kater" the Kabor ,rbiter still ruled in fa#or of X and granted him disabilit$ benefits" but the KRC on appeal" re#ersed the decision. X appealed to the C, which reinstated the Kabor ,rbiter/s decision. %he emplo$er ,3C claims that the decision of the KRC ordering the remand of the case to the Kabor ,rbiter has attained finalit$< hence the C, #iolated the principle of Res &udicata and the Llaw of the case.F !s the emplo$er correct Answer' o. %he doctrine of res %udicata is inapplicable. %he ?ul$ I" 'GGG KRC +ecision cannot and does not constitute res %udicata to the instant case. Res *udicata has two concepts: a4 :ar :y former 9$d8ment and :4 concl$si3eness of 9$d8ment. %hese concepts of the doctrine of res %udicata are applicable to second actions in#ol#ing substantiall$ the same parties" the same sub*ect matter" and cause or causes of action. !n the instant case" there is no second action to spea= of" in#ol#ing as it is the #er$ same action albeit the KRC remanded it to the Kabor ,rbiter for further proceedings. PRE@%R&AL )*%&(E *+ PRE@%R&AL P)B 3. Ss. Pere4 5$estion' a$ the *udge #alidl$ consider or treat an ordinar$ hearing to be the pre9trial conference between the parties Answer' o. Section I" Rule 'A of the 'GG8 Rules on Ci#il Procedure une(ui#ocall$ re(uires that t"e notice of re@trial s"all :e ser3ed on co$nsel or on t"e arty w"o "as no co$nsel. %he notice of pre9trial see=s to notif$ the parties of the date" time and place of the pre9trial and to re(uire them to file their respecti#e pre9trial briefs within the time prescribed b$ the rules. &ts a:sence t"erefore renders t"e re@trial and all s$:se=$ent roceedin8s n$ll and 3oid. !n the case at bar" the order issued b$ the trial court merel$ spo=e of a LhearingF and re(uired P3 Lto prepare a complete statement of account.F %he order does not mention an$thing about a pre9trial to be conducted b$ the trial court. %he C, aptl$ held that the 0rder which declared the haring to be a pre9trial and allowed the Spouses to adduce e#idence e' parte, is #oid. Similarl$" its ruling that the +ecision and all subse(uent orders issued pursuant to said *udgment are also null and #oid" is proper. L&BERAL&% &) APPL&(A%&*) *+ %E(/)&(AL R-LES APPEARA)(E *+ PAR%&ES> E++E(% *+ +A&L-RE %* APPEAR So$ses Ley:a 3. R$ral Ban of (a:$yao4 Please tae note of t"is case.4 5$estion' Sps. , and 3 filed a complaint for ullification of Real Dstate ortgage and Special Power of ,ttorne$ -SP, against Rural 3an= of Cabu$ao" !nc. -R3C! and Re$es alleging that , was made to sign an SP," granting Re$es the authorit$ to mortgage a land< that Re$es used the SP, to obtain loan from R3C! guaranteed b$ a real estate mortgage o#er the sub*ect land. +uring the pre9trial" Sps. , and 3 and their counsel failed to attend. Citing Sec. 5" Rule 'A of the Rules of Court" the R%C dismissed the complaint for lac= of interest to prosecute the case. !s the R%C correct Answer' o. &t is t"e olicy of t"e (o$rt to afford arty@liti8ants t"e amlest oort$nity to ena:le t"em to "a3e t"eir cases 9$stly determined free from t"e constraints of tec"nicalities. %he Court noted that the sub*ect matter of the complaint is to petitioners a #aluable parcel of land measuring E5G s(uare meters. Petitioners stand to lose a lot on account of a mere technicalit$. %he$ ha#e manifested their interest to pursue the case e#en on appeal. %he$ also ha#e ade(uatel$ e)plained their failure to attend the pre9trial conference. &n t"e interest of s$:stanti3e 9$stice we allow t"e etitioners an oort$nity to resent t"eir side d$rin8 a trial on t"e merits to o:3iate 9eoardiin8 s$:stanti3e 9$stice. %"is li:erality $nderscores t"e imortance of an aeal in o$r 9$dicial 8rie3ance str$ct$re to 8i3e arty@liti8ants t"e amlest oort$nity for t"e 9$st disosition of t"eir ca$se freed from t"e noose of tec"nicalities. AL%ER)A%&VE &SP-%E RES*L-%&*) EP(&B 3. R(B(4 Please read t"is 3ery well4 5$estion' What is the mode of appeal in assailing the R%C decision that confirmed an arbitral
'' P a g e
award Answer' %he proper mode of appeal assailing the decision of the R%C confirming an arbitral award is an aeal :efore t"e (A pursuant to Sec. 46 of Republic ,ct o. -R, GEA5" otherwise =nown as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of ())*" or completel$" An Act to Institutionali+e the se of an Alternative Dispute Resolution !"stem in the #hilippines and to -stablish the ffice for Alternative Dispute Resolution, and for other #urposes " promulgated on ,pril E" E4 and became effecti#e on ,pril EA" E4 after its publication on ,pril 'I" E4. )A%-RE *+ V*L-)%AR ARB&%RA%&*) Ben8$et (or. V. E)R4 5$estion' !s a stipulation re(uiring #oluntar$ arbitration before resort is made to the courts or (uasi9*udicial agencies a #alid contractual stipulation Answer' 7es. A3ailment of 3ol$ntary ar:itration :efore resort is made to t"e co$rts or =$asi@ 9$dicial a8encies of t"e 8o3ernment is a 3alid contract$al sti$lation t"at m$st :e ad"ered to :y t"e arties. !n other words" in the e#ent a case that should properl$ be the sub*ect of #oluntar$ arbitration is erroneousl$ filed with the courts or (uasi9*udicial agencies" on motion of the defendant" the court or (uasi9*udicial agenc$ shall determine whether such contractual pro#ision for arbitration is sufficient and effecti#e. !f in affirmati#e" the court or (uasi9*udicial agenc$ shall then order the enforcement of said pro#ision. E++E(% *+ ARB&%RA%&*) (LA-SE &) (ASE *+ (*)+L&(% Jorea %ec"nolo8ies (o. V. Lerma4 5$estion' X entered into a contract with 7 whereb$ the former shall construct a li(uefied gas c$linder manufacturing plant. !t was stipulated in the contract that in case of conflict between the parties" the parties should first attempt to settle their dispute through arbitration. , conflict erupted between the parties. 