Sie sind auf Seite 1von 38

Civil Procedure

1. Introduction
1.1.
Applicability of rules to civil and criminal actions and
special proceedings
Rule 1
Section 2. In what courts applicable. These Rules
shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided
by the Supreme Court. (n)
Section 4. In what case not applicable. These Rules
shall not apply to election cases, land registration,
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or
in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient. (R143a)
- Definition of
proceedings.

civil,

criminal

actions

and

special

Section 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern


the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal
and special proceedings.
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both
are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions,
subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
civil action. (n)
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State
prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law. (n)
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a
party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. (2a, R2)
-

The rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not


penal laws and are not to be given retroactive effect.
(Bermejo vs. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764) and are to govern
cases brought after they take effect, and also all

further proceedings in cases then pending, except to


the extent that in the opinion of the court, their
application would not be feasible or would work
injustice, in which event the former procedure shall
apply. (Rule 144, Rules of Court).

1.2.
-

As a general rule, the retroactive application of


procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any
personal rights because no vested rights may attach
to nor arise therefrom.

Procedure and Practice


Procedure is the method or means of conducting litigation
and judicial proceedings
Practice is the carrying on of actions according to the
procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court.

1.3.
Courts and Jurisdiction
1.3.1. Courts is an organ of government belonging to the
judicial department the function of which is the application of
the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the
public administration of justice. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th
Edition)
1.3.1.1.
1.3.1.2.
1.3.1.3.
1.3.1.4.
1.3.1.5.

Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Regional Trial Court
Sandiganbayan
Court of Tax Appeals

1.3.2. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to


hear, try and decide a case (Cuena vs. PCGG, 535 SCRA
102).
1.3.3. B.P. 129 provides the jurisdiction of the RTC and the
Municipal Trial Courts.
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation
is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or


possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the property
involved
exceeds
Twenty
thousand
pesos
(P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand
pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction where he demand or claim exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in
Metro Manila, where such demand or claim
exceeds
Two
hundred
thousand
pesos
(200,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and
intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds
One
hundred
thousand
pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro
Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two
hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage
and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand,
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
the value of the property in controversy exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in
such other abovementioned items exceeds Two

hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended


by R.A. No. 7691*)
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases.
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of
their respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases.
The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of
the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal
cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian
cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under
the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies,
and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court
may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in civil cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions
and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
including the grant of provisional remedies in
proper cases, where the value of the personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand does
not
exceed
One
hundred
thousand
pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are
several claims or causes of action between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action,

irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of


the same or different transactions;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That
when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of
ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue
of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein where the assessed value of
the property or interest therein does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed
value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses
and costs: Provided, That value of such property shall
be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land
registration cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be
assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where
there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots
the where the value of which does not exceed One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be
ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more
than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be
appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
Regional Trial Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. In the
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or
city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge,
Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for
bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the
absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

Section 36. Summary procedures in special cases. In


Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with
at least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate
one or more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible
entry and unlawful detainer cases, those involving
violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations
of the rental law, and such other cases requiring
summary disposition as the Supreme Court may
determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules
or procedures applicable to such cases in order to
achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination
thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified
procedures may provide that affidavits and counteraffidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and
that the periods for filing pleadings shall be nonextendible.
1.4.
How is jurisdiction obtained and exercised:
1.4.1. Over the persons
1.4.1.1. Plaintiff by filing of the complaint in court
1.4.1.2. Defendant by valid service of summons or
voluntary appearance in court.
1.4.2. Over the subject matter - conferred by law or the
Constitution and determined in the allegations in the
complaint which comprise a concise statement of the
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.
1.4.3. Over the res by actual or constructive seizure placing the
property under the orders of the court.
-

Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, i.e.,


that it is pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an
affirmative defense in an answer. Voluntary appearance shall
be deemed a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however,
of affirmative defenses shall not be constructed as an
estoppel or as a waiver of such defense (La Naval Drug Corp.
vs. CA, 236 SCRA 78).

Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the


subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of
this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the
courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let
alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative

in character. Barring highly meritorious and exceptional


circumstances, such as hereinbefore exemplified, neither
estoppel nor waiver shall apply. (Supra)

A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and


upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that jurisdiction is
a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or
agreement of the parties... This doctrine has been qualified
by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from
the ruling in the cited case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. It is to be
regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been
applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated
therein. The exceptional circumstances involved in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy which justified the departure from the accepted
doctrine of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has
been ignored and instead a blanket doctrine had been
repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling
[therein] not as the exception, but rather the general rule,
virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle
that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by
estoppel. (Atwel vs. Concepcion Progressive Assoc., G.R. No.
169370, April 14, 2008)

The rule remains that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on


a tribunal that has none over the cause of action or subject
matter of the case. (Supra)

1.5.
Procedure and Substantive Law
1.5.1. Procedure is the process for the enforcement of rights
and obligations
1.5.2. Substantive law creates, defines, regulates and
extinguishes rights and obligations.
2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions
2.1.
It must be based on a cause of action
- What is a cause of action? It is an act or omission by which a
party violates the rights of another.
-

No splitting of a cause of action (Rule 2, Sections 3 and 4)


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

Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect


of. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of
the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a)
-

