Remedial Law Dean Agranzamendez

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS BAR OPERATIONS 2011 REMEDIAL Law Prepared by:

REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ DEAN, COLLEGE OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS (FORMERLY BAGUIO COLLEGES FOUNDATION) BAGUIO CITY

1. What court has jurisdiction over complaint for enforcement of foreign judgment? Complaint for enforcement of foreign judgment, even if capable of pecuniary estimation, falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, provided that no other court or office is vested jurisdiction over such complaint. (Mijares, et al. v. Ranada, et al., G.R. No. 139325. April 12, 2005) 2. What is the mode of appeal from the decision of a Regional Trial Court sitting as a special agrarian court? It is by petition for review under Rule 42, not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 190660, April 11, 2011) 3. Does the “fresh period” to appeal laid down in Neypes v. CA apply to the period of appeal in criminal cases? Yes, it also applies to the period of appeal in criminal cases. (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, et al., G.R. No. 170979, Feb. 9, 2011) 4. Where there are several defendants, one of whom files a motion to dismiss which was granted by the court, what is the remedy against such order of dismissal? Appeal is the remedy against an order dismissing a complaint in a civil action. But in Palma v. Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010, it was held that where there are several defendants, one of whom files a motion to dismiss which was granted by the court, the remedy against such order of dismissal is certiorari under Rule 65 because, as stated in Section 1(f), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, no appeal may be taken from a “judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties x x x while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom.” Since there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the special civil action for certiorari is proper. 5. Record on Appeal is necessary only in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals. Is record on appeal required in petition for cancellation of entry in the civil registry or petition for change of name?

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 1

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

In Republic v. Nisaida Sumera Nishina, G.R. No. 186053, Nov. 15, 2010, it was held that record on appeal is not required in petition for cancellation of entry in the civil registry and change of name. But take note that an order appointing an administrator of a deceased person’s estate is a final determination of the rights of the parties in connection with the administration, management and settlement of the decedent’s estate; hence, it is a final order and thus appealable. In special proceedings, such as appointment of an administrator, record on appeal is required and is to be filed, along with the notice of appeal, within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. The Neypes rule is applicable. (Zayco, et al. v. Hinlo Jr., G.R. No. 170243, April 16, 2008). 6. The ten-day period for Spouses Leynes (defendants in the case for forcible entry before the MCTC) to file their Answer expired on May 20, 2000 (a Saturday). They filed their answer on May 22, 2000. The MTC declared Spouses Leynes in default and rendered its Judgment on May 29, 2000, because, according to the MTC, they had only up to May 20, 2000 to file their Answer, and although May 20, 2000 was a Saturday, the court was open and court personnel were present at that time to receive cases and motions filed with the court. Is the MTC correct? The MTC is not correct. Section 1, Rule 22 states: “In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.” Thus, Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded from the counting of the period only when the last day of the period falls on such days. SC Adm. Circular No. 2-99, which took effect on February 1, 1999, requires certain trial court judges and employees to be present on Saturdays “primarily to act on petitions for bail and other urgent matters.” An answer cannot be considered as among such urgent matters. (Leynes v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 154462, Jan. 19, 2011) 7. At the hearing on the motion for DNA testing in a paternity case, is the petitioner required to present prima facie evidence of paternity? Yes. Lucas v. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011, holds that a prima facie showing of possibility of paternity is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order. During the hearing on the motion for DNA testing in paternity cases, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity. 8. Is appeal the remedy against an order granting demurrer to evidence in a criminal case? No. In criminal cases, the grant of demurrer to evidence is tantamount acquittal; therefore, the order granting demurrer is not appealable. But although the order granting demurrer is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable through certiorari under Rule 65. The trial court, however, must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 2

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (People v. Sandiganbayan and Barcenas, G.R. No. 174504, March 21, 2011)

