UPDATE ON REMEDIAL LAW

(Discussion on 2003 Decisions of

the Supree !ourt on Ree"i#$ L#%&
I' !I(IL PRO!EDURE
A' )uris"iction
1. Departure From Tijam v. Sibonhanoy

Atuel v. Valdez, 403 SCRA 517, une 10, !003
Even if the parties never questioned the jurisdiction of the DARAB as in fact they
actively participated in the proceedings thereof, the ! nonetheless ruled upon the issue of
jurisdiction and pronounced the DARAB to have no jurisdiction "ecause there #as no tenancy
relationship "et#een the parties. $he %igh !ourt ruled, contrary to Tijam v. Sibonhanoy, that
estoppel cannot confer upon a court or a tri"unal a jurisdiction that it does not have under the
la#.
Note* &ust a"out ' months "efore Atuel v. Valdez, the ! in "onza#a v. CA, ".R. $o.
1440!5, %e&. !7, !00! ruled that petitioner having invo(ed the jurisdiction of the trial court,
cannot after receiving an adverse verdict, claim that that court had no jurisdiction for the
su"ject matter of the suit properly "elongs to the %)*RB. $he %igh !ourt reiterated the
Sibonhanoy doctrine.
imilarly, a year earlier, in the case of Al&anta'a v. Commi((ion on Settlement o) *and
+'oblem( ,C-S*A+., ".R. $o. 145/3/, uly !0, !001, the ! ruled that petitioner is in
estoppel from questioning the jurisdiction of the !+)A, after participating actively n the
proceedings "efore said commission "y filing an ans#er and a motion for reconsideration of the
decision of the latter #ithout raising the issue of jurisdiction.
-. &urisdiction over an Action for E.propriation /Ru$e +,- R!P0

0a'dellon v. 0a'an#ay 1a(ili o) Calamba, ".R. $o. 142//2, A3'il 30, !003
An action for e.propriation is one #hose su"ject is incapa"le of pecuniary estimation
and it is, therefore, #ithin the e.clusive jurisdiction of the R$!.
1. &urisdiction over 2atters ,ertaining to the ettlement of Estate of a Deceased ,erson /Ru$es ,3.
/0- RR!&

A'bola'io v. CA, ".R. $o. 1!4123, ,A3'il !!, !003.
An ordinary court hearing an action for recovery of possession of a realty has no
jurisdiction to ma(e determinations re the heirs of a decedent, proof of filiation, the estate of
the decedent and claims against it. +nly a pro"ate court in a special proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of a deceased person can resolve those questions.
Note* $he same ruling #as made in $at&he' v. CA, ".R. $o. 133000, -&t. !, !001
#here a regular court #as resolving the question of the alleged advancement of property made
"y the decedent to one of his heirs. $he ! ruled that the regular court had no jurisdiction over
the issue. 3t "elongs to the pro"ate court.
4. !ustom5s ei6ure and Detention of 3mported 2erchandise

5u6o v. ud#e Cab'edo, A.1. RT71774, A3'il 30, !003
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
A regular court does not have jurisdiction over sei6ure and forfeiture proceedings
underta(en "y the Deputy !ollector of !ustoms. $he action of this official is revie#a"le "y the
!ollector of !ustoms #hose action is revie#a"le "y the !ourt of $a. Appeals.
1' Doc2et 3ees (S'!' Res' en 4#nc- Apri$ 5- 0//6,- AM 067.3.000&

RC0C v. 1a#8in 1a'9etin# Co'3., ".R. $o. 15!/7/, Au#. 5, !003
7hen an order of dismissal of complaint is reconsidered and the case is reinstated, the
plaintiff is not required to pay another doc(et fee.
!' Actions (Ru$e 2- R!P&

Romualdez7*i&a'o( v. *i&a'o(, ".R. $o. 150252, A3'il !0, !003
$he three (inds of actions8
1. Action in personam 9 it is an action #hich is lodged against a person "ased on
personal lia"ility and see(s a personal judgment. $he decision rendered therein is called
judgment in personam #hich is "inding only "et#een the parties.
-. Action in rem 9 it is an action directed against a res or the thing itself instead of a
person and see(s a judgment enforcea"le against the #hole #orld. $he decision is called
judgment in rem.
1. Action quasi:in:rem 9 it is an action #hich names a person as defendant "ut its
o"ject is to su"ject that person5s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or o"ligation or an
action pertaining to the status of a person. $he decision #hich is called judgment quasi:in:rem
is "inding only "et#een the parties.
Notes*
a0 An action for declaration of the nullity of marriage is an action quasi:in:rem.
"0 $#o (inds of quasi:in:rem actions8 /Ru$e 05- Sec' 07&
10 Defendant does not reside and is not found in the ,hilippines and the action affects
the personal status of the plaintiff;
-0 Defendant does not reside and not found in the ,hilippines and the su"ject of the
suit is a property in the ,hilippines in #hich the defendant has a claim or lien or interest, actual
or contingent or in #hich the relief demanded consists #holly or in part, in e.cluding the
defendant from any interest thereat or the property is attached #ithin the ,hilippines.
!' De#th of # P#rt8 (Ru$e 3- Sec' 0+- R!P&

0'io(o v. Reli71a'iano, ".R. $o. 13!725, an. 37, !003
During the pendency of the case, defendant died. %is la#yer filed a <otice of Death.
,laintiff5s counsel filed a 2otion for u"stitution of Deceased Defendant. $he court admitted
the motion. Decision #as rendered ordering the defendants and heirs of deceased defendant to
pay plaintiff damages and to surrender the lot in question to him.
7as there proper su"stitution of parties=
-
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
9e$"* $here #as no proper su"stitution of deceased defendant and, therefore, the
heirs of the deceased defendants are not "ound "y the decision. $he court did not comply #ith
Rule 1, ec. 1', R!, #hich requires that upon receipt of the <otice of Death of a party, it
should issue an order directing the deceased legal representative or heirs to appear for the
deceased. $he order of the court admitting the motion for su"stitution of party does not comply
#ith the rule.
Notes*
a. 3f heirs of original party are also original parties over #hom the court had already
acquired jurisdiction over their person, a formal order of su"stitution is not necessary.
". Even if there is no formal su"stitution of deceased party of the heirs actively
participated on the hearing as #itnesses #ho gave evidence in support of the deceased5s cause,
the defect is cured.
D' !opu$sor8 !ounterc$#i (Ru$e +- Sec' ,- R!P&
Requisites of a compulsory counterclaim8
1. it arises out of, or is necessarily connected #ith the transaction or occurrence that is
the su"ject matter of the opposing party5s claim;
-. it does not require the presence of third parties of #hom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction;
1. the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
$est to determine #hether a counterclaim is compulsory8
1. Are the issues of fact or la# raised "y the claim and counterclaim largely the same=
-. 7ould res judicata "ar a su"sequent suit on defendant5s claims a"sent the
compulsory counterclaim rule=
1. 7ill su"stantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff5s claim as #ell as
defendant5s counterclaim=
4. 3s there any logical relations "et#een the claim and the counterclaim=
E' 3oru Shoppin: (S'!' !ir' No' 26./0 #n" S'!' !ir' No' 05./5&

1. :+ v. Su(i, ".R. $o. 13041!, ;eb. 14, !003
usi claimed part of the titled Diliman campus of *, on the strength of a certificate of
title in her name.
he tried several times to fence and occupy said portion of the *, campus "ut #as
repulsed. o she filed an action for damages and injunction #ith prayer for a $R+ and 7,3
against *, and some of its officials.
*, filed an action for cancellation of the title of usi over said property.
Issue* 3s there forum shopping=
9e$"* <one. *, could not have raised as counterclaim the cancellation of title on the
damage suit "ecause the court #ould not have jurisdiction thereof. !ancellation of title can
1
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
only "e pursued on a separate and direct action for said purpose. !ertificate of title under the
torrens systems cannot "e collaterally attached.
3' !ertific#te on Non.3oru Shoppin: (Ru$e ,- Sec' 7- R!P&
1. ;iel v. <'i( Se&u'ity Sy(tem, =n&., ".R. $o. 155/75, A3'il 3, !003
$he la"orers in a company lost their case "efore the <)R!. $hey filed a petition for
certiorari "efore the !ourt of Appeals. +nly 1 la"orers signed the certificate on non:forum
shopping. $he !A dismissed the petition for non:compliance #ith the Rule on !ertificate on
<on:Forum hopping.
9e$"* $he !A should have allo#ed the petition to continue as to the three #ho signed
the certificate.
-. *eonida( v. Su3nit, A.1. $o. 1T70!71433, ;eb. !1, !003, Se&. 5, Rule 7, RC+
+nly a duly authori6ed mem"ers of the Board of Directors or a senior ran(ing officials
can sign the certificate of non:forum shopping. A mere collection officer is not qualified to
sign for the corporation.
1. 0atay v. RTC, 0'an&h 50, Suay, ".R.$o. 1!27/33, ;eb. 17, !003. > Se&. 5, Rule 7,
RC+
$he failure to file a certificate of non:forum shopping in an election protest justifies the
outright dismissal of the petition. $he petitioner su"sequently filed a certificate of non:forum
shopping "eyond the 1>:day reglementary period to file the protest. $he su"sequent filing of
the certificate does not justify a reconsideration of the order of dismissal "ecause it #as filed
"eyond the reglementary period.
;' Re<uireents in Motion (Ru$e 07- R!P&