Section 4 of Rule 2, above-quoted, is unmistakably clear as to


the effect of the splitting up of a cause of action. It says, "if
separate complaints are brought for different parts (reliefs) of
a single cause of action, the filing of the first (complaint) may
be pleaded in abatement of the others, and a judgment upon
the merits in either is available as a bar in the others." In
other words, whenever a plaintiff has filed more than one
complaint for the same violation of a right, the filing of the
first complaint on any of the reliefs born of the said violation
constitutes a bar to any action on any of the other possible
reliefs arising from the same violation, whether the first
action is still pending, in which event, the defense to the
subsequent complaint would be litis pendentia, or it has
already been finally terminated, in which case, the defense
would be res adjudicata. Indeed, litis pendentia and res
adjudicata, on the one hand, and splitting up a cause of
action on the other, are not separate and distinct defenses,
since either of the former is by law only the result or effect of
the latter, or, better said, the sanction for or behind it. (City
of Bacolod vs San Miguel, 29 SCRA 819)

As to the value of the plaintiff's share in the products of the


land during the time that the former action was pending
(which are the damages claimed under the second cause of
action), their recovery is now barred by the previous
judgment. These damages are but the result of the original
cause of action, viz., the continuing refusal by defendants in
1941 to recognize the plaintiffs' right to an interest in the
property. In the same way that plaintiffs claimed for their
share of the produce from 1941 to 1947, these later damages
could have been claimed in the first action, either in the
original complaint (for their existence could be anticipated
when the first complaint was filed) or else by supplemental
plaeding. To allow them to be recovered by subsequent suit
would be a violation of the rule against multiplicity of suits,
and specifically of sections 3 and 4 of Rules 2 of the Rules of
Court, against the splitting of causes of action, since these
damages spring from the same cause of action that was
pleading in the former case No. 573 between the same
parties. (Jalandoni vs Martir-Guanzon, 102 SCRA 859)

Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action (Rule 2, Sections 5


and 6)
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. A party may
in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise,
as many causes of action as he may have against an
opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil
actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes
of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court
and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
(5a)
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action.
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action
may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the
court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)

Test of single cause of action


A cause of action is understood to be the delict or
wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in
violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. It is true that a
single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the
same time, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation
of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However
where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single
cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may
have been violated belonging to one person.

The singleness of a cause of action lies in the


singleness of the- delict or wrong violating the rights
of one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury
resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of
action arises. In the case at bar, there is no question that
the petitioner sustained a single injury on his person. That
vested in him a single cause of action, albeit with the
correlative rights of action against the different respondents
through the appropriate remedies allowed by law. (Joseph
vs. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540)

2.2.
-

Parties to a civil action


Who are parties in interest?
RULE 3
Parties to Civil Actions
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff"
may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the
cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff.
The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending
party, the defendant in a counter-claim, the crossdefendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant.
(1a)
Section 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is
the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules,
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest. (2a)
Section 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action
is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity,
the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and
shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. A
representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his
own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal
may sue or be sued without joining the principal except

when the contract involves things belonging to the


principal. (3a)
Section 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall
sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)
-

Competency of Parties
Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. A minor or a
person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with
the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has
none, a guardian ad litem. (5a)
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. If a party
becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon
motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued
by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person
assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)

Indispensable and Necessary parties


Indispensable Parties
Those without whom no final
determination can be had of an
action.

If not impleaded, any judgment


would have no effectiveness

Those with such an interest that a


final decree would necessarily
affect either right so that the court
cannot proceed without their
presence.
Failure to comply with the order of
the court to implead an
indispensable party warrants

Necessary Parties
Those who are not indispensable
parties but ought to be joined as
parties if complete relief is to be
accorded as to those already
parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the
claim subject of the action.
Even if not included in the suit,
the case may be finally
determined in court, but the
judgment therein will not resolve
the whole controversy.
Those whose presence is
necessary to adjudicate the whole
controversy but whose interest
are so far separable that a final
decree can be made in their
absence without affecting them.
Failure to comply with the order of
the court to include a necessary
party, without justifiable cause,

dismissal of the complaint.


-

shall be deemed waiver of the


claim against such party.

Joinder and Misjoinder of Parties


Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can
be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (7)
Section 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one
who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a
party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those
already parties, or for a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject of the action. (8a)
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should
the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it
may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the
claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent
the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party. (8a, 9a)

Death of a Party
o Consequence of death of party
Section 20. Action and contractual money claims.
When the action is for recovery of money arising
from contract, express or implied, and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the
court in which the action was pending at the time of
such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the
plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting

claims against the estate of a deceased person.


(21a)
-

Strictly speaking, the rule on substitution by heirs is


not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due
process. The rule on substitution was crafted to
protect every party's right to due process. It was
designed to ensure that the deceased party would
continue to be properly represented in the suit through
his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of
his estate. Moreover, non-compliance with the Rules
results in the denial of the right to due process for the
heirs who, though not duly notified of the proceedings,
would be substantially affected by the decision
rendered therein. Thus, it is only when there is a denial
of due process, as when the deceased is not
represented by any legal representative or heir, that
the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the
resulting judgment therein. (Sarsaba vs. Vda de Te,
594 SCRA 410)
The question as to whether an action survives or not
depends on the nature of the action and the damage
sued for. If the causes of action which survive the
wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally
property and property rights, the injuries to the person
being merely incidental, while in the causes of action
which do not survive the injury complained of is to the
person the property and rights of property affected
being incidental. (Supra)
the proper remedy here is the Substitution of Heirs
and not the dismissal of this case which would work
injustice to the plaintiff. (Supra)
In claiming standing to bring the instant suit, Gonzales
necessarily asserted "a personal and substantial
interest in the case" such that he "has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental
act that is being challenged." A reading of the
allegations in the petition readily shows that Gonzales
alleged interest does not involve any claim to money
or property which he could have assigned to another
or transmitted to his heirs. Rather, he claimed to be
vindicating his rights as a citizen, taxpayer and
member of the bar. Being personal and nontransferable in nature, any interest that he might have
had in the outcome of this case cannot be deemed to