7 was reminded of the arbitration stipulation in their contract and filed an ,pplication for ,rbitration before the Oorean Commercial ,rbitration 3oard pursuant to ,rticle '5 of the Contract. X contends that the arbitration stipulation in their contract is null and #oid for being against public polic$ as it ousts the local courts of *urisdiction o#er the instant contro#ers$. !s X correct Answer' o. %he Court" reiterating its ruling in /0 #ower -n$ineerin$ Corporation v. Capitol Industrial Construction 1roups, Inc." held: Bein8 an ineensi3e seedy and amica:le met"od of settlin8 dis$tes ar:itration alon8 wit" mediation conciliation and ne8otiations enco$ra8ed :y t"e S$reme (o$rt. ,side from unclogging *udicial doc=ets" arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes" especiall$ of the commercial =ind. !t is thus regarded as the wa#e of the future in international ci#il and commercial disputes. 3rushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step bac=ward. %he arbitration clause was mutuall$ and #oluntaril$ agreed upon b$ the parties. Submission to arbitration is a contract and that a clause in a contract pro#iding that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract. %R&AL (*)S*L&A%&*) *R SEVERA)(E *+ /EAR&)C *R %R&AL Steel (or. V. E=$ita:le P(&B4 5$estion' %he trial court appro#ed the Petition for Rehabilitation and appointed a Recei#er for X Corp. X Corp. filed its own counter rehabilitation plan and submitted it for the consideration of the court. 0ther creditors filed their respecti#e comments on the petition and the Recei#er submitted his recommended rehabilitation plan which the court appro#ed. rom this order b$ the Rehabilitation Court sprung se#eral appeals filed with the C,. Should the C, consolidate the appeals filed Answer' 7es. (onsolidation of actions is eressly a$t"oried $nder Sec. 1 R$le ?1 of t"e R$les of (o$rt. %"e $rose of t"is r$le is to a3oid m$ltilicity of s$its 8$ard a8ainst oression and a:$se re3ent delays clear con8ested docets and simlify t"e wor of t"e trial co$rt. !n short" consolidation aims to attain *ustice with the least e)pense and #e)ation to the
'E P a g e
parties9litigants. !t contributes to the swift dispensation of *ustice" and is in accord with the aim of affording the parties a *ust" speed$" and ine)pensi#e determination of their cases before the courts. urther" it results in the a#oidance of the possibilit$ of conflicting decisions being rendered b$ the courts in two or more cases" which would otherwise re(uire a single *udgment. ,-CME)%S A) +&)AL *RERS S-MMAR ,-CME)%S M(& 3. $3a (or4 5$estion' +C! entered into a construction contract with +u#a> but after completion" the contractual price remained unpaid. +u#a> filed a petition for the declaration of a state of suspension of pa$ments with the SDC which SDC granted. %his prompted +C! to file with the R%C a petition for the annotation of contractorJs lien on the propert$ of +u#a> which the R%C granted. When +C! learned that +u#a> withdrew its petition with the SDC" +C! made demands from +u#a> which proposed settlement in the amount of 'million for the ne)t three $ears which +C! found unacceptable. +C! filed a collection suit against +u#a>. !n its ,nswer with Compulsor$ Counterclaims" +u#a> specificall$ denied +C!/s a#erment and b$ wa$ of affirmati#e defenses to support its counterclaims" +u#a> alleged serious defects in the construction. Kater" +C! mo#ed for summar$ *udgment alleging that +u#a>/ counterclaims ha#e alread$ prescribed. !s summar$ *udgment proper in this case Answer' o. R$le ?; Section ? of t"e R$les of (o$rt ro3ides two 24 re=$isites for s$mmary 9$d8ment to :e roer' 14 t"ere m$st :e no 8en$ine iss$e as to any material fact ecet for t"e amo$nt of dama8es> and 24 t"e arty resentin8 t"e motion for s$mmary 9$d8ment m$st :e entitled to a 9$d8ment as a matter of law. !n this case" genuine issues e)ist. +C!Js posture on estoppel is untenable. ar from containing an admission of liabilit$" +u#a>J ,nswer contained a specific denial of petitionerJs claim. Such doubt should be resol#ed against the grant of the motion for summar$ *udgment. When faced with a motion for summar$ *udgment" should resol#e doubts in fa#or of the part$ against whom it is directed" gi#ing such part$ the benefit of all fa#orable inferences. With the partiesJ conflicting postures on" among others" the issues of estoppel" prescription" and +C!Js liabilit$ and +u#a>J corollar$ right for damages arising from the alleged mal9e)ecution of the construction wor=s" the onl$ wa$ to ascertain whose position *ibes with facts on the ground is ob#iousl$ through the presentation of e#idence b$ the parties in a full blown trial on the merits. RE)&%&*) *+ ,-CME)%S A) +&)AL *RERS MMA 3. (oncerned (itiens of Manila Bay4 5$estion' !n EA" the Supreme Court rendered a +ecision in @.R. os. '8'G4894A ordering #arious go#ernment agencies to clean up anila 3a$ which decision had attained finalit$. %o implement the +ecision" the anila 3a$ ,d#isor$ Committee was created to recei#e and e#aluate the (uarterl$ progressi#e reports on the acti#ities underta=en b$ the said agencies and to monitor its e)ecution. 2owe#er" due to the absence of specific completion dates within which to accomplish the assigned tas=s gi#en to the agencies" the Committee recommended that time frames be set for the said purpose. 