$ational Comme'&ial 0an9 o) Saudi A'abia v. CA, ".R. $o. 1!4!27, an. 31, !003
$his case reiterates the doctrine that the 1:day notice rule on motion is mandatory and
that a motion #ithout notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the running of
the period to appeal.
A motion for reconsideration #hich merely reiterates the arguments already disposed of
in the decision or resolution sought to "e resolved is pro forma.
$he a"sence of a notice of hearing cannot "e cured "y a motion to set the motion for
hearing.
9' Dou4$e )eop#r"8 (Ru$e 0+- Sec' 0- R!P&
1. %ela Rama v. 1endiola, 401 SCRA 710, A3'il !4, !003
Requisites of Res &udicata
a0 there must "e final judgment or order
"0 the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the
su"ject matter and the parties
c0 there must "e "et#een the t#o cases identity of parties,
su"ject matter and causes of action
4
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
3dentity of parties, su"ject matter and causes of action requires only su"stantial not
complete identity. $hus, even if in the second case not only the parties in the first case are
mode parties for as long as those impleaded in the su"sequent case represent the interest #hich
#as the su"ject mater of the previous case, the requirement is satisfied.
$hat the t#o cases are different /li(e one is for declaratory relief #hile the other is for
specific performance0 does not negate res judicata if the issues on "oth cases are su"stantially
the same.
-. Rive'a v. CA, ".R. $o. 141/23, une 30, !003
Dou"le &eopardy 9 Ru$e 0+- Sec' 0- R!P
A judgment in an accion pu"liciana does not "ar an accion reivindicatoria over the said
land. Determinations of o#nership in the accion pu"liciana should "e treated as provisional in
nature.
I' Pre.Tri#$ (Ru$e 06- R!P&
1. Sa#uid v. CA, 403 SCRA 27/7, une 10, !003
$he failure of defendant to file a pre:trial "rief is the same as failure to appear in the
pre:trial, that is, the plaintiff may present his evidence e.:parte and the court shall render
judgment on the "asis thereof. $he fact that defendant #as not assisted "y counsel is of no
moment for he too( the ris( #hen he did not engage the services of a la#yer.
%is remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration sho#ing that his failure to file a pre:
trial "rief #as due to fraud, accident, mista(e or e.cusa"le neglect.
-. RC0C v. $eo#8in 1a'9etin# Co'3., ".R. $o. 15!/7/,
1ay 5, !003

R!B! sued A, B ? ! for recovery of a sum of money #ith prayer for a #rit of
preliminary attachment. Despite the joinder of issues. R!B! failed to move for the setting of
the case for pre:trial. $he reason #as that, the parties #ere in the process of restructuring the
loans of the defendants. 2eantime, ' months already lapsed and so the court motu proprio
dismissed the case for lac( of interest of R!B! to prosecute. R!B! moved for a
reconsideration e.pressing its earnest desire to pursue its case "ut the same #as stalled "ecause
of the on:going amica"le settlement "et#een the parties. $he court granted the motion and
reinstated the case "ut it gave the parties 1@ days to su"mit the amica"le settlement other#ise
the plaintiff #ould "e required to pay the fees for re:filing of the case.
R!B! filed a motion to set the case for pre:trial "ut the court refused to set it for pre:
trial "ecause of the failure of the parties to su"mit the amica"le settlement. $he amica"le
settlement could not "e su"mitted "ecause one of the defendants refused to sign. R!B!
challenged the order of the trial court and the same finally reached the !.
9e$"* $he court committed grave a"use of discretion #hen it refused to set the case for
pre:trial for failure of the parties to su"mit the amica"le settlement. Amica"le settlement is
encouraged "ut it cannot "e enforced. $he proper step for the court to have ta(en #as to set the
case for pre:trial and continue #ith the proceedings.
)' Motion for Reconsi"er#tion (Ru$e 3,- R!P&
Cu(todio v. ud#e Antonio, A.1. $o. RT70371721, A3'il 30,
!003
@
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
$here is no rule governing the period #ithin #hich a motion challenging an
interlocutory order /li(e 2R0 should "e resolved. $he court ruled for the guidance of the "ench
that the motion should "e resolved #ithin the A>:day period provided in ec. 1@, Art. B333 of
the !onstitution unless the la# requires a shorter period.
=' Discretion#r8 E>ecution (Ru$e 3/- Sec' 2- R!P&
1. Santo( v. C-1?*?C, ".R. $o. 15521/, 1a'&h !2, !003
!an an R$! #hich heard and decided an election protest finding for protestant, grant,
on motion of the protestant, an e.ecution pending appeal of its decision=
As a general rule, yes. 3n fact that should "e the case "ecause of the very short term of
office of municipal elective officials.
-. +hili33ine $ail( and @i'e( Co'3. v. 1alayan =n(u'an&e
Co., ".R. $o. 143433, ;eb. 14, !003
1. E.ecution pending appeal
1.1. $he trial court has no po#er to order e.ecution pending appeal on the ground that
appeal is purely dilatory. $he %igh !ourt cannot pass upon the question of
#hether appeal is frivolous or dilatory. $hat prerogative "elongs to the
appellate tri"unal.
1.-. E.ecution pending appeal can "e granted only upon a sho#ing of good reasons
stated in a special order after due hearing.
E.ample of good reasons8
a0 impending insolvency of the adverse party
"0 appeal is patently dilatory #hich ho#ever cannot "e appreciated only "y the
appellate court.
1.1. ,osting of "ond is not sufficient justification to grant e.ecution pending appeal.
L' Appe#$
1. Failure to ,ay Appellate Doc(et Fee /Ru$e 50- Sec' 5- R!P&
o(e v. CA, ".R. $o. 1!/242, 1a'. 14, !003,
Rule 41, Se&. 4, RC+
,ayment of appeal doc(et fee #ithin the prescri"ed period is mandatory and
jurisdictional and failure of appellant to comply #ith said rule prevents the perfection of the
appeal and the eventual attainment of finality of the decision sought to "e appealed.
$he failure to pay the appellate doc(et fee #ithin the prescri"ed period does not
result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal. 3t merely grants the court the discretion to
dismiss.
-. Failure of ,etitioner to Attach Affidavit of ervice
/Ru$e 52 or 53- R!P&
?l Reyno Aome(, =n&. v. -n#, ".R. $o. 14!440, ;eb. !,
!003.
'
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
Failure of petitioner to attach affidavit of service to its motion for e.tension of time
to file its petition for revie# #arrants outright dismissal of the motion.
3n this case even the e.planation regarding the mode of service #as not signed.
1. Failure to u"mit 2emorandum on Appeal
/Ru$e 50- Sec' ,- R!A&
?n'iBue v. CA, ".R. $o. 140473, an. !/, !003
Rule 4>, ec. C/"0, R!, provides that it shall "e the duty of appellant to su"mit a
memorandum on appeal in an appeal from the first level court to the R$!. Failure to do so
shall "e a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
$he rule is mandatory and if the appellant fails to su"mit his memorandum, the R$!
is compelled to dismiss the appeal. $he court has no discretion "ut to dismiss the appeal unless
the failure to file it is justified or e.cusa"le.
4. Revie# of Decision of the DAR ecretary
/Ru$e 53- R!P&
Valen&ia v. CA, 401 SCRA 222, A3'il !4, !003
Appeal from the decision of the DAR ecretary to the +ffice of the ,resident is
required "y the doctrine of e.haustion of administrative remedies.
$he doctrine of qualified political agency does not apply "ecause DAR !ircular <o.
1, s. 1AA> prescri"es said administrative appellate remedy. $he ecretary of DAR has authority
to promulgate said rule pursuant to the doctrine of necessary implication.
@. E.tent of !5s ,o#er to Revie#
/Ru$es 57 #n" 7+- R!P&
$o'de& A(ia, *td. v. CA, 403 SCRA 340, une 10, !003
$he ! is clothed #ith authority to revie# matters even if not assigned as errors on
appeal if it finds this consideration necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case.
M' Thir" P#rt8 !$#i (Terceri#& o?er Att#che" Properties
(Ru$e 7,- R!P&
S3ou(e( Chin# v. CA, ".R. $o. 11//30, ;eb. !4, !003,
Rule 57, RC+
$he R$! of 2anila in a case "efore it issued a #rit of preliminary attachment of
property of the defendant. $he sheriff levied upon the property of defendant. Defendant and
his #ife filed an action to annul the #rit of preliminary attachment on the ground that it #as
conjugal partnership property. $he 2anila court annulled the #rit of attachment. %ence, a
petition for certiorari.