have survived his death. (Gonzales vs. PAGCOR, 429


SCRA 533)
As such, the more proper procedure would have been
for them to file a Motion for Intervention as expressly
provided for in Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
and not a Motion for Substitution under Section 17 of
the same rule. Ideally, such a Motion for Intervention
should be filed before the possibility of abatement is
raised by the death of the named/representative party
(or parties) to the class suit; or where such is not
possible, within a reasonable time from the death of
the named or representative party. (Supra)

o What counsel should do on death of party


Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the
duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty
(30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to
give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel
to comply with his duty shall be a ground for
disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and the
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor
heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal
representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel
for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall
fail to appear within the specified period, the court
may order the opposing party, within a specified
time to procure the appointment of an executor or
administrator for the estate of the deceased and the
latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party,
may be recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)

2.3.
-

Venue of Actions
Real and Personal actions
o Real actions one which affects title to or possession of
real property or an interest therein.
o All other actions are personal actions (Riano, Vol. 1, p.
181)
o Real action is local, its venue depends upon the
location of the property (Supra).
Where the subject matter of the action involves
various parcels of land situated in different
provinces, the venue is determined by the
singularity or plurality of the transactions
involving the said parcels of land. Thus:
Where the parcels of land are the objects of
one and the same transaction, the venue is
in the court of any of the provinces wherein
the parcel of land is situated; OR
If subjects of separate and distinct
transactions, there is no common venue
and separate actions should be laid in the
court of the province wherein each parcel of
land is situated (Regalado, Vol 1, p. 118).
o A personal action is transitory. The venue is either:
Where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides; or
Where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides.
- "Where the subject matter of the action involves
various parcels of land situated in different provinces,
the venue is determined by the singularity or plurality of
the transactions involving said parcels of land. Thus,
where said parcels are the objects of one and the same
transaction, the venue was in the then CFI of any of the
provinces wherein a parcel of land is situated"
(Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, p. 105).
As enunciated by the Supreme Court in El Hogar Filipino
v. Seva (G.R. No. 36627, 19 November 1932), it is only
"when various parcels of land or real property situated in
different provinces, are included in one mortgage
contract, (that) the Court of First Instance of the province
wherein they are situated or a part thereof is situated,
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action for the
foreclosure of said mortgage, and the judgment therein

rendered may be executed in all the other provinces


wherever the mortgaged real property may be found."
(United Overseas Bank Phils. vs. Rosemoore Mining, 518
SCRA 123)
-

Actions against non-residents


o Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides; or
o Where the non-resident may be found.
Non-residents found in the Philippines
Personal actions where the plaintiff
resides;
Real actions where the property is
located.
Non-residents not found in the Philippines
Personal status of the plaintiff where the
plaintiff resides; and
Any property of the said defendant located
in the Philippineswhere the property or
any portion thereof is situated or found.

Agreement on venue
o In writing;
o Made before the filing of the action; and
o Exclusive as to the venue.

2.4.
-

Commencement of Actions (Rule 1, Section 5)


How and when deemed commenced?
o A civil action is commenced by filing of the complaint
and payment of prescribed docket fees.
Section 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court.
If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading,
the action is commenced with regard to him on the dated
of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether
the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the
court. (6a)

When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case?


o In Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion (G.R. No. 79937-38,
February 13, 1989) the Supreme Court laid down the
following rules:

a. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or


appropriate initiatory pleading but also the
payment of the prescribed docket fee that
vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where
the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of docket fee, the
court may allow payment of the fee within the
reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive period.
b. The same rule applies to permissive
counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings which shall not be considered filed
until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also allow
payment of said fee within reasonable time
but also in no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive period or reglementary period.
c. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over
a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing
fee, but subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or
specified, the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional
filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the
Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
enforce said lien and assess and collect
additional fee.
-

Docket fee to be paid by the complainant/petitioner should be


based on their amended complaint, if an amendment has
been made. (Magaspi vs. Remolete, 115 SCRA 193)
the basis of assessment of the docket fee should be the
amount of damages sought in the original complaint and not
in the amended complaint. (Manchester Development Corp.
vs. CA, 149 SCRA 562)
To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints,
petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify
the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body
of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall
be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any
case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement
shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be

expunged from the record The Court acquires jurisdiction


over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar
pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much
less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts
sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi
case 14 in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement
is overturned and reversed. (Supra)
-

The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the
prescribed period is mandatory.8 In Manchester v. Court of
Appeals, it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction over
any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.
The strict application of this rule was, however, relaxed two
(2) years after in the case ofSun Insurance Office, Ltd. v.
Asuncion, wherein the Court decreed that where the initiatory
pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket
fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. This ruling
was made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated
his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional
docket fees required. Thus, in the more recent case of United
Overseas Bank v. Ros, the Court explained that where the
party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in
payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to
abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when
required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict regulations set
in Manchester, will apply. It has been on record that the
Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule
on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties
the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. In
the case of La Salette College v. Pilotin, the Court stated:
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the
requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, we also
recognize that its strict application is qualified by the
following: first, failure to pay those fees within the
reglementary period allows only discretionary, not
automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used
by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound
discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair
play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in

consideration of all attendant circumstances. (Heirs of the


late Ruben Reinoso vs. CA, G.R. No. 116121, July 18, 2011)
-

Effect of underpayment of docket fees


o Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time
but within reglementary period but in several cases,
both the CA and SC have caused the dismissal of cases
for non-payment of docket fees.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts


3.1.
Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts
3.2.
Pleadings in general
- Kinds of Pleadings
- Formal requirements of pleadings
o Parts of a pleading
o Verification when required
Formal, not jurisdictional
Kilusan-Olalia vs. CA, 528 SCRA 45
Verification by counsel
In-N-Out Burger, Inc. vs. Schwani Inc., 575
SCRA 535
o Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory
pleadings
Definition of Forum Shopping
Counsel cannot sign certification
Co-owner or co-party may sign in behalf of coowners or co-parties
Cavila vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 400 SCRA
255
o Distinction between non-compliance of verification and
certification against non-forum shopping requirement
Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Piglas
Kamao, 561 SCRA 569
Median Container Corp. vs. Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Co., 561 SCRA 622
- Substantial requirements of pleadings
o Sufficiency of allegations
Ultimate Facts only
Remitere vs. Yulo 16 SCRA 251
Philippine Stock Exchange vs. Manila
Banking Corp., 559 SCRA 352
Tests of sufficiency of complaint:
Can judgment be rendered if admitted?

Always reckon against grounds for dismissal


Is bill of particulars applicable?
(Philippine Bank of Communications vs.
Trazo, 500 SCRA 242)
Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading
Not susceptible to summary judgment
Does not amount to confession of judgment
MUST tender an issue
Must specifically deny material allegation
lest they be deemed admitted
Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or answer,
else waived
Alternative causes of action or defenses may be
pleaded even if inconsistent with each other
Purpose of rule is to allow for complete
adjudication of any controversy
o Counterclaims
Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims
Test to determine nature of counterclaim
In the case of Namarco vs. Federation of
United Namarco Distributors Inc., 49 SCRA
273, the Supreme Court stated the tests for
compulsory counterclaim:
o First: Identity of Issues.
o Second: If it would be barred by res
judicata
o Third: Same evidence or substantial
identity in the evidence relating to
the claim and counterclaim
o Fourth: A counterclaim has been held
to be compulsory if there is a logical
relationship between it and the main
claim.
We have indicated that a counterclaim is
compulsory
if
it
bears
a
"logical
relationship" to an opposing party's
claim. (Namarco vs. Federation of Namarco)
The phrase "logical relationship" is given
meaning by the purpose of the rule which it
was designed to implement. Thus, a
counterclaim is logically related to the
opposing party's claim where separate
trials of each of their respective claims

would involve a substantial duplication of


effort and time by the parties and the
courts. Where multiple claims involve many
of the same factual issues, or the same
factual and legal issues, or where they are
off-shoots of the same basic controversy
between
the
parties,
fairness
and
considerations of convenience and of
economy require that the counterclaimant
be permitted to maintain his cause of
action. (Supra)
a compulsory counterclaim cannot be
made the subject of a separate action but
should be asserted in the same suit
involving the same transaction or
occurrence giving rise to it. Where the
counterclaim is made the subject of a
separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea
of auter action pendant or litis
pendentia, and/or dismissed on the ground
of res judicata. (Metals Engineering vs CA,
203 SCRA 273)
For all intents and purposes, such
proposition runs counter to the nature of a
compulsory counterclaim in that it cannot
remain pending for independent
adjudication by the court. This is because a
compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the
proceeding in the original suit and derives
its jurisdictional support
therefrom, inasmuch as it arises out of or is
necessarily connected with the transaction
or occurrence that is the subject matter of
the complaint. It follows that if the court
does not have jurisdiction to entertain the
main action of the case and dismisses the
same, then the compulsory counterclaim,
being ancillary to the principal controversy,
must likewise be dismissed since no
jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief
under the counterclaim. (Supra)
Furthermore, it has been held that a
counterclaim presupposes the existence of
a claim against the party filing the

counterclaim. Where there is no claim


against the counterclaimant, then the
counterclaim is improper and should be
dismissed. The complaint filed by herein
petitioner was dismissed on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction for non-payment of
docket fees. By reason of said dismissal, it
is as if no claim was filed against herein
private respondent, hence the counterclaim
has no leg to stand on. In addition, it was at
the instance of private respondent that the
complaint was dismissed. In the words of
Justice Abad Santos, "(private respondent)
does not object to the dismissal of the civil
case but nonetheless wants (his)
counterclaim therein to subsist. Impossible.
A person cannot eat his cake and have it at
the same time. If the civil case is dismissed,
so also is the counterclaim filed therein."
(Supra)
The dismissal of the complaint on
defendant's own motion operated likewise
to dismiss the counterclaim questioning the
complaint The Rules of Court provides a
remedy
to
recover
on
defendant's
counterclaim if plaintiff moves to dismiss
the case. Under Sec. 2, Rule 17, defendant
may raise objection to the dismissal of the
complaint; in such case, the trial curt may
not dismiss the main action. (BA Finance vs
Co, 224 SCRA 163)
If any of the grounds to dismiss under Sec.
3, Rule 17, of the Rules of Court
arises, 8 the
proper
recourse
for
a
defendant who desires to pursue his
compulsory counterclaim in the same
proceeding is not to move for the dismissal
of the complaint; instead, he should only
move to have plaintiff declarednonsuited on the complaint so that the latter
can no longer present his evidence thereon,
and simultaneously move that he be
declared as in default on the compulsory
counterclaim, and reserve the right to
present
evidence ex
parte on
his
counterclaim. This will enable defendant

who was unjustly haled to court to prove his


compulsory
counterclaim,
which
is
intertwined with the complaint, because the
trial court retains jurisdiction over the
complaint and of the whole case. The nondismissal of the complaint, the non-suit
notwithstanding, provides the basis for the
compulsory counterclaim to remain active
and subsisting. (Supra)
3.3.
-