2ence" Resolutions were issued b$ the SC to implement the +ecision. %his was #iewed as an encroachment on the power and functions of the D)ecuti#e 3ranch headed b$ the President. +id the Court encroach on the power and function of the President Answer' o. %"e iss$ance of s$:se=$ent resol$tions :y t"e (o$rt is simly an eercise of 9$dicial ower $nder Art. V&&& of t"e (onstit$tion :eca$se t"e eec$tion of t"e ecision is :$t an inte8ral art of t"e ad9$dicati3e f$nction of t"e (o$rt . While additional acti#ities are re(uired of the agencies li=e submission of plans of action" data or status reports" these directi#es are but part and parcel of the e)ecution stage of a final decision under R$le ?I of t"e R$les of (o$rt. !t is clear that the final *udgment includes not onl$ what appears upon its face to ha#e been so ad*udged but also those matters actuall$ and necessaril$ included therein or necessar$ thereto. With the final and e)ecutor$ *udgment in the 00DA case" the writ of continuing mandamus issued means that until petitioner9agencies ha#e shown full compliance with the Courts orders" the Court
'I P a g e
e)ercises continuing *urisdiction o#er them until full e)ecution of the *udgment. &MM-%AB&L&% *+ ,-CME)% Mocorro 3. Ramire4 5$estion' D)plain the principle of immutabilit$ of *udgment #is9a9#is a final decision. Answer' , decision that has ac(uired finalit$ becomes immutable and unalterable. %his (ualit$ of imm$ta:ility recl$des t"e modification of a final 9$d8ment e3en if t"e modification is meant to correct erroneo$s concl$sions of fact and law . ,nd this postulate holds true whether the modification is made b$ the court that rendered it or b$ the highest court in the land. %he orderl$ administration of *ustice re(uires that" at the ris= of occasional errors" the *udgmentsBresolutions of a court must reach a point of finalit$ set b$ the law. %"e no:le $rose is to write finis to dis$te once and for all. %"is is a f$ndamental rincile in o$r 9$stice system wit"o$t w"ic" t"ere wo$ld :e no end to liti8ations. -tmost resect and ad"erence to t"is rincile m$st always :e maintained :y t"ose w"o eercise t"e ower of ad9$dication. Any act w"ic" 3iolates s$c" rincile m$st immediately :e str$c down. +&)AL&% *+ ,-CME)% So$ses (oloso 3. Carilao4 5$estion' a$ the +,R Secretar$ modif$ a final and e)ecutor$ *udgment of the court Answer' o. A decision t"at ac=$ired finality :ecomes imm$ta:le and $naltera:le and ma$ no longer be modified in an$ respect e#en if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made b$ the court that rendered it or b$ the highest court of the land. (*MPLE%E PAR%&%&*) 3. PAR%&AL PAR%&%&*) *+ LA) Monteroso 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 5$estion' X pra$ed for partial partition of a parcel of land but the court ordered a complete partition thereof with accounting. !s the court/s order proper Answer' 7es. %he Philippine *udicial s$stem re(uires courts to appl$ the law and grant remedies when appropriatel$ called for b$ law and *ustice. !n the e)ercise of this mandate" courts ha#e the discretion to appl$ e(uit$ in the absence or insufficienc$ of the law. !n the instant case" a disposition onl$ ordering partial partition and without accounting" as petitioners presentl$ urge" would be most impractical. (o$rts "a3e :een ca$tioned a8ainst :ein8 do8matic in renderin8 decisions it :ein8 refera:le if t"ey tae a comlete 3iew of t"e case and in t"e rocess come $ wit" a 9$st and e=$ita:le 9$d8ment esc"ewin8 r$les tendin8 to fr$strate rat"er t"an romote s$:stantial 9$stice. Verily co$rts s"o$ld always stri3e to settle t"e entire contro3ersy in a sin8le roceedin8 lea3in8 no root or :ranc" to :ear t"e seed of f$t$re liti8ation. EX(EP%&*) %* %/E R-LE *) &MM-%AB&L&% *+ ,-CME)%S Anastacio %$:alla 3. (a:rera et al.4 5$estion' What are the e)ceptions to the rule on immutabilit$ of *udgments Answer' ,s a rule" a decision that has ac(uired finalit$ becomes immutable and unalterable. , final *udgment ma$ no longer be modified in an$ respect" e#en if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law< and whether it be made b$ the court that rendered it or b$ the highest court in the land. %he orderl$ administration of *ustice re(uires that the *udgmentsBresolutions of a court or (uasi9*udicial bod$ must reach a point of finalit$ set b$ the law" rules" and regulations. %"e only ecetions to t"e r$le t"at final 9$d8ments may no lon8er :e modified in any resect are 14 t"e correction of clerical errors 24 t"e so@called nunc pro tunc entries w"ic" ca$se no re9$dice to any arty and ?4 3oid 9$d8ments. P*S% ,-CME)% REME&ES M*%&*) +*R )E! %R&AL *R RE(*)S&ERA%&*) SM land &nc. 3. B(A4 5$estion' When ma$ the Supreme Court allow the filing of a second otion for Reconsideration of its decision
'4 P a g e