9e$"* 3f a party questions a #rit of attachment issued "y a court, it has to "e filed #ith
the court #hich issued the #rit. 3f a stranger claiming o#nership over the property desires to
challenge the #rit, he can file an affidavit stating his claim of o#nership or file an ordinary
action in court to esta"lish his title or o#nership over said property. 3n this case, the #ife of
defendant claims that she is a stranger and, therefore, she could institute the separate action.
$he ! ruled that she is a
C
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
not stranger insofar as the conjugal property #hich #as attached is concerned. 3n legal
contemplation, she is a party and therefore, she has to file the action to amend the #rit of
preliminary attachment in the court #hich issued the #rit.
N' !ertior#ri (Ru$e +7- R!P&
$C< =nte'national <nit8ea' Co'3o'ation +hil(. v. $*RC, ".R.
$o. 142!0, ;eb. 17, !003
1. A .ero. copy of a certified true copy of a document is not a certified copy. A
.ero. copy of a certified copy of a decision #hich is attached to a petition for certiorari does
not satisfy the requirement of ec. 1, Rule '@ of the R!,. Failure to comply #ith the
requirement justifies the immediate dismissal of the petition.
-. u"sequent compliance #ith the requirement shall not #arrant any reconsideration
unless the court is fully satisfied that non:compliance #as not in any#ay attri"uta"le to the
party, despite due diligence on his part, and that there are highly justifia"le and compelling
reasons for the court to ma(e disposition.
O' M#n"#us /Ru$e +7- Sec' 3&
0+= ;amily Savin#( 0an9, =n&. v. 0ayabo'e( D 1ani9an, ".R. $o. 14/7/4, an. 12, !003
$he "an( issued - manager5s chec( to the !ity $reasurer of 3loilo !ity in payment
of ta.es. $he "an( manager instructed an employee to deliver the chec( to the !ity $reasurer.
$hey #ere delivered "ut the chec(s #ere credited in favor of another ta.payer.
$he "an( demanded a receipt for the - chec(s "ut the treasurer refused.
Ban( filed an action for mandamus against the treasurer to compel him to issue a
receipt for the - chec(s.
Ru$in:*
By allo#ing the delivery of the chec(s to a person #ho #as not directly charged
#ith the collection of its ta. lia"ilities, it must "e deemed to have assumed the ris( of a possi"le
misuse. $he "an( can of course pursue its action against the culprit. But then mandamus is not
the correct remedy "ecause the "an( did not have a clear legal right to "e credited #ith said
payment. 2andamus #ill not issue to enforce a right or to compel compliance #ith a duty
#hich is questiona"le or over #hich a su"stantial dou"t e.ists.
P' Accion Inter"ict#$ (Ru$e ,0- R!P&
1. ,riority tatus of *nla#ful Detainer
+an#aniban v. Shell +et'oleum Co'3., ".R. $o. 131471,
an. !!, !003
A leased the gasoline station of B as evidenced "y a contract of lease. B demanded
of A to vacate the leased premises "ecause the term of their contract has already e.pired. A
refused to vacate and instead filed an action for declaratory relief against B praying the court to
declare the contract as still in full force and effect. B countered "y filing an action for unla#ful
detainer against A. B also filed a motion to dismiss the case for declaratory relief on the
ground of litis pendentia. A responded "y filing a motion to suspend the proceedings in the
action for declaratory relief also on the ground of litis pendentia.
Issue* 7hich of the t#o cases should give #ay=
D
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
9e$"* $he action for declaratory relief should give #ay to the action for unla#ful
detainer. $he reason is, in "oth cases the main issue is #hether the lessee should continue
occupying the leased premises. $he question of possession should properly "e threshed out in
an unla#ful detainer case.
$hat the unla#ful detainer case #as filed later than the action for declaratory relief
is of no moment "ecause #hat is important is #hich of the t#o actions is the more appropriate
one to resolve the controversy "et#een plaintiff and defendant.
Notes*
a0 Ro(ale( v. C;= o) *anao del $o'te, 154 SCRA 153
$he 2$! can resolve in an unla#ful detainer case the issue of the right of a lessee
to a rene#al of the contract of lease. $his is to prevent the multiplicity of suits.
"0 :nive'(ity +hy(i&ian( Se'vi&e(, in&. v. CA, !33 SCRA /24
3n resolving #hich of - cases, one for damages and another for ejectment filed in -
different courts involving the same parties and su"ject matter, the ! ruled that the action for
damages should "e dismissed. $he issues on damages may "e resolved in the ejectment case.
$he filing of the action for damages #ith an application for preliminary injunction #as merely
a pre:emptive action to forestall the filing of the ejectment case.
c0 Alvi' v. Ve'a, !30 SCRA 357
3n an ejectment case the 2$! can ma(e a determination on the follo#ing incidents8
a. #hether or not the relationship "et#een the parties is one of landlord and tenant.
". #hether or not there is a lease contract and #hether or not the lease contract had already
e.pired.
c. $he just and reasona"le amount of the rent and the date #hen it #ill ta(e effect.
d. $he right of the tenant to (eep the premises against the #ill of the landlord.
e. 3f the defendant has "uilt on the land a su"stantial and valua"le "uilding and there is no
dispute "et#een the parties as to the o#nership of the land and the "uilding, their rights
shall "e governed according to the !ivil !ode.
f. $he po#er of the court to fi. the period of lease /%ivina7#'a&ia v. CA, 10! SCRA 1/4E
Rami'ez v. Chit, !!1 SCRA 1324.
-. ,arties Against 7hom a Decision in a ejectment case
may "e Enforced /Ru$e 3/- R!P0
Sun)lo8e' $ei#hbo'hood A((n. v. CA, ".R. $o. 132!74, Se3t. 4, !003
A decision ejecting a homeo#ner5s association may "e enforced to eject the mem"ers of
the association even if they #ere not impleaded in the case. A judgment in an ejectment case is
"inding even to non:parties if he or she is8
a0 a trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to
frustrate the judgment.
"0 guest or occupant of the premises #ith the permission of the defendant
c0 transferee pendente lite
d0 a su"lessee
e0 a co:lessee.
A
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
f0 a mem"er of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.
3n this case, it #as the unflo#er <eigh"orhood Assn. #hich #as sued. $he final
decision #as sought to "e enforced against the unimpleaded mem"ers. $he ! ruled that the
decision can "e enforced against the mem"ers "ecause they are mere squatters or trespassers
#ithout any right to occupy plaintiff5s property.
@' !ontept (Ru$e ,0- R!P&
1. 3mprisonment of Respondent *ntil %e !omplies #ith the +rder of the !ourt /Sec'
6- Ru$e ,0- R!P&
Ve'#a'a v. ud#e "edo'io, ".R. $o. 154037, A3'il 30, !003.
3n a pro"ate proceeding, the court ordered Bergara to pay the administratri. rentals
for the property he #as occupying. Bergara refused to pay "ecause according to him he
already paid an advance rental to one #ho claimed to "e one of the heirs of the decedent. $he
administratri. filed a petition for contempt against Bergara. After hearing the court rendered a
decision ordering Bergara to pay a fine of ,1>,>>>.>> and his directing his imprisonment until
he pays the rentals.
Issue* %ad the judge e.ercised his contempt po#er properly=
9e$"*
$he invocation of the judge of ec. D, Rule C1 of the R!, #as #rong. $he
enforcement of the order to pay rental should "e "ased upon ec. A, Rule 1A, R!, #hich is to
levy upon properties of the respondent to satisfy the rentals in arrears.
,ayment of rentals is covered "y the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment
and so the imprisonment of Bergara #as unla#ful.
-. To'&ende v. ud#e Sa'dido, A.1.$o. 1T74471!3/, an. !4, !003
For the second time, the accused appeared #ithout counsel. %is counsel filed on the
day of the hearing a motion to postpone #ithout notice of hearing. $he judge denied the
motion and slapped a fine of ,1,>>>.>> against counsel for failure to appear and for violating
the rules on motions.
Ru$in:*
$he judge acted #ith gross ignorance of the la#. $he act of counsel at most
constituted only indirect contempt and not direct contempt and so summary of conviction #as
improper.
3n indirect contempt, a #ritten charge is necessary pursuant to ec. C, Rule C1 of the
Rules of !ourt. $he #ritten charge may parta(e of the nature of8 /10 an order requiring the
respondent /not accused0 to sho# cause #hy he should not "e punished for contempt of court
for having committed the contemptuous acts imputed against him; and /-0 a petition for
contempt "y #ay of special civil action under Rule C1 of the Rules of court. $his #ritten
charge applies if the contemptuous act #as committed against a court or judicial officer
#ithout authority to punish the contemptuous act.
Respondent judge has already "een administratively sanctioned t#ice E and this "eing
the third time, he #as dismissed.
R' Misce$$#neous Su4Aects
1. <otice of )is ,endens
1>
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
Atlanti& ?'e&to'(, =n&. v. Ae'bal Cave Realty
Co'3o'ation, ".R. $o. 14/52/, 1a'&h !0, !003
!laiming that F failed to pay the materials it o"tained from A to "uild houses, A
filed an action for sum of money and damages against F. +n the same day, A caused to "e
annotated a notice of lis pendens on the titles of the land in #hich the houses #ere erected. F
filed a cancellation of the notice of lis pendens "ecause the action is just a money claim and
there #as no allegation a"out recovery of possession of a realty or enforcement of a lien. $he
court ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. A filed an 2R "ut it #as denied.
%ence, the petition for certiorari.
9e$"* $he lien of a supplier of material is the one mentioned in Art. --4- of the
!ivil !ode. 3n this article, it merely grants the supplies of materials a preferred lien over the
structure "uilt #ith said materials. $he complaint ho#ever did not raise that lien and so an
action #as merely a personal action for collection of money.
But even if that lien had "een raised, still the annotation of the notice of lis pendens
#as improper. Art. --4- applies only #hen there are other claims against the realty "y other
creditors and the value of the property is not sufficient to pay all the claims. <o such situation
o"tained in this case.
<otice of lis pendens may "e availed of only on the follo#ing cases8
a0 action to recover possession of real estate
"0 action for partition
c0 any other court proceedings that directly affect title to a realty or the use or
occupation thereof
d0 any action see(ing to esta"lish a right to, or an equita"le estate or interest in a
specific real property to enforce a lien.
-. E.trajudicial Foreclosure of 2ortgage
Fuano v. CA, ".R. $o. 1!4!74, 1a'&h 4, !003
7hen a scheduled e.trajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage is cancelled and
reset to another date, the requirements of posting of notices and pu"lication of notice should "e
repeated. Failure to do so renders the proceedings null and void 9 "ecause these requirements
are jurisdictional.
$he parties cannot agree to #aive re:pu"lication "ecause as earlier held in +$0 v.
$e3omu&eno +'odu&tion, =n&., ".R. $o. 135474, %e&. !7, !00!, the pu"lication of notice
does not only "enefit the mortgagor "ut the general pu"lic "ecause other people #ho come to
(no# of it may #ant to "id.
$here are three /10 (inds of sales under the la#8
1. ordinary e.ecution sale #hich is governed "y Rule 1A, R!.
-. judicial foreclosure sale #hich is governed "y Rule 'D, R!,.
1. e.trajudicial foreclosure sale #hich is governed "y Art. 111@ as amended "y Art.
411D.
1. Authority of a &udge to Act on !ases in the !ourt
#hich %e $emporarily Bacated
?Ge&utive ud#e Abad Santo( v. ud#e de "uzman, A1 $o. 42717057RTC, an. !/, !003
11
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
&udge de Gu6man #as the regular presiding judge of a 2a(ati R$!. %e #as assigned
to a ,asay court. &udge Fernande6 #as detailed as a replacement of &udge de Gu6man in the
2a(ati court. u"sequently, &udge de Gu6man #as transferred to the 2anila court. 7hile
acting as judge of the 2anila court, he decided a case of the 2a(ati court #hich #as already
su"mitted for decision "efore he left that court. +n motion of the prevailing party, &udge de
Gu6man also granted a motion for e.ecution pending appeal.
Issue* Did &udge de Gu6man have the authority to render the decision and grant
e.ecution pending appeal of his decision.
9e$"*
a0 &udge de Gu6man had authority to decide the 2a(ati court case "ecause the case
#as su"mitted for decision #hile he #as still the presiding judge of that court. /Sec' /- Ru$e
037- RR!&
"0 3t #as ho#ever improper for &udge de Gu6man to act upon the motion for
e.ecution pending appeal of his decision. $his should "e resolved "y the judge #ho replaced
him, &udge Fernande6.
c0 7hile a judge #ho has "een assigned to another court may resolve motions for
reconsideration and ne# trial #hich #ere already filed "efore he left the court, the ne# judge
#ho replaced him is the only one #ho can conduct the ne# trial.
II' !RIMINAL PRO!EDURE
A' Institution of !riin#$ #n" !i?i$ Actions
(Ru$e III- Sec' 0- R!rP&
Aambon v. CA, ".R. $o. 1!!150, 1a'&h 17, !003
For having "een "umped "y the truc( driver "y B, A initiated the filing of a criminal
case against him for rec(less imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. $he 2$!
ho#ever dismissed the case for lac( of interest to prosecute.
u"sequently, A filed a civil action for damages against B for the same incident. $he
R$! rendered a decision granting A the damages he prayed for. +n the appeal, the !A
reversed the appealed decision on the ground of res judicata.
! he$"*
$he !A is correct.
ec. 1, Rule 333 of the Rules in !riminal ,rocedure provides that #hen a criminal action
is instituted, the civil action for recovery of indemnity is impliedly instituted #ith the criminal
action unless the8 /a0 offended party #aive the civil action; /"0 reserves his right to institute it
separately; or /c0 institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
$he civil action includes8 /a0 recovery of lia"ility under the R,!; /"0 damages under
Arts. 1-, 11, 14 and -1C' of the !ivil !ode.
3n the case at "ar, the offended party did not #aive the civil action nor reserved his right
to institute a separate civil action nor institute the civil action prior to the institution of the
criminal action, hence, the civil action #as deemed included in the criminal action.
Resultantly, the dismissal "y the court of the criminal action carried #ith it the dismissal of the
civil action for recovery of civil lia"ility.
1-
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
1' Pre$iin#r8 In?esti:#tion (Ru$e 002- R!rP&
1iaBue v. ud#e +amona#, A1 1T70!7141!, 1a'&h !/, !003.
(Art' 3+0 RP!B RA 53+3&
&urisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation in li"el cases is indeed lodged #ith the
provincial or city prosecutor of the province or the city or #ith the 2$! of the city or capital of
the province #here the case is filed. /Art' 3+0- RP! as amended "y RA 53+3&
3n this case, the preliminary investigation #as conducted "y a 2!$! in a to#n in 3loilo
#hich has no po#er to do so. $he judge #as found guilty of gross ignorance of the la#.
!' 1#i$ (Ru$e 005- R!rP&
1. Se'a3io v. Sandi#anbayan, ".R. $o. 14/42/, un. !/, !003
, Ru$e 005- R!rP&
1. 3s it proper for a court to suspend the "ail hearing until the accused shall have "een
arraigned=
Ans#er8 <o, it is grave a"use of discretion. $o require arraignment "efore "ail hearing
puts to naught the rule that a person may apply for "ail from the moment that he is
deprived of his lia"ility "y virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender.
-. Are a motion to quash the information incompati"le #ith an application for a "ail=
Ans#er8 <o. $he t#o reliefs are not necessarily antithetical to each other. 3t is ho#ever
conceded that if the motion to quash is granted, the application for "ail "ecomes moot and
academic.
1. !an t#o petitions for "ail filed "y different accused "e heard jointly=
Ans#er8 $hat matter is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Barring grave a"use
of discretion, that discretion #ill not "e distur"ed.
4. !an a petition for "ail filed "y an accused "e heard jointly #ith the trial on the merits of
his co:accused=
Ans#er8 <o, "ecause a "ail hearing is summary in nature #hile trial on the merits is a full:
"lo#n trial.
@. 7hen an accused is not entitled to "ail as a matter of right and he is under detention "y
virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender, ha"eas corpus is not a proper remedy. A
petition for "ail is the proper remedy.
-. +eo3le v. Tu33al, ".R. $o(. 1374/!7/5, an. 13, !003
Secs' , C 6- Ru$e 005- R!rP
Accused #as charged #ith Ro""ery #ith %omicide. 3n the "ail hearing, he #as
granted "ail on the ground that the evidence of guilt is not strong. $rial on the merits
continued and the accused #as found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Issue* 7hether the trial court committed an error in convicting accused after it
granted "ail to him "ecause the evidence of guilt is not strong.
9e$"* $he findings of the trial court in the "ail hearing is not an immuta"le
evaluation of the prosecution5s evidence. $he court5s assessment of the evidence on the "ail
hearing in capital offense is preliminary and intended only for the purpose of granting or
denying application for the provisional release of the accused.
11
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
D' Motion to @u#sh (Ru$e 00,- R!rP&
1. Dou"le &eopardy
+eo3le v. %e#amo, "R $o. 1!1!11, A3'il 30, !003
$he accused #as charged #ith rape. After his arraignment, the prosecutor moved to
amend the information to allege that as a result of the rape, the victim "ecame insane. +ver
the opposition of the accused, the court granted the motion.
9e$"* $here is no dou"le jeopardy "ecause the insanity of the victim "ecame
manifest only after the arraignment.
-. ,rovisional Dismissal
+eo3le v. *a&(on, ".R. $o. 144453, A3'il 1, !003
Ru$e 00,- Sec' 6- R!rP' Tie.4#r for reinst#tin: or re.fi$in: # pro?ision#$$8 "isisse"
c#se'
)acson and several others #ere charged #ith multiple murder for the (illing of
alleged mem"ers of the Huratong Baleleng gang. 3n the trial court, )acson filed a motion for
the judicial determination of pro"a"le cause and for e.amination of #itnesses. ince in the
meantime all the main prosecution #itnesses had either left the country or e.ecuted affidavits
of recantation so that no #itness of the prosecution #hose testimony #as vital appeared
during the scheduled e.amination of #itnesses, and determining that there #as no pro"a"le
cause, &udge 7. Agnir provisionally dismissed the case on 2arch -A, 1AAA.
2ean#hile, the ne# Rules of !riminal ,rocedure too( effect on Decem"er 1, ->>>
containing a ne# provision, Sec' 6- Ru$e 00, #hich states8
ec. D. ,rovisional dismissal. A case shall not "e provisionally dismissed e.cept #ith
the e.press consent of the accused and #ith notice to the offended party.
$he provisional dismissal of offenses punisha"le "y imprisonment not e.ceeding si.
/'0 years or a fine of any amount, or "oth, shall "ecame permanent one /10 after the issuance
of the order #ithout the case having "een revived. 7ith respect to offenses punisha"le "y
imprisonment of more than si. /'0 years, this provisional dismissal shall "ecome permanent
t#o /-0 years after issuance of the order #ithout the case having "een revived.
Note* $he Revised ,enal !ode provides8
Art. A>, R,!. ,rescription of !rimes. !rimes punisha"le "y death, reclusion
perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescri"e in t#enty years. !rimes punisha"le "y other
effective penalties shall prescri"ed in fifteen years. Etcetera.
After the effectivity of the ne# rule in the R!r,, "ut after - years from the provisional
dismissal of the case, the prosecution claiming that there are ne# #itnesses, filed an
3nformation against )acson and his co:accused. ome persons #ere also added as accused.
plus ne# accused.
)acson challenged the refiling of the case.
Ruling of the !8
1. $he prescriptive period in Art. A> of the R,! is a su"stantive la# and the period therein
fi.ed is jurisdictional. $he time:"ar under the R!, is a(in to a special procedural
limitation qualifying the tate5s right to persecute so that the lapse of the time:"ar
operates to e.tinguish the right of the tate to prosecute the accused. $he time:"ar in
the R!, does not reduce the periods under Art. A>, R,!. 3t is just a limitation of the
14
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
right of the tate to revive a criminal case against an accused after the 3nformation
had "een filed, "ut su"sequently provisionally dismissed #ith the e.press consent of
the accused.
-. $he requisites for the application of ec. D, Rule 11C, R!, are the follo#ing8
a0 the prosecution #ith the e.press conformity of the accused or the accused moves
for provisional dismissal of the case;
"0 the offended party is notified "y the motion for the provisional dismissal of the
case;
c0 the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case
provisionally;
d0 the pu"lic prosecutor is served #ith a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of
the case.
Note* $he e.press consent of the accused is necessary to "ar him from
su"sequently invo(ing dou"le jeopardy should the prosecutor refile the case.
1. E.planation of Requisites
a0 $he period mentioned in ec. D, Rule 11C should "e counted from service of the
order of dismissal on the pu"lic prosecutor.
"0 E.press consent of the accused may either "e viva voce or in #riting "ut it must "e
unequivocal positive, direct and clear.
4. $he provisionally dismissed case may "e revived #ithin the time:"ar either "y8 /a0
refiling the 3nformation or filing a ne# one for the same offense or for an offense
necessarily included therein.
@. 7hen the information is refiled or a ne# one is filed, there is no need for a ne#
preliminary investigation.
E.ceptions #hen a ne# preliminary investigation is necessary8
a0 if the original #itnesses are no longer availa"le and ne# ones appear.
"0 ne# accused are added to the original accused for the same offense or one
necessarily included therein.
c0 in the ne# information the original charge has "een upgraded.
d0 in the ne# information the criminal lia"ility of the accused is upgraded.
3n this case, the accused failed to esta"lish requisites num"ers 1 and -; no proof
that the prosecution gave its e.press conformity to the provisional dismissal and no
proof that the offended parties #ere notified of the provisional dismissal of the case.
'. $he time:"ar cannot "e applied retroactively. $he rule has "een promulgated for the
"enefit of the accused and the tate. $he retroactive application of the rule #ould
prejudice the tate "ecause it #ould no longer have the -:year period to refile the case
"ecause the same is shortened. $he prosecution received the order of dismissal on
2arch 11, 1AAA. But then the ne# rule "ecame effective only on Dec. 1, ->>>. 3f one
applies the rule retroactively, then one "egins counting from 2arch 11, 1AAA so that
the tate #ould have only 1 year and 1 months to refile the case #hich 9 is short of
- years. 3f applied prospectively, then one "egins counting on Decem"er 1, ->>>
1@
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
#hen the rule too( effect and the tate #ould have the "enefit of a full -:year term
#ithin #hich to refile the case.
E' Pre.Tri#$ (Ru$e 006- R!rP&
<on:appearance of complaining #itnesses.
+eo3le v. Ta&7an, ".R. $o. 14/000, ;eb. !7, !003
For failure of the complaining #itnesses to appear during the pre:trial, the court
dismissed the criminal case.
9e$"* $he court gravely a"used its discretion #hen it dismissed the case. Although
pre:trial is mandatory in criminal cases, the presence of complainant or complaining #itness is
not required. Even the presence of the accused is not required unless specifically required "y
the court.
3' Appe#$ (Ru$e 022- R!rP&
1. Effect of Appeal
$aya v. Ab'aham "uille'moE Abun# v. +eo3le, ".R. $o.
142770, ;eb. !7, !003
A #as convicted of Estafa and so he appealed to the !A "ut the decision #as affirmed.
%ence, appeal "y certiorari to the !. $he ! reversed the conviction of A "ut required him to
pay the complainant B a sum of money as actual damage and another sum as moral damages
"ecause he acted in "ad faith.
7hat #as the "asis of the ! in a#arding actual and moral damages #hen the offended
party did not appeal=
+nce a decision in a criminal case is appealed, the #hole case 9 criminal and civil
aspects are thro#n open for revie# . $he revie# can even deal #ith unassigned errors
-. ,ersonality to Appeal /Ru$e 022- R!rP&
+eo3le D Salmin#o v. Velez, et. al., ".R. $o.13/043, ;eb.
14, !003
A, a private citi6en filed an affidavit:criminal complaint #ith the +m"udsman
charging F, I and J #ith technical malversation. After preliminary investigation, the
+m"udsman found pro"a"le cause and so an 3nformation #as filed. 3n the 3nformation, the
private complainant is the !ity of ilay. +n a motion for reinvestigation, the +m"udsman
found no pro"a"le cause against I and J. %e ho#ever found pro"a"le cause against F "ut
for another crime. $he +m"udsman filed a motion to #ithdra# 3nformation #ith B "ut A
opposed the motion. B denied the 2R "ecause A has no personality to file the 2R
considering that the aggrieved party is the !ity of ilay. %ence, petition for revie# on
certiorari #ith !.
9e$"* A has no personality to file the 2R. <either has he the personality to
institute the appeal pursuant to ec. 1, Rule 4@ of the R!,.
1. 7ithdra#al of Appeal
+eo3le v. +a'adeza , ".R. $o. 144540, ;eb. 7, !003
Ru$e 025- Sec' 06 D Appe#$
Ru$e 70- Sec' 3 of the R!rP states that #ithdra#al of an appeal is a matter of right
"efore the filing of appellee5s "rief. After that, #ithdra#al is a matter of discretion. $his
1'
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
rule is applica"le to criminal appeals pursuant to Rule 1-4, ec. 1D of the ->>> Rules of
!riminal ,rocedure.
III' E(IDEN!E
(Ru$e 030- RRE&
A' De#" M#nEs St#tute
San(on v. CA, "R $o. 1!7745, A3'il !!, !003
Deadman5s statute means that parties to a case, their assignors or persons in #hose "ehalf a
case is prosecuted are prohi"ited from testifying as to a conversation or transaction "et#een the
deceased and a third person, if they too( no active part therein. 7hat is prohi"ited in a testimonial
evidence upon a claim #hich arose "efore the death of the deceased. $he incompetency is
confined to the giving of testimony.
1' )u"ici#$ Notice (Ru$e 02/- RRE&
". Santo( v. +eo3le, ".R. $o. 147215, an. !0, !003
Sec' +- Ru$e 002- R!rP
3s a trial court "ound to ta(e judicial notice of records of the preliminary investigation
#hich are found in the records of the case=
3n this case, the accused complained that the court did not ta(e into consideration the
dismissal of the complaint against him "y the municipal trial court #hich preliminarily investigated
the case as #ell as the provincial prosecutor.
Ans#er8 *nless the said records #ere offered in evidence, the trial court is not duty
"ound to ta(e judicial notice of them. 3n legal contemplation such records are not parts of the
records of the case "efore the court.