Effect of failure to plead


Order of default
Consequence of order of default
o Judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief
prayed for
o Need for presentation of evidence
Rationale for order of default

3.4.
-

Amended/Supplemental pleadings
Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed
o No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing
cause of action set out in original pleading
o Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or
motion for summary judgment or even motion for
judgment on the pleadings which are not considered
responsive pleading
o Rule when some but not all defendants file responsive
pleading

When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary


and subject to the rule that the cause of action is not
substantially changed or the theory altered
o The purpose of the supplemental pleading is to bring
into the records new facts which will enlarge or change
the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled; hence,
any supplemental facts which further develop the
original right of action, or extend to vary the relief, are
available by way of supplemental complaint even
though they themselves constitute a right of action.
(Planters Development Bank vs. LZK Holdings &
Development Co., 456 SCRA 366)
o The parties may file supplemental pleadings only to
supply deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, but
not to introduce new and independent causes of action.
In Leobrera v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that

when the cause of action stated in the supplemental


complaint is different from the causes of action
mentioned in the original complaint, the court should
not admit the supplemental complaint. However, a
broad definition of causes of action should be applied.
As the United States Supreme Court ruled in Smith v.
Biggs Boiler Works Co.:
While a matter stated in a supplemental
complaint should have some relation to the
cause of action set forth in the original pleading,
the fact that the supplemental pleading
technically states a new cause of action should
not be a bar to its allowance but only a factor
can be considered by the court in the exercise of
its discretion; and of course, a broad definition of
"cause of action" should be applied here as
elsewhere. (Supra)
-

Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence


presented during trial is allowed:
o When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with
the consent of the parties
o When, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no
prejudice will befall the objecting party

Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right


o A supplemental complaint should, as the name implies,
supply only deficiencies in aid of an original complaint.
It should contain only causes of action relevant and
material to the plaintiff's right and which help or aid the
plaintiff's right or defense. The supplemental complaint
must be based on matters arising subsequent to the
original complaint related to the claim or defense
presented therein, and founded on the same cause of
action. It cannot be used to try a new matter or a new
cause of action. (Leobrera vs. CA, 170 SCRA 711)
o In the case of Leobrera vs. CA, the supplemental
complaint alleged acts of harassment committed by BPI
in unreasonably opting to declare petitioner in default
and in demanding full liquidation of the 1985 three-year
term loan. This three-year term loan, as previously
mentioned, was entirely distinct and separate from the
two promissory notes. It was independent of the 1980
amicable settlement between petitioner and BPI which
gave rise to the credit facility subject of the original

complaint. Although there is Identity in the remedies


asked for in the original and supplemental complaints,
i.e. injunction, petitioner's subsequent cause of action
giving rise to the claim for damages in the
supplemental complaint is unrelated to the amicable
settlement which brought about the grant of the credit
facilities, the breach of which settlement is alleged to
be the basis of the original complaint. Petitioner himself
in his supplemental complaint admits this As the
allegations reveal, the P 500,000.00 three-year term
loan is a transaction independent of the P 800,000.00
credit facility and BPI's questioned act of threatening to
foreclose the properties securing said loan was the
result of an alleged default by petitioner in the payment
of the amortization due for 9 February 1987 and not
because of any circumstance related to the 1980
amicable settlement The two causes of action being
entirely different, the latter one could not be
successfully pleaded by supplemental complaint.
(Supra)
-

3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.

Effect of amended pleadings


o Supersedes original pleading
o As a consequence, judicial admissions made in original
pleadings need to be offered in evidence
The Court of Appeals also correctly overruled the
petitioner's contention that the averment in the
original application for registration attributing the
origin of the land to the action of the sea, which
averment, with leave of court, was later
superseded by an amendment to the effect that
the land was formed by the action of rivers, was
binding on the private respondent as a judicial
admission. Pleadings that have been amended
disappear from the record, lose their status as
pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions.
While they may nonetheless be utilized against
the pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they
must, in order to have such effect, be formally
offered in evidence. (Director of Lands vs. CA,
196 SCRA 94 [1991])
Filing of responsive pleading
Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers
Summons
Dismissal of actions

3.9.
Pre-trial
3.10.
Discovery
3.11.
Trial
3.12.
Consolidation
3.13.
Demurrer to Evidence
3.14.
Judgment on the pleadings
3.15.
Summary Judgments
3.16.
Judgments
3.17.
Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)
3.18.
Execution of judgments
- only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to
execution
- final judgment vs final and executor judgment
o a "final judgment" in the sense just described becomes
final "upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom
if no appeal has been duly perfected" or, an appeal
therefrom having been taken, the judgment of the
appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the records
of the case are returned to the Court of origin. The
"final" judgment is then correctly categorized as a "final
and executory judgment" in respect to which, as the
law explicitly provides, "execution shall issue as a
matter of right." It bears stressing that only a final
judgment or order, i.e., "a judgment or order that finally
disposes of the action of proceeding" can become final
and executory. (Investments vs. CA, 147 SCRA 334)
-

test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court


to do with respect to the merits of the case?
Execution a matter of right when judgment final and
executor, but only upon motion
Judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e. when no
appeal has been taken within the period provided by law
Enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and
mandatory once it becomes final, subject to certain
exceptions
Execution before finality, only upon good reasons
o Execution pending appeal is not to be granted except
for good reason to be stated in a special order. For the
general rule is that only judgments which have become
final and executory may be executed. In this case, the
issuance of an order granting execution pending appeal
is sought to be justified on the plea that the
"[r]espondents' dilatory appeal and refusal to pay
petitioner the amount justly due it had placed

petitioner in actual and imminent danger of insolvency."