Answer' %he concurrence of the following elements are re(uired for a second motion for reconsideration to be entertained: a. %he motion should satisfactoril$ e)plain wh$ granting the same would be in the higher interest of *ustice< b. %he motion must be made before the ruling sought to be reconsidered attains finalit$< c. !f the ruling sought to be reconsidered was rendered b$ the Court through one of its +i#isions" at least three -I members of the said +i#ision should #ote to ele#ate the case to the Court Dn 3anc< and d. %he fa#orable #ote of at least two9thirds of the Court Dn 3ancJs actual membership must be mustered for the second motion for reconsideration to be granted. Hnfortunatel$ for respondent9 mo#ants" the foregoing re(uirements do not obtain in the case at bench. APPEALS &) CE)ERAL Sil3erio ,r. 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 5$estion' What is the rationale for the rule disallowing appeals from interlocutor$ orders of the court Answer' %he rationale behind the rule proscribing the remed$ of appeal from an interlocutor$ order is to re3ent $nd$e delay $seless aeals and $nd$e incon3enience to t"e aealin8 arty :y "a3in8 to assail orders as t"ey are rom$l8ated :y t"e co$rt " when the$ can be contested in a single appeal. %he appropriate remed$ is thus for the part$ to wait for the final *udgment or order and assign such interlocutor$ order as an error of the court on appeal. PER+E(%&*) *+ APPEAL Batalla 3. (*MELE(4 5$estion' X and 7 were candidates for the position of Punong 3aranga$. X was proclaimed the Punong 3aranga$. 7 filed an election protest and claimed that there was a misappreciation of se#en ballots. C%C rendered its +ecision finding that X and 7 had garnered an e(ual number of #otes. ,ggrie#ed" X timel$ filed his otice of ,ppeal of the decision ele#ating the election protest before the Comelec. X paid the PhP '" appeal fee to the trial court within the fi#e9da$ period from receipt of the decision and the additional PhP I"E appeal fee to the Comelec Cash +i#ision within '5 da$s from the filing of his notice of appeal. %he Comelec irst +i#ision dismissed the appeal" and the Comelec Dn 3anc denied his motion for reconsideration for X/s failure to pa$ the appeal fee and because of &erification issues. !s the Comelec correct Answer' o. !n the instant case" we find that 3atalla alread$ perfected his appeal b$ filing his otice of ,ppeal and b$ pa$ing the PhP '" appeal fee" pursuant to ,.. o. 8949'59SC" within the fi#e9da$ reglementar$ period" to the C%C< and b$ pa$ing the additional appeal fee of PhP I"E to the Comelec Cash +i#ision on arch 5" EA.. M*ES *+ APPEAL R-LE ;ance" much less consider" this argument as a ground to di#est Puregold of its right to a#ail of the benefits of R, GIGG. L&BERAL&% *+ APPL&(A%&*) PR*(E-RAL R-LES PER+E(%&*) *+ APPEAL Ss. ($rata 3. PPA4 5$estion' !n what instances ma$ the strict re(uirement of pa$ment of doc=et fees for the perfection of appeal be loosened up Answer' ,mong the grounds that pertinent *urisprudence has recogni>ed as *ustif$ing the loosening up of the stringent re(uirement on pa$ment of doc=et fees are: 14 to relie3e a liti8ant from an in9$stice not commens$rate wit" "is fail$re to comly wit" t"e rescri:ed roced$re> 24 8ood fait" of t"e defa$ltin8 arty :y ayin8 wit"in a reasona:le time from t"e time of t"e defa$lt> ?4 t"e merits of t"e case> ;4 a ca$se not entirely attri:$ta:le to t"e fa$lt or ne8li8ence of t"e arty fa3ored :y t"e s$sension of t"e r$les> 64 no $n9$st re9$dice to t"e ot"er arty> and F4 imortance of t"e iss$es in3ol3ed. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the part$ in#o=ing liberalit$ to ade(uatel$ e)plain his failure to abide b$ the rules. (*-R% *+ APPEALS A %R&ER *+ +A(%S APPEAL +R*M ,-CME)%S *R +&)AL *RERS *+ %/E R%( P)B 3. Pasimio4 5$estion' a$ the Court of ,ppeals entertain (uestions of fact raised in a Rule 4' appeal Answer' 7es. Section I of Bates Pam:ansa Bl8. BP4 12I ot"erwise nown as t"e ,$diciary Reor8aniation Act of 1IH0 cate8orically states t"at t"e (A "as inter alia t"e ower to try cases recei3e e3idence and erform any and all acts necessary to resol3e fact$al iss$es raised in cases fallin8 wit"in its ori8inal and aellate 9$risdiction. !t is also worth$ to note that the appellate court/s reliance on the factual findings of the trial court is hinged on the latter/s firsthand opportunit$ to hear the witnesses and to obser#e their demeanor during the trial. 2owe#er" when such findings are not anchored on their credibilit$ and their testimonies" but on the assessment of documents that are a#ailable to appellate magistrates and sub*ect to their scrutin$" reliance on the trial courts factual findings finds no application.
'6 P a g e
REV&E! *+ +&)AL ,-CME)%S *R +&)AL *RERS *+ %/E *MB-SMA) A8$ilar 3. /ernande4 5$estion' What is the remed$ to (uestion the 0mbudsman/s decision in administrati#e disciplinar$ cases Answer' %he nature of the case before the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman -03 determines the proper remed$ a#ailable to the aggrie#ed part$ and with which court it should be filed. !n administrati#e disciplinar$ cases" an appeal from the 03Js decision should be ta=en to the C, under Rule 4I" unless the decision is not appealable owing to the penalt$ imposed. !n the case at bar" the 0mbudsman" in the e)ercise of his administrati#e disciplinar$ *urisdiction had" after due in#estigation" ad*udged petitioners guilt$ of gra#e misconduct and dishonest$ and meted the corresponding penalt$. Reco$rse to t"e (A 3ia a R$le ;? etition is t"e roer mode of aeal. R$le ;? 8o3erns aeals to t"e (A from decisions or final orders of =$asi@9$dicial a8encies. EXE(-%&*) SA%&S+A(%&*) A) E++E(% *+ ,-CME)%S alida 3. Ss. )a8$it4 5$estion' ,stra Corp. acting through its minorit$ stoc=holder" +alida" instituted a deri#ati#e suit for accountingBrecei#ership with %R0 against aguit because of aguit/s unauthori>ed withdrawal of corporate funds. %he parties filed a compromise agreement that mandated the dismissal of the deri#ati#e suit and criminal complaints. %he R%C granted +alida/s otion for D)ecution but aguit filed an Hrgent otion to RecallBNuash Writ of D)ecution on account of super#ening e#ents ,straJs loss of re#enues after the appro#al of the compromise agreement made it impossible for them to compl$. %he court sta$ed the e)ecution. !s the sta$ of e)ecution proper Answer' o. %"e co$rt may stay immediate eec$tion of a 9$d8ment w"ere s$er3enin8 e3ents :rin8 a:o$t a material c"an8e in t"e sit$ation of t"e arties w"ic" maes t"e eec$tion ine=$ita:le or w"ere t"ere is no comellin8 $r8ency for t"e eec$tion :eca$se it is not 9$stified :y t"e re3ailin8 circ$mstances. 