RES )UDI!ATA
Repu"lic of the ,hilippines
SUPREME !OURT
2anila
T9IRD DI(ISION
;'R' No' 000203 M#8 /- 2000
DE(ELOPMENT 1AN= O3 T9E P9ILIPPINES- petitioner,
vs.
!OURT O3 APPEALS- MANILA MANOR 9OTEL- IN!'- #n" Spouses ;RE;ORIO #n" LUF
DIFON- respondents.
PAN;ANI1AN- '*
$he doctrine of res judicata "ars the relitigation of the same cause of action over the same su"ject
matter "y su"stantially the same litigators. $his principle frees the parties from undergoing all over
again the rigors of unnecessary suits and repetitious trials. At the same time, it prevents the clogging of
court doc(ets. Equally important, it sta"ili6es rights and promotes the rule of la#.
The !#se
1C
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
Before us is a ,etition for Revie# under Rule 4@ of the Rules of !ourt, see(ing the reversal of the
Decem"er -D, 1AA- Decision
1
of the !ourt of Appeals in !A:GR !B <o. >@@4-. $he dispositive
portion of the assailed Decision reads as follo#s8
K7%EREF+RE, the order appealed from is here"y REBERED and E$ A3DE and !ivil
!ase <o. D4:-4@11 for annulment and damages is here"y reinstated. )et the records thereof "e
remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. <o costs.K
-