(BF Corp. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 109)
o Even assuming that it was indeed in financial distress
and on the verge of facing civil or even criminal suits,
the immediate execution of a judgment in its favor
pending appeal cannot be justified as Falcon's situation
may not be likened to a case of a natural person who
be ill or may be of advanced age. Even the danger of
extinction of the corporation will not per se justify a
discretionary execution unless there are showings of
other good reasons, such as for instance, impending
insolvency of the adverse party or the appeal being
patently dilatory. But even as to the latter reason, it
was noted in Aquino vs. Santiago (161 SCRA 570
[1998]), that it is not for the trial judge to determine
the merit of a decision he rendered as this is the role of
the appellate court. Hence, it is not within competence
of the trial court, in resolving a motion for execution
pending appeal, to rule that the appeals is patently
dilatory and rely on the same as its basis for finding
good reasons to grant the motion. Only an appellate
court can appreciate the dilatory intent of an appeals
as an additional good reason in upholding an order for
execution pending appeal which may have been issued
by the trial court for other good reasons, or in cases
where the motion for execution pending appeal is filed
with the appellate court in accordance with Section 2,
paragraph (a), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
(Supra)
o Nor does the fact that petitioner filed a bond in the
amount of P35 million justify the grant of execution
pending appeal. We have held in a number of
cases that the posting of a bond to answer for
damages is not alone a sufficient reason for ordering
execution pending appeal. Otherwise, execution
pending appeal could be obtained through the mere
filing of such a bond. (Supra)
-

Discretionary execution, when stayed


Execution before or after death of judgment obligor will
depend on the nature of the judgment, i.e. recovery of
property vs. money judgments

4. Appeals
- a remedy to set aside or reverse or modify a judgment on the
merits.

4.1.
-

Concept of appeal
guard against judgment of unskilled and unfair judges
prevention as much as correction of mistakes
not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost

4.2.
-

Who may appeal


any of the parties to a case may appeal.

4.3.

What are appealable


Judgments decisions on the merits after a full-blown trial
Final Orders disposes of a portion of a case on the merits/
disposes of the case on the merits without trial on the merits,
i.e. Order of Dismissal due to a Motion to Dismiss.
Declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable

what are final judgments?


o When does a judgment or order become final?
When no appeal is filed after the lapse of the
period to appeal.
o Final judgments vs. judgments that are final and
executory
The concept of "final" judgment, as distinguished
from one which has "become final" (or
"executory" as of right [final and executory]), is
definite and settled. A "final" judgment or order is
one that finally disposes of a case, leaving
nothing more to be done by the Court in respect
thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which,
on the basis of the evidence presented at the
trial, declares categorically what the rights and
obligations of the parties are and which party is in
the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses
an action on the ground, for instance, of res
adjudicata or prescription. Once rendered, the
task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the
controversy or determining the rights and
liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing
more remains to be done by the Court except to
await the parties' next move (which among
others, may consist of the filing of a motion for
new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an
appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the
execution of the judgment once it becomes "final"

or, to use the established and more distinctive


term, "final and executory." (Investments vs. CA,
147 SCRA 334)
Now, a "final judgment" in the sense just
described becomes final "upon expiration of the
period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been
duly perfected" or, an appeal therefrom having
been taken, the judgment of the appellate
tribunal in turn becomes final and the records of
the case are returned to the Court of origin. The
"final" judgment is then correctly categorized as a
"final and executory judgment" in respect to
which, as the law explicitly provides, "execution
shall issue as a matter of right." It bears stressing
that only a final judgment or order, i.e., "a
judgment or order that finally disposes of the
action of proceeding" can become final and
executory. (Supra)

What are not appealable and why are they not?


o Interlocutory orders, because they do not dispose of the
case.

Test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case

4.4.
-

Modes of appeal
ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court
rendering judgment)
o MTC to RTC
o RTC to CA
o Review of judgments rendered in the exercise of
original jurisdiction
o No extension of time to file notice of appeal
o Period to appeal in interrupted by filing of Motion for
New Trial or Motion for Reconsideration
o If MNT or MR is denied, fresh period to appeal
Neypes vs. CA, G.R. No. 141524, September 24,
2005
o Payment of docket fees must accompany notice of
appeal

petition for review (by filing with the CA under Rule 42)
o second level of review

o review of judgments rendered in appellate jurisdiction


o RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA
o Not a matter of right; discretionary on the part of the
CA
Ong vs. Tating, 149 SCRA 265
appeal by certiorari (filing with the SC)
o appeal to the SC
from RTC on questions of law
from order or resolutions of the CA or SB (Rule
45) but only questions of law
appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45,
Sec. 6)
o Cheesman vs IAC, 193 SCRA 93
o Sumbingco vs. CA, 155 SCRA 24

what is a question of law?