2owe#er" the reason put forward b$ respondents is insufficient to merit a sta$ of e)ecution. Respondent Dliseo aguit cannot renege on his obligation under the compromise agreement b$ claiming an inabilit$ to pa$. !t would be an anathema to the orderl$ administration of *ustice if such an eas$ e)cuse is entertained to abrogate a final decision based on a compromise agreement. either is there an$ super#ening e#ent which materiall$ and substantiall$ altered the situation of the parties such that e)ecution would be un*ust and ine(uitable. %"e comromise a8reement "as t"e force of law :etween t"e arties $nless it is 3oid t"ere is a 3ice of consent or t"ere is for8ery or if t"e terms are so ala:ly $nconsciona:le none of w"ic" alies in t"is case. &S(RE%&*)AR EXE(-%&*) )*% ALL*!E &) EXPR*PR&A%&*) (ASES ($rata 3. PPA4 5$estion' !s e)ecution pending appeal applicable to e)propriation proceedings. Answer' o. iscretionary eec$tion of 9$d8ments endin8 aeal $nder Sec. 2 a4 of R$le ?I does not aly to eminent domain roceedin8s. PP,Js monies" facilities and assets are go#ernment properties. PP, is a go#ernment instrumentalit$ charged with carr$ing out go#ernmental functions through the management" super#ision" control and regulation of ma*or ports of the countr$. !t is an attached agenc$ of the +epartment of %ransportation and Communication pursuant to P+ 55. Drgo" the$ are e)empt from e)ecution whether b$ #irtue of a final *udgment or pending appeal. unds of PP, parta=e of go#ernment funds" and such ma$ not be garnished absent an allocation b$ its 3oard or b$ statutor$ grant. &f t"e PPA f$nds cannot :e 8arnis"ed and its roerties :ein8 8o3ernment roerties cannot :e le3ied 3ia a writ of eec$tion $rs$ant to a final 9$d8ment t"en t"e trial co$rt liewise cannot 8rant discretionary eec$tion endin8 aeal as it wo$ld r$n afo$l of t"e esta:lis"ed 9$risr$dence t"at 8o3ernment roerties are eemt from eec$tion. !"at cannot :e done directly cannot :e done indirectly. &SS-A)(E A) (*)%E)%S *+ A !R&% *+ EXE(-%&*) Parel 3. /eirs of Pr$dencio4 5$estion' What are the instances when the issuance of a writ of e)ecution ma$ be appealed
'8 P a g e
Answer' %he following are the instances where a writ of e)ecution ma$ be appealed: 14 t"e writ of eec$tion 3aries t"e 9$d8ment> 24 t"ere "as :een a c"an8e in t"e sit$ation of t"e arties main8 eec$tion ine=$ita:le or $n9$st> ?4 eec$tion is so$8"t to :e enforced a8ainst roerty eemt from eec$tion> ;4 it aears t"at t"e contro3ersy "as ne3er :een s$:9ect to t"e 9$d8ment of t"e co$rt> ations of PhP 6"'" pa$able e#er$ a$. 2owe#er" the$ failed to pa$. %hereafter" partial pa$ment was accepted b$ the ban=. DPC!3 reminded Spouses that its receipt of the chec= pa$ment is without pre*udice to the ban=/s rights considering the o#erdue nature of SpousesJ loan. %he Spouses ordered stop pa$ment of the chec=. %he ban= demanded full settlement of spousesJ loan which was unheeded. ,nd so the ban= filed a Petition for Sale to e)tra9*udiciall$ foreclose the mortgaged propert$. 2owe#er" R%C issued an 0rder granting a writ of preliminar$ in*unction in fa#or of Spouses. Was the R%C Correct Answer' o. %"e in9$ncti3e writ is conditioned on t"e eistence of a clear and ositi3e ri8"t of t"e alicant w"ic" s"o$ld :e rotected t"e writ :ein8 t"e stron8 arm of e=$ity an etraordinary eremtory remedy w"ic" can :e a3ailed of only $on t"e eistence of well@ defined circ$mstances. oreclosure proceedings will not preclude the propert$ to owner participate in the auction< title does not ipso facto pass title to the winning bidder o#er the mortgaged propert$< and the same is sub*ect to the right to redeem within one $ear from the auction sale. %he one9$ear redemption period is another grace period accorded petitioners to pa$ the outstanding debt" which would be con#erted to the proceeds of the forced sale pursuant to the re(uisites under Sec. 6 of Republic ,ct o. I'I5" as amended" for the redemption of a propert$ sold in an e)tra*udicial sale" also in accordance with Sec. 8A of the @eneral 3an=ing ,ct" as amended b$ Presidential +ecree o. 'AEA. !t is onl$ upon the e)piration of the redemption period" without the *udgment debtors ha#ing made use of their right of redemption" does ownership of the land sold become consolidated in the purchaser or winning bidder. RE5-&S&%ES +*R CRA)% *+ PREL&M&)AR &),-)(%&*) Mar=$e et al. 3. Sanc"e4 5$estion' +id the trial court/s refusal in this case to grant in*unction amount to gra#e abuse of discretion Answer' o. %"e re=$isites of reliminary in9$nction w"et"er mandatory or ro"i:itory are t"e followin8' 14 t"e alicant m$st "a3e a clear and $nmistaa:le ri8"t t"at is a ri8"t in esse> 24 t"ere is a material and s$:stantial in3asion of s$c" ri8"t> ?4 t"ere is an $r8ent need for t"e writ to re3ent irreara:le in9$ry to t"e alicant> and ;4 no ot"er ordinary seedy and ade=$ate remedy eists to re3ent t"e infliction of irreara:le in9$ry . !t should be granted onl$ when the court is full$ satisfied that the law permits it and the emergenc$ demands it. %he #er$ foundation of the *urisdiction to issue a writ of in*unction rests in the e)istence of a cause of action and in the probabilit$ of irreparable in*ur$" inade(uac$ of pecuniar$ compensation" and the pre#ention of multiplicit$ of suits. Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions" the relief of in*unction should be refused. D)treme caution must be obser#ed in the e)ercise of such discretion RE5-&S&%ES +*R CRA)% *+ &),-)(%&VE REL&E+ (omania Ceneral 3. Se3andal4 5$estion' What should the applicant compl$ with before an in*uncti#e relief ma$ be issued b$ the court Answer' !n order that an in*uncti#e relief ma$ be issued" the applicant must show that: 14 t"e ri8"t of t"e comlainant is clear and $nmistaa:le> 24 t"e in3asion of t"e ri8"t so$8"t to :e rotected is material and s$:stantial> and ?4 t"ere is an $r8ent and aramo$nt necessity for t"e writ to re3ent serio$s dama8e. ,ll of these elements must concur and the absence of e#en one of them would be fatal in petitionersJ application for the writ. &SS-A)(E *+ !R&% *+ PREL&M&)AR &),-)(%&*) *VER AM&)&S%RA%&VE *RER *+ %/E BA)CJ* SE)%RAL )C P&L&P&)AS BSP 3. Antonio@Valen$ela4 5$estion' %he Super#ision and D)amination +epartment -SD+ of the Ban$:o !entral n$ #ilipinas
'G P a g e
-3SP conducted e)aminations of the boo=s of the respondent ban=s. %hereafter" SD+ sent separate letters to the 3oard of +irectors of each ban=" informing them that the SD+ found that the ban=s failed to carr$ out the re(uired remedial measures. %he ban=s noted none of them had recei#ed the Report of D)amination -R0D which finali>es the audit findings. %hus" the respondent ban=s filed a complaint for nullification of the 3SP R0D with application for a %R0 and writ of preliminar$ in*unction before the R%C. %he R%C ruled that the ban=s were entitled to the writs of preliminar$ in*unction pra$ed for" holding that the ban=s are entitled to copies of the R0Ds. !s the R%C correct Answer' o. %he re(uisites for preliminar$ in*uncti#e relief are: a4 t"e in3asion of ri8"t so$8"t to :e rotected is material and s$:stantial> :4 t"e ri8"t of t"e comlainant is clear and $nmistaa:le> and c4 t"ere is an $r8ent and aramo$nt necessity for t"e writ to re3ent serio$s dama8e. %he issuance b$ the R%C of writs of preliminar$ in*unction is an unwarranted interference with the powers of the onetar$ 3oard. %he actions of the onetar$ 3oard under Sections EG and I of R, 865I ma$ not be restrained or set aside b$ the court e)cept on petition for certiorari on the ground that the action ta=en was in e)cess of *urisdiction or with such gra#e abuse of discretion as to amount to lac= or e)cess of *urisdiction. MA)A%*R &),-)(%&*) PLRA 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 5$estion' Should the court grant a preliminar$ prohibitor$ or mandator$ in*unction if it will result in a premature resolution of the case" or will grant the principal ob*ecti#e of the parties before merits can be passed upon Answer' o. Sec. I" Rule 5A of the 'GG8 Re#ised Rules of Ci#il Procedure pro#ides that the issuance of a writ of preliminar$ in*unction ma$ be granted pro#ided t"at 14 t"e alicant m$st "a3e a clear and $nmistaa:le ri8"t t"at is a ri8"t in esse> 24 t"ere is a material and s$:stantial in3asion of s$c" ri8"t> and ?4 t"ere is an $r8ent need for t"e writ to re3ent irreara:le in9$ry to t"e alicant> and no ot"er ordinary seedy and ade=$ate remedy eists to re3ent t"e infliction of irreara:le in9$ry. %he purpose of the ancillar$ relief is to =eep things as the$ peaceabl$ are while the court passes upon the merits. Where a preliminar$ prohibitor$ or mandator$ in*unction will result in a premature resolution of the case" or will grant the principal ob*ecti#e of the parties before merits can be passed upon" the pra$er for the relief should be properl$ denied. RE(E&VERS/&P APP*&)%ME)% *+ RE(E&VER Vi3ares 3. Reyes4 5$estion' S was the father of ? and %. ? and % had an oral partition of the properties left b$ their father. Hpon %/s death and belie#ing that % did not recei#e his full share in the estate of S" his e)ecutor and remaining heir" -petitioners filed for Partition and Reco#er$ of Real Dstate. Petitioners later filed a otion to Place Properties in Kitigation under Recei#ership alleging that to their pre*udice" ? had" without prior court appro#al" sold to third parties and transferred in his own name se#eral common properties. ? filed his 0pposition den$ing that he had fraudulentl$ transferred an$ propert$ of the estate of S and asserting that an$ transfer in his name of said properties was a result of the oral partition between him and % that enabled the latter as well to transfer se#eral common properties in his own name. %he court appointed a recei#er. !s the court correct Answer' o. %"e ower to aoint a recei3er is a delicate one and s"o$ld :e eercised wit" etreme ca$tion and only $nder circ$mstances re=$irin8 s$mmary relief or w"ere t"e co$rt is satisfied t"at t"ere is imminent dan8er of loss lest t"e in9$ry t"ere:y ca$sed :e far 8reater t"an t"e in9$ry so$8"t to :e a3erted. %he court should consider the conse(uences to all of the parties and the power should not be e)ercised when it is li=el$ to produce irreparable in*ustice or in*ur$ to pri#ate rights or the facts demonstrate that the appointment will in*ure the interests of others whose rights are entitled to as much consideration from the court as those of the complainant. !n Descallar v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the appointment of a recei#er is not proper where the rights of the parties" one of whom is in possession of the propert$" are still to be determined b$ the trial court.