Also challenged is the 2ay 11, 1AA1 !A Resolution denying the 2otion for Reconsideration.
$he instant case originated from the +rder
1
dated 2arch 14, 1AD@, issued "y the Regional $rial !ourt
/R$!0 of 2anila /Branch 1C0. +n the ground of res judicata, the trial court dismissed !ivil !ase <o.
D4:-4@11 entitled, KThe Manila Manor Hotel, Inc. v. The Development Bank of the Philippines.K Ruled
the R$!8
K7herefore, the +rder dated Decem"er 1A, 1AD4 is here"y reconsidered and set aside, and this
case is D323ED. <o special pronouncement as to cost of suit.K
4
The 3#cts
+n 2ay -1, 1AD4, 2anila 2anor %otel, 3nc. filed "efore the R$! of 2anila a !omplaint for
Annulment and Damages /!ivil !ase <o. D4:-4@110 against the Development Ban( of the ,hilippines
/DB,0.
@
+n August 1>, 1AD4, DB, filed a 2otion to Dismiss on the ground of res judicata.
'
3t argued
that in pecial ,roceeding <o. D1:1CACA entitled KGregorio Dion, et al., v. DBP, et al.,K the
Decem"er D, 1AD1 +rder
C
of the R$! of 2anila /Branch 110 had dismissed the legally identical action
for failure to prosecute on the part of therein plaintiffs /the spouses Di6on0.
D
$his earlier civil case, a
,etition for Declaratory Relief, had "een filed on &une ', 1AD1.
A