9. If the offense of reckless imprudence under Art. 365 of the RPC affects several persons, does Art. 48 of the RPC on complex crimes apply? No, Art. 48 of the RPC does not apply to acts penalized under Art. 365 of the RPC. The quasi offense of reckless imprudence under Art. 365 of the RPC is a single crime, whether its injurious result should affect one person or several persons or whether it results in one or more consequences. It cannot be split into several crimes and prosecutions. 10. The CBA between PAL and FASAP fixes the compulsory retirement age for females at 55 years and for males at 60 years. Several flight attendants filed a special civil action for declaratory relief against PAL with the RTC, alleging that the said provision is discriminatory against female flight attendants and in violation of the Constitution, the Labor Code (on right to equal work and employment opportunities) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ratified by the Senate in 1981. The petitioners prayed that the RTC declare said provision null and void. Respondent PAL moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the matter is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrators Panel which has jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and implementation of the CBA. Upholding its jurisdiction over the case, RTC issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. Is the RTC correct? Yes. The allegations in the petition and the relief prayed for show that the issue raised is whether the CBA provision in question is constitutional. The said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. Rather, it requires the application of the Constitution, labor laws, law on contracts and the CEDAW. The subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation exclusively cognizable by the RTC. Being a civil action, it is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals. Here, the employer-employee relationship between the parties is merely incidental. (Halaguena, et al. v. PAL, G.R. No. 172013, Oct. 2, 2009) 11. Plaintiff filed a complaint for specific performance against defendant city government with the RTC. In due time, defendant city government filed its answer signed by a private lawyer, not by the city legal officer. Plaintiff filed a motion to declare defendant in default arguing that the city legal officer is the only officer authorized under Sec. 248 of the Local Government Code to represent the city government in all civil actions. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the answer was a mere scrap of paper and should not have been admitted in court for being an unsigned pleading, the same not having been signed by a duly authorized representative of the city. The trial court denied the motion. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, but its motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Plaintiff elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA dismissed the petition outright because the person who signed the verification/certification on nonforum shopping did not appear to be authorized by the petitioner (plaintiff in the

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 3

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

case below). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was denied. Petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Is the petition for certiorari the proper remedy? No. The resolutions of the CA which petitioner seeks to nullify are orders of dismissal. An order of dismissal is a final order which is a proper subject of an appeal, not certiorari. Where what is being assailed is a decision, final order or resolution of the CA, then appeal to the Supreme Court is by means of a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In cases where appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. The existence and availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availability of the special civil action for certiorari, although where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where the appeal is inadequate or ineffectual, the extraordinary writ of certiorari may be granted. (San Miguel Bukid Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Mandaluyong, et al., G.R. No. 153653, citing Magestrado v. People, G.R. No. 148072, July 10, 2007, and Pasiona v. CA, G.R. No. 165471, July 21, 2008)

12. Alleging that the substituted service of summons upon him is not valid, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person. a) May the defendant include in his motion to dismiss other grounds? Yes. Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.” Thus, a defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court even if he raises other grounds. b) Suppose after the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person, he filed an answer ad cautelam setting forth affirmative defenses and a counterclaim for damages, did he abandon his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person? No. The current view is that a special appearance before the court - challenging its jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through a motion to dismiss even if the defendant invokes other grounds – is not tantamount to estoppel or waiver by the defendant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person. (Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122 and G.R. No. 171381, Oct. 12, 2009, citing La Naval Drug Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 103200, Aug. 31, 1994)

13. The rule on declaratory relief is stated in Section 1, Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and it reads: “Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 4

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds thereform or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this Rule.” In Danao, et al. v. Tappa, et al., G.R. No. 181303, Sept. 17, 2009, the petitioners (plaintiffs in the case below) filed an action against the respondents (defendants in the case below) for quieting of title over a parcel of land with an assessed value of P410.00. They filed their complaint with the Regional Trial Court because, according to them, under the second paragraph of the aforecited rule, an action for quieting of title may be brought under Rule 63; and under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63, the action should be brought “in the appropriate Regional Trial Court.” The RTC, however, dismissed their complaint motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction. Is the RTC correct? Yes, the RTC is correct in dismissing the complaint. The first paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 63 must be differentiated from the second paragraph. The first paragraph deals with action for declaratory relief which should be filed with the appropriate RTC. The second paragraph refers to (1) action for reformation of instrument; (2) action to quiet title; (3) action to consolidate ownership. The second paragraph must be read in relation to R.A. No. 7691. Thus, where the assessed value of the land in an action for quieting of title does not exceed P50,000 (in Metro Manila) or P20,000 (in other places), it is the Municipal Trial Court that has jurisdiction.