E P a g e
SPE(&AL (&V&L A(%&*)S REV&E! *+ ,-CME)%S A) +&)AL *RERS *R RES*L-%&*) *+ (*MELE( A) (*A> APPL&(A%&*) *+ R-LE 6< -)ER R-LE 6; 5$er$:in 3. (*MELE(4 5$estion' ,re 0rders issued b$ the C0DKDC in the e)ercise of its administrati#e functions co#ered b$ Rule 64 Answer' o. %"e (o$rt "as consistently "eld t"at t"e "rase decision order or r$lin8 of constit$tional commissions t"e (*MELE( incl$ded t"at may :e :ro$8"t directly to t"e S$reme (o$rt on certiorari is not all@encomassin8 and t"at it only relates to t"ose rendered in t"e commissionsG eercise of ad9$dicatory or =$asi@9$dicial owers. !n the case of the C0DKDC" this would limit the pro#ision/s co#erage to the decisions" orders" or rulings issued pursuant to its authorit$ to be the sole *udge of generall$ all contro#ersies and contests relating to the elections" returns" and (ualifications of electi#e offices. Conse(uentl$" Rule 64" which complemented the procedural re(uirement under ,rticle !X9," Section 8" should li=ewise be read in the same senseQthat of e)cluding from its co#erage decisions" rulings" and orders rendered b$ the C0DKDC in the e)ercise of its administrati#e functions. (ER%&*RAR& PR*/&B&%&*) A) MA)AM-S +rancisco Motors 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 5$estion' What are the e)ceptions to the rule that errors not relating to *urisdiction nor in#ol#ing gra#e abuse of discretion shall not be decided upon b$ the court in a Petition for Certiorari Answer' %he Court has consistentl$ held that where the error sought to be corrected neither relates to the courtJs *urisdiction nor in#ol#es gra#e abuse of discretion" re#iew of the error through certiorari will not be allowed. %"is r$le "owe3er admits ecetions s$c" as 14 w"en it is necessary to re3ent irreara:le dama8es and in9$ry to a arty 24 w"ere t"e trial 9$d8e caricio$sly and w"imsically eercised "is 9$d8ment ?4 w"ere t"ere may :e dan8er of fail$re of 9$stice ;4 w"ere an aeal wo$ld :e slow inade=$ate and ins$fficient and 24 deri3ation of said ossession :y anot"er :y means of force intimidation " threat" strateg$ or stealth. %he purpose of the law is to protect the person who in fact has actual possession. %he person claiming rightful possession cannot be permitted to e)clude the actual possessor and thereb$ disturb social order and #iolate indi#idual securit$. %he burden of instituting an action to tr$ the propert$ right is upon he who claims rightful possession %he proper remed$ in the instant case is to file an accion publiciana case which differs from a forcible entr$ action in that it does not re(uire prior ph$sical possession in order to prosper. (*)%EMP% B$ildner 3. &l$sorio4 5$estion' 7 filed #arious manifestations and motions in relation to her appeals from the decision of the C, den$ing the petition for habeas corpus to ha#e custod$ of her husband. irst" 7 mo#ed for its reconsideration. She followed this with a otion to Set Case for Preliminar$ Conference. ,n Hrgent anifestation and otion for Clarification was filed thereafter. %he C, once again denied the R and resol#ed to e)punge from the records her repetiti#e motions" with the ca#eat that no further pleadings shall be entertained. 2owe#er" represented b$ +ela Cru> ,lbano ,ssociates" she sought lea#e to file an urgent R. oreo#er" she addressed two letters to then Chief ?ustice 2ilario @. +a#ide" ?r. ,nother letter was gi#en where she called the decision in the case Ramon en" and unprecedented. ,lso" she published 0n the Ddge of 2ea#en" a boo= carr$ing 7/s name as author and which contained her commentaries on the aforesaid habeas corpus case was also alleged to be contemptuous. ,re 7/s acts contemptuous Answer' 7es. With regard to DrlindaJs authorship of the 0n the Ddge of 2ea#en" she is found guilt$ of indirect contempt. &ndirect contemt is a deli:erate act to :rin8 t"e co$rt or 9$d8e into disre$te. 2er statements pose a different threat to the Courts repute. Statements such as LWas *ustice soldF and N/ow can t"e "i8"est co$rt of o$r land :e a arty to t"e :rea$ of my family and disre8ardin8 t"e +amily (ode F" when ta=en together went be$ond the permissible bounds of fair criticism. !"ile most of "er statements were in t"e form of =$estions instead of cate8orical assertions t"e effect is still t"e same' t"ey constit$te a stin8in8 affront to t"e "onor and di8nity of t"e (o$rt and tend to $ndermine t"e confidence of t"e $:lic in t"e inte8rity of t"e "i8"est tri:$nal of t"e land. Kitigants" no matter how aggrie#ed or dissatisfied the$ ma$ be of courtJs decision" do not ha#e the unbridled freedom in e)pressing their frustration or grie#ance in an$ manner the$ want. 2owe#er" the #arious motions and manifestations filed b$ Drlinda !lusorio which neither contained offensi#el$ disrespectful language nor tended to besmirch the dignit$ of the Court are not contemptuous. %he letters to the Chief *ustice were also found not to be contumacious in character" but onl$ a sleigh but sub9rosa attempt to influence the letter9 addressee. SPE(&AL PR*(EE&)CS SE%%LEME)% *+ ES%A%E *+ E(EASE PERS*)S Re:$s=$illo 3. Ss. omin8o4 5$estion' a$ issues on heirship be decided in a ci#il action Answer' &t "as indeed :een r$led t"at t"e declaration of "eirs"i m$st :e made in a secial roceedin8 not in an indeendent ci3il action. 2owe#er" this Court had li=ewise held that recourse to administration proceedings to determine who heirs are is sanctioned onl$ if there is a good and compelling reason for such recourse. 2ence" the Court had allowed e)ceptions to the rule re(uiring administration proceedings as when the parties in the ci#il case alread$ presented their e#idence regarding the issue of heirship" and the R%C had conse(uentl$ rendered *udgment upon the issues it defined during the pre9trial. LE%%ERS %ES%AME)%AR A) *+ AM&)&S%RA%&*) Man$n8as 3. Loreto4 5$estion' lorentino and Dngracia were married with an adopted son" Samuel. lorentino and