+n eptem"er 1-, 1AD4, the R$! /Branch 1C0 granted the 2otion to Dismiss !ivil !ase <o. D4:
-4@11.
1>

+n +cto"er 1A, 1AD4, 2anila 2anor %otel, 3nc. filed a 2otion for Reconsideration, #hich the trial
court
11
granted on Decem"er 1A, 1AD4, in these #ords8
KAfter due consideration of the plaintiff5s motion for reconsideration dated August 4, 1AD4
#hich sho#s that for one reason the dismissal order dated Decem"er D, 1AD1 in !ivil !ase <o.
D1:1CACA could not "e ta(en to have the effect of an adjudication upon the merit, and therefore,
res judicLaMta #ill not lie, the order dated eptem"er 1-, 1AD4 dismissing the complaint in the
instant case is here"y reconsidered and set aside.K
1-

u"sequently, ,etitioner DB, /defendant therein0 filed its o#n 2otion for Reconsideration
11
of the
Decem"er 1A, 1AD4 +rder. After hearing the parties, the trial court, on 2arch 14, 1AD@, set aside its
Decem"er 1A, 1AD4 +rder and, once again, dismissed !ivil !ase <o. D4:-4@11.
14

Ru$in: of the !ourt of Appe#$s
$he !ourt of Appeals ruled that res judicata cannot "ar the 2anila 2anor !omplaint. !irst, it opined
that there #as no identity of parties "et#een pecial ,roceedings <o. D1:1CACA for declaratory relief
and !ivil !ase <o. D4:-4@11 for annulment and damages. "econd, it also held that there #as no
identity of su"ject matter and cause of action "et#een the t#o cases. 3t declared8 K<o amount of
reconciliation andNor interpretation of the allegations and prayers of the t#o /-0 cases could justify a
conclusion that the pecial ,roceedings /<o. D1:1CACA0 for declaratory relief under Rule '4 of the
Rules of !ourt, #hich merely see(s a declaration of the rights and duties of the Di6on spouses and the
DB, under the mortgage contract and ,residential Decree <o. 1D@, apparently . . . non:adversarial
proceedings and the !ivil !ase for annulment and damages, a highly contentious LcaseM are one and
identical to the other.K 3t added that the evidence that #ould sustain the civil case #as Knot necessarily
the same evidence that #ould have "een presented in the pecial ,roceedings for declaratory relief had
Lthe latterM not "een dismissed on a technicality.K
%ence, this ,etition.
1@

1D
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
The Issues
,etitioner su"mits the follo#ing grounds for reversing the assailed !A Decision8
K3
7hether or not the Respondent !ourt a"used its discretion #hen it #himsically and
capriciously disregarded its earlier finding that there L#asM here a commingling of personalities
of the spouses /Gregorio ? )u6 Di6on0 and the 2anila 2anor %otel, 3nc. . . .L, aM finding
LthatM made possi"le the allo#ance of an other#ise filed:out:of:time Appellant5s Brief.
K33
7hether or not the Respondent !ourt erred #hen it said that there L#asM no identity of parties
in the instant case.
K333
7hether or not the Respondent !ourt erred #hen it said that there L#asM no identity of cause of
action in the instant case.
K3B
7hether or not the Respondent !ourt erred in its appreciation and application of the cases it
cited in its questioned decision.K
1'

3n the main, petitioner as(s the !ourt to determine #hether res judicata is a "ar to the complaint filed
"y 2anila 2anor %otel in !ivil !ase <o. D4:-4@11.
The !ourtEs Ru$in:
$he ,etition is meritorious.
M#in Issue*
Re( udi&ata
#es judicata or "ar "y prior judgment is a doctrine #hich holds that a matter that has "een adjudicated
"y a court of competent jurisdiction must "e deemed to have "een finally and conclusively settled if it
arises in any su"sequent litigation "et#een the same parties and for the same cause.
1C
$hus, KLaM final
judgment on the merits rendered "y a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of
the parties and their privies and constitutes an a"solute "ar to su"sequent actions involving the same
claim, demand, or cause of action.K
1D
#es judicata is "ased on the ground that Kthe party to "e affected,
or some other #ith #hom he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in a former action in a court of
competent jurisdiction, and should not "e permitted to litigate it again.K
1A

3t frees the parties from undergoing all over again the rigors of unnecessary suits and repetitive trials.
At the same time, it prevents the clogging of court doc(ets. Equally important, it sta"ili6es rights and
promotes the rule of la#.
For the doctrine to apply, four requisites must "e met8 /10 the former judgment or order must "e final;
/-0 it must "e a judgment or an order on the merits; /10 it must have "een rendered "y a court having
jurisdiction over the su"ject matter and the parties; and /40 there must "e, "et#een the first and the
second actions, identity of parties, of su"ject matter and of cause of action.
->