14. Plaintiff filed with the RTC a complaint against defendant, praying that defendant be ordered to pay: P300,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees; P20,000.00 as litigation expenses; and costs of the suit. The claim for damages was based on the allegation in the complaint that defendant uttered to the plaintiff, in the presence of other persons, the following: “How many rounds of sex did you have last night with your boss? You fuckin’ bitch!” Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was the MTC, not the RTC, that had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. According to the defendant, the claim for moral damages was not more than the jurisdictional amount of P300,000.00 because the claim for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses should be excluded in computing the total claim for purposes of determining what court had jurisdiction. Holding that plaintiff’s total claim as stated in the complaint was P420,000.00, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and ruled that it had jurisdiction. Is the RTC correct? Yes, the RTC is correct. In this case, the complaint is for the recovery of damages for the alleged malicious acts of the defendant. The complaint principally sought an award of moral damages and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, for the alleged shame and injury suffered by the plaintiff because of

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 5

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

defendant’s utterance made in the presence of other persons. Based on the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff’s main action is for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages being claimed by the plaintiff, e.g., exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or consequences of the main action but constitute the primary reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Therefore, the total amount of all the damages claimed is the basis for determining the jurisdictional amount. (Sante v. Claravall, et al., G.R. No. 173915, Feb. 22, 2010). Suppose in the problem presented, the plaintiff amended her complaint by increasing her claim for moral damages from P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00. May the court allow the amendment of the complaint? Yes, the RTC may allow the amendment of the complaint. The rule that amendment cannot be allowed when the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction on the court does not apply in the problem presented because, here, the RTC had jurisdiction over the original complaint. (Sante v. Claravall, et al., G.R. No. 173915, Feb. 22, 2010).

15. What is plaintiff’s remedy against an order dismissing his complaint? Is it appeal or certiorari? As already held in a long line of cases, the remedy against an order dismissing a complaint is appeal. This is so because an order dismissing a complaint is not merely interlocutory, but a final order as it finally disposes of the case. (GSIS v. Olisa, G.R. No. 126874, March 10, 1999) Where, however, there are several defendants, one or some of whom file a motion to dismiss which is granted by the court, such order of dismissal is a final order because it terminates the proceedings against said defendants, although the case remains pending as to the other defendants. Hence, the order is not appealable because it falls within exception (f) of Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which reads: “No appeal may be taken from … (f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, crossclaims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom.” Since there is no appeal [as said order is not appealable], or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the remedy of special civil action for certiorari is proper as there is need to promptly relieve the aggrieved party from the injurious effects of the acts of a lower court or tribunal. (Palma v. Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010.) 16. Is an order appointing an administrator of a deceased person’s estate appealable? Yes. In Zayco, et al. v. Hinlo Jr., G.R. No. 170243, April 16, 2008, it was held that an order appointing an administrator of a deceased person’s estate is appealable because it is a final order. It constitutes a final determination of the rights of the parties in connection with the administration, management, and settlement of the decedent’s estate.

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 6

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

This being a special proceeding, a record on appeal is required. The notice of appeal and the record on appeal should both be filed within 30 days from receipt of the notice of judgment or final order. If a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration is filed but is denied, the 30-day period should be reckoned from the receipt of the order denying the motion, pursuant to rule laid down in Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524, Sept. 14, 2005.

17. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated or commenced either: (a) motu propio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt; or (b) by the filing of a verified petition, upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions. When may indirect contempt be initiated by the court motu proprio and when may it be initiated by the filing of a verified petition? Where the alleged misbehavior constituting the indirect contempt is within the knowledge of the court, then the court may initiate the proceedings for indirect contempt motu proprio. This applies even if a motion to cite respondent in contempt was filed, provided that independently of such motion, the court may very well issue a show-cause order because the misbehavior constituting the indirect contempt is well within its knowledge. (Leonidas v. Supnet, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1433, Feb. 21, 2003.) But where the court has no knowledge of the misbehavior allegedly committed by the respondent, then the proceedings for indirect contempt should be initiated by a verified petition, not by a mere motion. If such misbehavior is brought to the attention of the court through a motion to cite respondent in indirect contempt, the court cannot, on the basis of such motion, issue an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. (Regalado v. Go, G.R. No. 167988, Feb. 6, 2007.) 18. If an appeal is taken to the wrong court, may this erroneous appeal be transferred to the correct appellate court? No. Section 2, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states: “An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.” There is no longer any justification for allowing transfer of erroneous appeals from one court to the other, much less for tolerating continued ignorance of the law on appeals. (Sps. Dadizon v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 159116, Sept. 30, 2009). Where the accused is a public officer occupying a position lower than Salary Grade 27, and he commits an offense in relation to his office, jurisdiction over the offense shall be vested in the RTC or MTC pursuant to their respective jurisdictions. In Quileste v. People, G.R. No. 180334, Feb. 18, 2009, the accused was a low-ranking government employee who was charged with malversation. After he was convicted by the RTC, he appealed to the CA. HELD: Accused filed his appeal in the wrong court. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction.

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 7

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

In Balaba v. People, G.R. No. 169519, July 17, 2009, the accused, a low-ranking government employee, was also charged with malversation. He was convicted by the RTC. In his notice of appeal, he specified the CA as the court to which he was taking his appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated its pronouncement in Melencion v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 150684, June 12, 2008 that an “error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-day period to appeal.” If the correction is not made within the said 15-day period, the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure will apply. It states: “An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.” In Estarija v. People, et al., G.R. No. 173990, Oct. 27, 2009, the accused, a public officer occupying a position lower than Salary Grade 27, was charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He was convicted by the RTC and was meted a straight penalty of seven years. The CA, to which Estarija brought his appeal, affirmed the judgment of the RTC but modified the sentence to six years and one month to nine years of imprisonment. HELD: The CA erred in entertaining the appeal. Although the penalty imposed by the RTC is erroneous as it did not apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the decision of the RTC has long become final and cannot be modified anymore. 19. In what instances may habeas corpus be resorted to as post-conviction remedy? The writ of habeas corpus may be resorted to as post-conviction remedy in any of the following exceptional circumstances: a)

there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;

b)

the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence;

c)

the imposed penalty is excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess.

Thus, the writ of habeas corpus was held available where an accused was deprived of his right against self-incrimination. (cited in de Villa v. The Director, New Bilibid Prisons, G.R. No. 158802, Nov. 17, 2004). But habeas corpus is not available as post-conviction remedy where the appeal is still pending. (People v. Maquilan, G.R. No. 126170, Aug. 27, 1998).

20. What is the rule regarding Post-Conviction DNA Testing? The rule on post-conviction DNA testing is expressed in A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Effective Oct. 15, 2007, as follows: “Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. – Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 8

GREEN NOTES IN REMEDIAL LAW Prepared by: DEAN REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.” (Rule on DNA Evidence, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Effective Oct. 15, 2007) “Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing – Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. – The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.” *******************************************************************

THE BARRISTERS’ CLUB OFFICERS: Virgel Amor Vallejos (Chancellor)

Seychelles June M. Doringo (Secretary)

Janilet Mishelle R. Carillo (Treasurer)

Art Miguel B. Sanlao and Angelito Velasquez Jr. (Business Managers)

Rachelle May Gallego (PRO)

Paul Dean Mark Pila (SSG Representative)

Brenda Filipinas Danganan (Ex-officio)

Atty. Isagani Calderon (Adviser)

Atty. Reynaldo U. Agranzamendez (Dean,College of Law)

BAR OPERATIONS 2011

Page 9