EI P a g e
Samuel predeceased Dngracia. Dngracia filed an illegal detainer suit against +iosdado" who claimed to be the illegitimate son of lorentino. Dngracia won the case and the decision has become final and e)ecutor$. Hpon the death of Dngracia" +iosdado filed with the court a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in his fa#or. 2e alleged that he" being an illegitimate son of lorentino anungas" is an heir of Dngracia anungas. %he R%C appointed him as Special ,dministrator. !s the R%C correct Answer' o. !"ile t"e trial co$rt "as t"e discretion to aoint anyone as a secial administrator of t"e estate s$c" discretion m$st :e eercised wit" reason 8$ided :y t"e directi3es of e=$ity 9$stice and le8al rinciles . !t ma$" therefore" not be remiss to reiterate that the role of a special administrator is to preser#e the estate until a regular administrator is appointed. @i#en this dut$ on the part of the special administrator" it would" therefore" be prudent and reasonable to appoint someone interested in preser#ing the estate for its e#entual distribution to the heirs. %o reiterate" the sub*ect of the intestate proceedings is the estate of Dngracia anungas. !t must be remembered that the estate of lorentino anungas was alread$ the sub*ect of intestate proceedings that ha#e long been terminated with the proceeds distributed to the heirs with the issuance of a +ecree of inal +istribution. With the termination of the intestate estate proceedings of +lorentino Man$n8as iosdado as an ille8itimate "eir of +lorentino Man$n8as is still not an "eir of En8racia Man$n8as and is not entitled to recei3e any art of t"e Estate of Man$n8as . !n fact" +iosdado is a debtor of the estate and would ha#e no interest in preser#ing its #alue. %here is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator. %he trial court acted with gra#e abuse of discretion in appointing +iosdado as special administrator of the Dstate of anungas !R&% *+ /ABEAS (*RP-S %$9anmilitante 3. (ada@eaera4 5$estion' X filed before the R%C9Caloocan a #erified petition for writ of habeas corpus see=ing 7 to produce before the court her biological daughter" minor C and to return to her the custod$ o#er the child. R%C granted the same. Since the writ cannot be ser#ed despite diligent efforts" R%C9 Caloocan directed the Sheriff to ser#e the alias writ upon 7 at the 0ffice of the ,ssistant Cit$ Prosecutor of Nue>on Cit$. Will R%C9Caloocan ac(uire *urisdiction o#er 7 if the latter is ser#ed with a cop$ of the writ in Nue>on Cit$ Answer' 7es. %he ational Capital ?udicial Region consists of the cities of anila" Nue>on" Pasa$" Caloocan and andalu$ong" and the municipalities of a#otas" alabon" San ?uan" a=ati" Pasig" Pateros" %aguig" ari=ina" Paraa(ue" Kas Pias" untinlupa" and &alen>uela. !n #iew thereof" it is ind$:ita:le t"at t"e filin8 of a etition for t"e iss$ance of a writ of "a:eas cor$s :efore a family co$rt in any of t"e cities en$merated is roer as lon8 as t"e writ is so$8"t to :e enforced wit"in t"e )ational (aital ,$dicial Re8ion " as here. !n the case at bar" respondent filed the petition before the famil$ court of Caloocan Cit$. Since Caloocan Cit$ and Nue>on Cit$ both belong to the same *udicial region" the writ iss ued b$ the R%C9Caloocan can still be implemented in Nue>on Cit$. Whether petitioner resides in the former or the latter is immaterial in #iew of the abo#e rule. (-S%* *+ M&)*R (/&LRE) Cam:oa@ /irsc" 3. (o$rt of Aeals4 5$estion' What are some of the instances when the mother ma$ be declared unsuitable to ha#e custod$ of her children Answer' %he so9called tender9age presumption under ,rticle E'I of the amil$ Code ma$ be o#ercome onl$ b$ compelling e#idence of the motherJs unfitness. %"e mot"er is declared $ns$ita:le to "a3e c$stody of "er c"ildren in one or more of t"e followin8 instances' ne8lect a:andonment $nemloyment immorality "a:it$al dr$nenness and dr$8 addiction maltreatment of t"e c"ild insanity or affliction wit" a comm$nica:le disease. A'$&!(, %OC*( ($A"#& +$na 3. Villar4 5$estion' What is the general rule in the appreciation of the legal standing of a part$ to the case
E4 P a g e
Answer' %he Court has time and again acted liberall$ on the locus standi re(uirements and has accorded certain indi#iduals" not otherwise directl$ in*ured" or with material interest affected" b$ a @o#ernment act" standing to sue pro#ided a constitutional issue of critical significance is at sta=e. %o ha#e legal standing" therefore" a suitor must show that he has sustained or will sustain a Ldirect in*ur$F as a result of a go#ernment action" or ha#e a Lmaterial interestF in the issue affected b$ the challenged official act. %he rule on locus standi is after all a mere procedural technicalit$ in relation to which the Court" in a catena of cases in#ol#ing a sub*ect of transcendental import" has wai#ed" or rela)ed" thus allowing non9traditional plaintiffs" such as concerned citi>ens" ta)pa$ers" #oters or legislators" to sue in the public interest" albeit the$ ma$ not ha#e been personall$ in*ured b$ the operation of a law or an$ other go#ernment act. M**% (ASES )ARRA )&(JEL M&)&)C and EVEL*PME)% (*RP*RA%&*)(*RP 3. REM*)% (*)SL&A%&*) (*RP. C.R. )*. 1I
View more...
Comments