7e "elieve that all four requisites have "een satisfied in the present case.
;i'(t ReBui(iteH
;inality o) the RTC -'de'
1A
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
$he Decem"er D, 1AD1 +rder issued "y the R$! of 2anila /Branch 110 dismissing pecial
,roceedings <o. D1:1CACA #as a final order. As e.plained in De $campo v. #epu%lic&
KAn order is deemed final #hen it finally disposes of the pending action so that nothing more
can "e done #ith it in the lo#er court /2ejia v. Alimorong, 4 ,hil. @C-; 3nsular Government v.
Roman !atholic Bishop of <ueva egovia, 1C ,hil. 4DC; ,eople v. 2acaraig, @4 ,hil. A>40. 3n
other #ords, a final order is that #hich gives an end to the litigation /+lsen ? !o. v. +lsen, 4D
,hil. -1D0. $he test to ascertain #hether an order is interlocutory or final is8 does it leave
something to "e done in the trial court #ith respect to the merits of the case= 3f it does, it is
interlocutory; if it does not, it is final. /2oran, !omments on the Rules of !ourt, Bol. 1, 1rd ed.
pp. D>':D>C0. A final order is that #hich disposes of the #hole su"ject:matter or terminates the
particular proceedings or action, leaving nothing to "e done "ut to enforce "y e.ecution #hat
has "een determined /- Am &ur., section --, pp. D'1:D'-0. Reyes v. De )eon, G.R. <o. ):1C->,
&une -4, 1A@-0.K
-1

An order of dismissal of a complaint is a final disposition "ecause, after its issuance, nothing else need
"e done "y the trial court in respect to the merits of the case.
Se&ond ReBui(iteH
ud#ment on the 1e'it(
,etitioner contends that the Decem"er D, 1AD1 +rder had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits.
7e agree. ection 1, Rule 1C of the Rules of !ourt
--
in effect at the time, provided8
KE!. 1. !ailure to prosecute. :: If p$#intiff f#i$s to #ppe#r #t the tie of the tri#$, or to
prosecute his action for an unreasona"le length of time, or to comply #ith these rules or any
order of the court, the action may "e dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
courtEs o%n otion. $his dismissal shall have the effect of #n #"Au"ic#tion upon the erits,
unless other#ise provided "y court.K /emphasis supplied0
Because the trial judge did not state that the dismissal #as #ithout prejudice, it is therefore clear,
follo#ing the a"ove:mentioned provision, that the +rder #as an adjudication upon the merits.
Thi'd ReBui(iteH
Cou't o) Com3etent u'i(di&tion
$he R$! of 2anila /Branch 110, #hich issued the Decem"er D, 1AD1 +rder of dismissal, had
jurisdiction to hear and decide the ,etition for Declaratory Relief
-1
filed "y the spouses Di6on. 'rgo, it
also has the po#er to order the dismissal of the action #hen #arranted "y the circumstances.
;ou'th ReBui(iteH
=dentity o) +a'tie(, Subje&t 1atte' and Cau(e o) A&tion
3n pecial ,roceedings <o. D1:1CACA, the petitioners #ere pouses Gregorio B. Di6on and )u6
2ojares:Di6on, #hile the respondents #ere the Development Ban( of the ,hilippines and the !ity
heriff of 2anila. $he su"ject matter #as the mortgage contract e.ecuted "y the Di6on spouses and
the DB, for the construction of the 2anila 2anor %otel. $he cause of action #as the declaration of the
rights and duties of petitioners and respondents under ,residential Decree <o. 1D@ and the said
mortgage contracts.
3n !ivil !ase <o. D4:-4@11, the litigants #ere the 2anila 2anor %otel, 3nc. as the plaintiff and the
DB, as the defendant. $he su"ject matter #as the validity of the e.trajudicial foreclosure of the
properties mortgaged as security for the loan to "uild the 2anila 2anor %otel. $he cause of action #as
the annulment of the sale at pu"lic auction of the mortgaged properties and the consequent nullity of
the certificate of sale issued "y the sheriff in favor of the defendant.
7e "elieve that there is an identity of parties, su"ject matter, and cause of action "et#een the pecial
,roceedings /first case0 and the !ivil Action /second case0. Although the parties to the t#o civil cases
are not e.actly the same, #e "elieve that there is su"stantial identity to #arrant the application of res
->
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
judicata. 3n #epu%lic v. (ourt of )ppeals, the !ourt stressed that su"stantial identity of parties #as
enough, as follo#s8
KFor purposes of res judicata, only su"stantial identity is required and not a"solute identity.
,arties in "oth cases need not "e physically identical provided that there is privity "et#een the
parties or their successors:in:interest su"sequent to the commencement of the previous cause of
action, litigating for the same thing, title or capacity. $he !ourt of Appeals correctly found in
our vie#, that since all the aforecited cases #ere ultimately in the interest of these 5small
fishermen,5 there is privit* of interest in all the cases.K
-4
/citations omitted0
$he Di6on spouses filed the first case /10 to see( a declaration of their rights under the mortgage
contract in vie# of their ina"ility to meet the amorti6ation and /-0 to enjoin the foreclosure of the
mortgaged properties of the 2anila 2anor %otel, 3nc. 3n its eptem"er -C, 1AA> Resolution,
-@
the !A
already made a categorical factual finding that Kthe 2anila 2anor %otel 3nc. is o#ned and controlled
"y the pouses Gregorio and )u6 Di6on, it "eing a family corporation, #ith Gregorio as ,resident.K
-'

%ence, #hile the second case #as filed directly "y the 2anila 2anor %otel, 3nc. in order to annul the
foreclosure sale of its mortgaged properties, it is clear that the interests sought to "e protected in "oth
actions pertained to the same parties, regardless of their appellation. <o amount of ver"al legerdemain
can conceal that fact.+,-phi+.n.t
3t is also clear that in "oth cases, the same su"ject matter is involved :: the sale at pu"lic auction of the
2anila 2anor %otel in connection #ith the mortgage contract.
7e also hold that there is identity of the cause of action. $o determine the presence of identity of cause
of action, the ultimate test is to consider #hether the same evidence #ould sustain the cause of action
in "oth the first and the second cases.
-C
A careful revie# of the pleadings and other records sho#s that
the same evidence in the declaratory relief #ill have to "e ree.amined to support the cause of action in
the annulment case.
3n the ,etition for Declaratory Relief, herein respondents alleged that they could not meet the loan
amorti6ations; that DB, had not acted on their application for restructuring; and that petitioner had
"een served notice of sale on e.trajudicial foreclosure, #ithout prior notification from DB,. $he same
allegations #ere repeated, al%eit differently #orded, in the !omplaint for Annulment. $he o"jectives
of the t#o actions, ho#ever, #ere the same E to assail the foreclosure sale. %ence, in the special
proceedings for declaratory relief, herein respondents prayed that the trial court enjoin the foreclosure
proceedings and declare their rights and duties under the mortgage contract. 3n the civil action, they
prayed for the annulment of the foreclosure sale. $he t#o cases are different only in the form of action.
But as the !ourt has held, Kthe employment of t#o different forms of action does not ena"le one to
escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not "e t#ice
litigated.K
-D

3n sum, #e hold that all the requisites of res judicata are present in this case.
3ndeed, respondents contend that petitioner did not comply #ith the procedural legal requirements
#hen it foreclosed e.trajudicially the properties mortgaged in its favor. 7e are not persuaded. As can
"e gleaned from the pleadings and other records of the instant case, petitioner complied #ith the
requirements set "y RA <o. 111@ /KAn Act to Regulate the ale of ,roperty *nder pecial ,o#ers
3nserted in or Anne.ed to Real:Estate 2ortgagesK0 #hen it sold the mortgaged properties at pu"lic
auction.
$he !ity heriff of 2anila served on the Di6on spouses <otice for the e.trajudicial foreclosure of the
mortgaged properties. 3n fact, t#o <otices #ere served on them8 the first #as sometime in April, 1AD1;
and the second, on 2ay 4, 1AD1.
$he auction sale scheduled on &une 1@, 1AD1 at 1>8>> a.m. did not ta(e place, "ecause the spouses #ere
a"le to get a $emporary Restraining +rder /$R+0. $he sale, ho#ever, eventually pushed through after
the lapse of the $R+.
3nstead of complying #ith the procedure provided in paragraph -, ection 1 of ,D <o. 1D@, the Di6on
spouses
-A
allo#ed the $R+ to lapse or "e dissolved upon their failure to liquidate the remaining
-1
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
"alance of their loan; at the time, they only paid for the outstanding arrearages, interests and other
charges thereon.
7orse, the Di6on spouses allo#ed the case to "e dismissed on Decem"er D, 1AD1, #hen they did not
appear during the scheduled trial on that said date. $he +rder of dismissal "ecame final and e.ecutory
#hen they failed to appeal. $he inevita"le consequence of such inadvertence, #hich private
respondents find hard to accept, #as that the +rder "ecame final and e.ecutory. As such, it constituted
a "ar to the filing of the su"sequent civil action.
7%EREF+RE, the ,etition is "RA$T?% and the assailed Decision of the !ourt of Appeals is
R?V?RS?%; the R$! +rder of 2arch 14, 1AD@ is R?=$STAT?%.
+ +RDERED.
Melo, /itug, Gonaga0#e*es, and "andoval0Gutierre, 11., concur.
3ootnotes*
1
,enned "y &ustice Arturo B. Buena /Division chairman and no# a mem"er of this !ourt0 and
concurred in "y &ustices Asaali . 3snani and Eduardo G. 2ontenegro, mem"ers.
-
Assailed !A Decision, p. D; rollo, p. 14.
1
,enned "y &udge Alfredo 2arigomen.
4
Assailed R$! +rder dated 2arch 14, 1AD@, p. 1; rollo, p. AC; records, p. D1.
@
!omplaint, pp. 1:@; records, pp. 1:@.
'
2otion to Dismiss, pp. 1:@; records, pp. ->:-4.
C
+rder dated Decem"er D, 1AD1; records, p. 14. 3n its 2otion to Dismiss the !omplaint filed on
August 1>, 1AD4, petitioner mista(enly #rote the date Decem"er D, 1AD4 instead of the correct
date, #hich #as Decem"er D, 1AD1. $his error #as repeated all the #ay to the appellate court.
D
3n the aforesaid +rder, the dismissal is #orded as follo#s8 KFor failure of the parties to appear
sho#ing their lac( of interest to prosecute and to defend their case, the a"ove:entitled case is
here"y ordered dismissed #ithout pronouncement as to costs.K
A
,etition, pp. 1:4; records, pp. -@:-D.
1>
Records, p. 4-.
11
,resided "y %on. Alfredo 2arigomen.
1-
Records, p. '1.
11
Records, pp. '@:C>.
14
+rder dated 2arch 14, 1AD@, p. 1; records, p. D1.
1@
$o eliminate its "ac(log, the !ourt on Fe"ruary -C, ->>1 resolved to redistri"ute long:
pending cases to justices #ho had none, and #ho #ere thus tas(ed to prioriti6e these old cases.
!onsequently, this case #as raffled to the ponente for study and report.
1'
,etition for Revie#, pp. 11:1-; rollo, pp. -A:1>. *pper case used in the original.
--
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
1C
Gosnell v. 7e"", '' !A-d @1D, @-1, 1@- ,-d 4'1 /1A440; ,oochigian v. )ayne, 1-> !A-d
C@C, -'1 ,-d C1D /1A@10.
1D
Repu"lic v. !ourt of Appeals, 1-4 !RA @'>, @'@, Fe"ruary 1, ->>>, per Ouisum"ing, 1.
1A
7at(ins v. 7at(ins, 11C !A-d '1>, -@' ,-d 11A /1A@10.
->
Esperas v. !ourt of Appeals, GR <o. 1-11D-, +cto"er -, ->>>; Repu"lic v. !ourt of Appeals,
supra; Ayala )and, 3nc. v. Balisno, 1-4 !RA @--, @11:@1-, Fe"ruary -, ->>>; Ban <giah v.
Rodrigue6, 1-4 !RA -1C, -->:--1, &anuary 11, ->>>; ,agsisihan v. !ourt of Appeals, A@
!RA @4>, @4@, &anuary-D, 1AD>; Bda. de <ator v. !ourt of 3ndustrial Relations, 4 !RA C-C,
C11, 2arch 1>, 1A'-.
-1
A !RA 44>, 441, +cto"er 11, 1A'1, per Bautista Angelo, 1.; quoted in Diesel !onstruction
!ompany, 3nc., v. &olli"ee Foods !orp., 1-1 !RA D44, D@4, &anuary -D, ->>>.
--
At the time the Decem"er D, 1AD1 +rder #as issued, the governing rules #ere the 1A'4 Rules
of !ourt. $hese rules on civil procedure #ere amended "y the 1AAC Revised Rules of !ivil
,rocedure.
ection 1, Rule 1C of the 1AAC Revised Rules of !ivil ,rocedure amended the a"ove:
quoted provision as follo#s8 KE!. 1. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. :: 3f, for no
justifia"le cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his
evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasona"le length
of time, or to comply #ith these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may "e
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court5s o#n motion, #ithout
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action. $his dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits,
unless other#ise declared "y the court.K
-1
,aragraph 1, ection 1, Rule '1 of the 1AAC Rules of !ivil ,rocedure provides #ho and
#here to file a petition for declaratory relief, to #it8 KE!. 1. 2ho ma* file petition. :: Any
person interested under a deed, #ill, contract or other #ritten instrument, #hose rights are
affected "y a statute, e.ecutive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental
regulation may, "efore "reach or violation thereof, "ring an action in the appropriate Regional
$rial !ourt to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration
of his rights or duties, thereunder.K
,rior to the 1AAC Rules, the filing of a petition for declaratory relief #as governed "y
paragraph 1, ection 1, Rule '4 of the Rules of !ourt, to #it8 KE!. 1. 2ho ma* file
petition. :: Any person interested under a deed, #ill, contract or other #ritten
instrument, #hose rights are affected "y a statute, e.ecutive order or regulation, may,
"efore "reach or violation thereof, "ring an action to determine any question of
construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a declaration of
his rights or duties, thereunder.K
-4
"upra, @'C.
-@
7ritten "y &ustice Benancio D. Aldecoa &r., #ith the concurrence of &ustices Gloria !. ,aras
/Division chairman0 and Regina G. +rdoPe6:Benite6.
-'
!A Resolution dated eptem"er -C, 1AA>, p. -; rollo, p. 1''. "ee also !A Records, p. -C>.
-C
Esperas v. !ourt of Appeals, supra, citing Bachrach !orporation v. !ourt of Appeals, -A'
!RA 4DC, 4A4, eptem"er -@, 1AAD.
-D
Iusingco v. +ng %ing )ian, 4- !RA @DA, Decem"er -4, 1AC1, per 2a(asiar, 1. ee also
/illanueva v. (), -D@ !RA 1D>, &anuary -D, 1AAD; Rasay:)aho6 v. )eonor, 1D !RA 4C,
2arch -1, 1AC1.
-1
*pdate on Remedial )a# ,age
-A
ection - of ,D <o. 1D@, #hich too( effect in 1AC4, provides8 K<o restraining order,
temporary or permanent injunction shall "e issued "y the court against any government
financial institution in any action ta(en "y such institution in compliance #ith the mandatory
foreclosure provided in ection 1 hereof, #hether such restraining order, temporary or
permanent injunction is sought "y the "orro#er/s0 or any third party or parties, e.cept after due
hearing in #hich it is esta"lished "y the "orro#er and admitted "y the government financial
institution concerned that t#enty percent /->Q0 of the outstanding arrearages has "een paid
after the filing of foreclosure proceedings.
In c#se # restr#inin: or"er or inAunction is issue" the 4orro%er sh#$$ ne?erthe$ess 4e
$e:#$$8 o4$i:#te" to $i<ui"#te the re#inin: 4#$#nce of the #rre#r#:es- p#8in: ten percent
(00G& of the #rre#r#:es outst#n"in: #s of the tie of forec$osure- p$us interest #n" other
ch#r:es- on every succeeding thirtieth /1>th0 day after the issuance of such restraining order or
injunction until the entire arrearages have "een liquidated. $hese shall "e in addition to the
payment of amorti6ations currently maturing. $he restraining order or injunction shall
automatically "e dissolved should the "orro#er fail to ma(e any of the a"ove:mentioned
payments on due dates, and no restraining order or injunction shall "e issued thereafter. $his
shall "e #ithout prejudice to the e.ercise "y the government financial institutions of such rights
andNor remedies availa"le to them under their respective charters and their respective contracts
#ith their de"tors, nor should this provision "e construed as restricting the government
financial institutions concerned from approving, solely at its o#n discretion, any restructuring,
recapitali6ation, or any other arrangement that #ould place the entire account on a current
"asis, provided, ho#ever, that at least t#enty /->Q0 of the arrearages outstanding at the time of
the foreclosure is paid.
All restraining orders and injunctions e.isting as of the date of this Decree on
foreclosure proceedings filed "y said government financial institutions shall "e considered
lifted unless finally resolved "y the court #ithin /'>0 days from date hereof.K /emphasis
supplied0
-4