When doubt or difference arises as to what
the law is on a certain state of facts.
Questions of facts there is a doubt or
difference as to the truth or falsehood of
alleged facts.

petition for review vs. petition for certiorari


o New York Maritime vs. CA, 249 SCRA 416
o Ybanez vs CA, 253 SCRA 540

4.5.
When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice
of appeal
- upon transmission of the records to the appellate court.
- May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by the court?
o Yes, when filed out of time; and
o Non-payment of docket fees within the reglementary
period
- Duty of the court when notice of appeal is filed?
o Verify the correctness of the records
o Verify completeness of the records
o If incomplete, complete the same
o Transmit to appellate court the records
- Dilatory appeals
o Should be dismissed
4.6.
-

Improper appeals
to CA from RTC on questions of law
to SC via notice of appeal

to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in


appellate jurisdiction
the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct
court will be allowed
o Exception: when the SC on questions of law and fact in
which case, the case will be remanded to CA.

5. Provisional Remedies
5.1.
Preliminary Attachment
- Kinds of attachments
o Preliminary
o Garnishment
o Levy on execution
-

At what stage is preliminary attachment granted?


Grounds for attachment EXCLUSIVE
May be granted ex parte
o Rule 57 in fact speaks of the grant of the remedy "at
the commencement of the action or at any time
thereafter." The phrase "at the commencement of the
action," obviously refers to the date of the filing of the
complaint which, as abovepointed out, its the date
that marks "the commencement of the action;" and the
reference plainly is to a time before summons is served
on the defendant or even before summons issues. What
the rule is saying quite clearly is that after an action is
properly commenced by the filing of the complaint
and the payment of all requisite docket and other fees
the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a writ of
preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of the
pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may
do so at any time, either before or after service of
summons on the defendant. And this indeed, has been
the immemorial practice sanctioned by the courts: for
the plaintiff or other proper party to incorporate the
application for attachment in the complaint or other
appropriate pleading (counterclaim, cross-claim, thirdparty claim) and for the Trial Court to issue the writ exparte at the commencement of the action if it finds the
application otherwise sufficient in form and substance.
(Onate vs. Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659)
o We do not agree entirely with petitioners. True, this
Court had held in a recent decision that the
enforcement of writ of attachment may not validly be

effected
until
and
unless
proceeded
or
contemporaneously accompanied by service of
summons But we must distinguish the case at bar
from the Sievert and BAC Manufacturing cases. In those
two cases,summons was never served upon the
defendants. The plaintiffs therein did not even attempt
to cause service of summons upon the defendants,
right up to the time the cases went up to this Court.
This is not true in the case at bar. The records reveal
that Sheriff Flores and Sun Life did attempt a
contemporaneous service of both summons and the
writ of attachment on January 3, 1992, but we stymied
by the absence of a responsible officer in petitioners'
offices. Note is taken of the fact that petitioners Oate
and Econ Holdings admitted in their answer 9that the
offices of both Brunner Development Corporation and
Econ Holdings were located at the same address and
that petitioner Oate is the President of Econ Holdings
while petitioner Dio is the President of Brunner
Development Corporation as well as a stockholder and
director of Econ Holdings. (Supra)
o Writs
of
attachment
may
properly
issue ex
parte provided that the Court is satisfied that the
relevant requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the
applicant, although it may, in its discretion, require
prior hearing on the application with notice to the
defendant; but that levy on property pursuant to the
writ thus issued may not be validly effected unless
preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by
service on the defendant of summons, a copy of the
complaint (and of the appointment of guardian ad
litem, if any), the application for attachment (if not
incorporated in but submitted separately from the
complaint), the order of attachment, and the plaintiff's
attachment bond. (Davao Light and Water vs. CA, 204
SCRA 343)
o Ordinarily, the prayer in a petition for a writ of
preliminary attachment is embodied or incorporated in
the main complaint itself as one of the forms of relief
sought in such complaint. Thus, valid service of
summons and a copy of the complaint will in such case
vest jurisdiction in the court over the defendant both
for purposes of the main case and for purposes of the

ancillary remedy of attachment. In such case, notice of


the main case is at the same time notice of the
auxiliary proceeding in attachment. Where, however,
the petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is
embodied in a discrete pleading, such petition must be
served
either simultaneously
with
service
of
summons and a copy of the main complaint, or after
jurisdiction over the defendant has already been
acquired by such service of summons. Notice of the
separate attachment petition is not notice of the main
action.
Put
a
little
differently,
jurisdiction
whether ratione personae or ratione materiae in an
attachment proceeding is ancillary to jurisdiction
ratione personae or ratione materiae in the main action
against the defendant. If a court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter or over the person of the
defendant in the principal action, it simply has no
jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary attachment
against the defendant or his property. (Sievert vs. CA,
168 SCRA 692)
o Section 20, Rule 57 does state that the award of
damages shall be included in the judgment on the main
case, and seemingly indicates that it should not be
rendered prior to the adjudication of the main case.
(Carlos vs. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266)
o The rule, which guarantees a right to damages incurred
by reason of wrongful attachment, has long been
recognized in this jurisdiction. Under Section 20, Rule
57 of the 1964 Rules of Court, it was provided that
there must be first a judgment on the action in favor of
the party against whom attachment was issued before
damages can be claimed by such party. The Court
however subsequently clarified that under the rule,
"recovery for damages may be had by the party thus
prejudiced by the wrongful attachment, even if the
judgment be adverse to him. (Supra)
o The language used in the 1997 revision of the Rules of
Civil Procedure leaves no doubt that there is no longer
need for a favorable judgment in favor of the party
against whom attachment was issued in order that
damages may be awarded. It is indubitable that even a
party who loses the action in main but is able to
establish a right to damages by reason of improper,
irregular, or excessive attachment may be entitled to
damages. This bolsters the notion that the claim for

damages arising from such wrongful attachment may


arise and be decided separately from the merits of the
main action. (Supra)
o Moreover, a separate ruleSection 8, Rule 58 covers
instances when it is the trial court that awards
damages upon the bond for preliminary injunction of
the adverse party. Tellingly, it requires that the amount
of damages to be awarded be claimed, ascertained,
and awarded under the same procedure prescribed in
Section 20 of Rule 57. (Supra)
o To merit an award of actual damages arising from a
wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant must
prove, with the best evidence obtainable, the fact of
loss or injury suffered and the amount thereof. Such
loss or injury must be of the kind which is not only
capable of proof but must actually be proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. As to its amount, the
same must be measurable based on specific facts, and
not on guesswork or speculation. In particular, if the
claim for actual damages covers unrealized profits, the
amount of unrealized profits must be estalished and
supported by independent evidence of the mean
income of the business undertaking interrupted by the
illegal seizure. (Spouses Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te, G.R. No.
155868)
o Nonetheless, we recognize that Spouses Yu suffered
some form of pecuniary loss when their properties were
wrongfully seized, although the amount thereof cannot
be definitively ascertained. Hence, an award of
temperate or moderate damages in the amount
of P50,000.00 is in order. As to moral and exemplary
damages, to merit an award thereof, it must be shown
that the wrongful attachment was obtained by the
attachment plaintiff with malice or bad faith, such as by
appending a false affidavit to his application. (Supra)
5.2.
-

Preliminary Injunction
preceded by a 72 hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day
TRO (CA)
within the TRO, hearing must be conducted
may be granted at any stage of the proceeding
requirement for issuance
o existence of the right to be protected
o that the act against which injunction is to be directed
are violative of such right.

coordinate body may not be enjoined


may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself

Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a


party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It
may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for
and as an incident in the main action. (Bacolod City Water
District vs. Labayen, 446 SCRA 110)

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional


or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot
exist except only as part or an incident of an independent
action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for
injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction,
whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law,
the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a
final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be
confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary
injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status
quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction is
granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until
the termination of the action without the court issuing a final
injunction. (Supra)

A restraining order, on the other hand, is issued to preserve


the status quo until the hearing of the application for
preliminary injunction which cannot be issued ex parte.
Under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a judge may issue a
temporary restraining order with a limited life of twenty (20)
days from date of issue. If before the expiration of the twenty
(20)-day period the application for preliminary injunction is
denied, the temporary restraining order would be
deemed automatically vacated. If no action is taken by the
judge on the application for preliminary injunction within the
said twenty (20) days, the temporary restraining order
would automatically expire on the 20th day by the sheer
force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being
necessary. (Supra)

The rule against the non-extendibility of the twenty (20)-day


limited period of effectivity of a temporary restraining order is
absolute if issued by a regional trial court. The failure of
respondent court to fix a period for the ordered restraint did
not lend the temporary restraining order a breath of semipermanence which can only be characteristic of a preliminary

injunction. The twenty (20)-day period provided by the Rules


of Court should be deemed incorporated in the Order where
there is an omission to do so. (Supra)
-

Absence of a showing that the applicant for injunction have


an urgent and paramount need for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to prevent irreparable damage, they
are not entitled to such writ. (China Banking Corp. vs. Co,
G.R. No. 174569)

Requirements for them to be entitled to injunctive relief: (a)


the existence of their right to be protected; and (b) that the
acts against which the injunction is to be directed are
violative of such right. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the
petitioner must show, inter alia, the existence of a clear and
unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity
for the writ to prevent serious damage. Thus, an injunctive
remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing
necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be
remedied under any standard compensation. (Estares vs. CA,
G.R. No. 144755)
It must be remembered that a writ of preliminary injunction is
generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence.
The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application
for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or
complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial
court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction
pending the decision of the case on the merits. (Supra)

It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary


injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve
the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. It is
usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them
is committing an act or threatening the immediate
commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or
destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full
hearing can be had on the merits of the case. (Buyco vs.
Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, December 21, 2009)
Dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a
restraining order or temporary injunction has been
granted operates as a dissolution of the restraining order or
temporary injunction," regardless of whether the period for
filing a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the
case or appeal therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor
is that even in cases where an appeal is taken from a

judgment dismissing an action on the merits, the appeal does


not suspend the judgment, hence the general rule applies
that a temporary injunction terminates automatically on the
dismissal of the action. (Supra)
It is well settled that criminal prosecutions may not be
restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final,
subject to certain exceptions, e.g. where a sham preliminary
investigation was hastily conducted. (Brocka vs. Enrile, 192
SCRA 182)
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent
threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the
parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and
adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until
the merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, to be entitled
to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to
establish the following requisites:
1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to
be protected;
(2) a violation of that right;
(3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and
urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
Hence, petitioners' entitlement to the injunctive writ hinges
on their prima facie legal right to the properties subject of the
present dispute. The Court notes that the present dispute is
based solely on the parties' allegations in their respective
pleadings and the documents attached thereto. We have on
one hand, petitioners' bare assertion or claim that they are
co-owners of the properties sold by their predecessors to
respondent, and on the other, respondent's claim of
ownership supported by deeds of conveyances and torrens
titles in their favor. From these alone, it is clear that
petitioners failed to discharge the burden of clearly showing a
clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Where the
complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction
is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without
proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.
(Medina vs. Greenfield Development, G.R. 140228)

5.3.
5.4.

Receivership
Replevin

5.5.

Support pendete lite

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen