Spouses Daisy and Socrates M. Arevalo, Petitioners, vs. Planters Development Bank and The Register of Deeds of Parañaque City, Respondents

Arevalo p1
Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc., 670 SCRA 310, April 23, 2012
p20
8) Du vs. Jayoma, 670 SCRA 333, April 23, 2012 p33

9) Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. vs. Kemper Insurance Company, 670 SCRA 343, April 23, 2012 p42
April 18, 2012.G.R. No. 193415.*
SPOUSES
DAISY
and
SOCRATES
M.
AREVALO,
petitioners, vs. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK and THE REGISTER
OF DEEDS OF PARAAQUE CITY, respondents.
Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Preliminary Injunction; A writ of

preliminary injunction is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject to the outcome of
the main case, thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted upon dismissal
of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding.A writ of preliminary
injunction is a provisional remedy. It is auxiliary to, an adjunct of, and subject to
the outcome of the main case. Thus, a writ of preliminary injunction is deemed
lifted upon dismissal of the main case, any appeal therefrom notwithstanding, as
this Court emphasized in Buyco v. Baraquia, 107 SCRA 187 (2009).
Constitutional Law; Judicial Power; As a condition precedent to the exercise of
judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist.The
Constitution provides that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable. The exercise of judicial power requires an actual case calling for it. The
courts have no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions, or to
resolve hypothetical or feigned problems or friendly suits collusively arranged
between parties without real adverse interests. Furthermore, courts do not sit to
adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however
intellectually challenging. As a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power,
an actual controversy between litigants must first exist. An actual case or
controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial resolution, as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract
difference or dispute. There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be
interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
253
VOL. 670, APRIL 18,

2012
Arevalo vs. Planters
Development Bank
53
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Forum Shopping; Forum shopping is the act of
litigants who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in different
fora, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising
substantially similar issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some
other court; or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable
decision, if not in one court, then in another.Forum shopping is the act of litigants
who repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies in differentfora,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions
and the same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court; or for the
purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one
court, then in another. The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party should
not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts, for to do so
would constitute abuse of court processes which tends to degrade the administration
of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion
of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
Same; Same; Same; Every litigant is required to notify the court of the filing or
pendency of any other action or such other proceeding involving the same or similar
action or claim within five (5) days of learning of that fact.Every litigant is
required to notify the court of the filing or pendency of any other action or such
other proceeding involving the same or similar action or claim within five (5) days of
learning of that fact. Petitioners claim that it was merely due to inadvertence that
they failed to disclose the said filing within five (5) days, contrary to their
undertaking.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Socrates M. Arevalo for petitioners.
Alexander M. Paulino for respondent.
253
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 253

Arevalo vs. Planters Development
Bank
SERENO,J.:
This is a Rule 45 Petition for Review, which seeks to reverse the

Decision dated 24 March 20101 and Resolution dated 05 August 2010 2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110806. The CA affirmed the
trial courts Decision not to grant petitioners application for a writ of
preliminary injunction.
As stated, this case involves the trial courts refusal to issue a writ of
preliminary injunction in favor of petitioner Spouses Daisy and Socrates
M. Arevalo (Spouses Arevalo) based on their failure to comply with Section
2 of the Procedure in Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgages (Procedure on Foreclosure)3 issued by this Court. This
procedure required them to pay twelve percent (12%) per annuminterest
on the amount of the principal obligation, as stated in the application for
foreclosure sale, before an injunctive writ may issue against the
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.4
We deny the instant Petition for the following reasons: (1) the Petition is
moot, because the trial court has already dismissed the Complaint dated
07 April 2009 (the First Complaint), 5upon which petitioners application for
the provi_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 51-62.
2 Rollo, p. 64.
3 SC Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-0 dated 20 February 2007. (Hereinafter, Procedure on
Foreclosure).
4 No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the extrajudicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation that the interest on the loan is
unconscionable, unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at least twelve percent per annum interest on the
principal obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly while
the case is pending. (Sec. 2 of the Procedure on Foreclosure.)
5 The Complaint for Nullification of Interests, Penalties and Other Charges, Specific Performance with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction, TRO and Damages dated 07 April 2009, docketed as Civil
255
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 255

Bank
sional remedy of preliminary injunction was based; and (2) petitioners are
guilty of forum-shopping.
The
conflict
between
the
parties
arose
from
a
Loan
Agreement6 petitioners executed with respondent Planters Development
Bank (Bank). Petitioners obtained from respondent Bank a P2,100,000
loan secured by a mortgage on their property situated in Muntinlupa. Due
to their failure to pay the loaned amount, the Bank undertook to
extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage. The Clerk of Court issued a Notice
of Sheriffs Sale and set the auction sale on 21 and 28 April 2009.7
Petitioners thereafter filed the First Complaint wherein they asked for
the nullification of interests, penalties and other charges, as well as for
specific performance with an application for a temporary restraining order
(TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the then impending
auction sale of their Muntinlupa property. They alleged that it was
respondent Bank who breached its obligations under the loan agreement;
and that the auction sale was premature, arbitrary and confiscatory, as
their inability to pay the loan was caused and aggravated by the Banks
illegal schemes.8
During the hearing of petitioners application for preliminary
injunction, the trial court ruled that, as a precondition for the issuance of
the writ and pursuant to the Procedure on Foreclosure, petitioners were
directed to pay 12% per annum interest on the principal obligation as
stated in the application for foreclosure sale. Otherwise, the writ shall not
issue.9 The trial court further ruled that the evidence in support of
_______________
Case No. 09-0126, entitled Daisy M. Arevalo and Socrates M. Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank,
Inc., then pending before Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Branch 258, was dismissed by virtue of
an Order dated 27 October 2009; Rollo, pp. 105-137, 231-236.
6 Rollo, pp. 118-121.
7 Rollo, p. 52.
8 Rollo, p. 54.
9 Order dated 24 April 2009;Rollo, p. 139.
256
25
SUPREME COURT
6
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bank
their application was evidentiary in nature and should thus be presented
during trial.10
Petitioner Spouses Arevalo sought to clarify the trial courts
Order,11inquiring whether they should be required to pay 12% per
annum interest. They argue that the rule requiring the payment of 12%
interest as a condition for the issuance of an injunctive writ against an
impending foreclosure sale was applicable only when applicant alleges that
the interest rate is unconscionable.12 According to petitioners, nowhere in
the Complaint did they allege that the interest charges were
unconscionable.13Instead, what they raised in the First Complaint as their
principal cause of action was the Banks deliberate withholding of loan
releases on various pretexts and the propriety of the acts of the Bank
charging them with interests and penalties due to the delay caused by the
Bank itself.14 The trial court, however, affirmed its earlier ruling.15
Petitioners moved for reconsideration,16 but their motion was
denied.17Consequently, they did not pay the required interest; thus, no writ
of preliminary injunction was issued in their favor.
Aggrieved, petitioner Spouses Arevalo filed a Rule 65 Petition 18 with the
CA to assail the Orders of the trial court involving the non-issuance of the
injunctive writ.19
_______________
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Rollo, pp. 140-159.
13 Rollo, p. 145.
14 Id.
15 Order dated 10 July 2009;Rollo, pp. 98-100.
16 Rollo, pp. 160-166.
17 Order dated 24 August 2009;Rollo, pp. 102-103.

18 Docketed as CA-G.R. No. 110806, entitled Sps. Daisy Arevalo and Socrates Arevalo v. The Presiding
Judge Branch 258, Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City; Rollo, pp. 65-97.
19 Rollo, p. 79.
257
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 257

Bank
Meanwhile, proceedings for the First Complaint ensued at the trial
court. Acting on the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent Bank, the trial
court granted the motion and dismissed the First Complaint for lack of
cause of action.20 Petitioner Spouses Arevalo then proceeded again to the
CA to appeal21 the dismissal of the main case.
The record does not reveal the status of the case.With regard to the Rule
65 Petition to the CA questioning the non-issuance of the writ, respondent
Bank filed its Comment22 thereon. Subsequently, the CA rendered the
present assailed Decision dated 24 March 2010, affirming the applicability
of Section 2 of the Procedure on Foreclosure. It ruled that the trial court
was correct in refusing to issue the writ due to petitioners inexplicable
failure and even stubborn refusal to pay the accrued interest at 12% per
annum.23The CA held that the words used by petitioners in their First
Complaint, such as manifestly unjust, purely potestative condition,
voidab initio, clearly contravenes morals, good customs and public
policy, whimsical, capricious violation of the legal and inherent
principles of mutuality of contracts, illegal, invalid, unilateral
impositionsall of which pertained to interest imposed by the Bank
undeniably meant that petitioners were challenging the interest for being
unconscionable, while opting to use other words of similar import. 24
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied their motion. 25
_______________
20 Order dated 27 October 2009;Rollo, pp. 231-236.
21 Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 94925, entitled Sps. Daisy & Socrates Arevalo v. Planters Development
Bank, Notice of Appeal dated 08 March 2010; Rollo, pp. 237-238 and Notice dated 28 September
2010; Rollo, p. 239.
22 Rollo, pp. 178-186.

23 Rollo, pp. 60-61.
24 Rollo, p. 60.
25 Rollo, p. 64.
258
25
SUPREME COURT
8
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bank
Aggrieved, they filed the instant Rule 45 Petition to assail the Decision
of the CA affirming the non-issuance of the injunctive writ.

There are thus two (2) cases arising from similar facts and
circumstances; more particularly, the instant Rule 45 Petition and the
appeal of the dismissal of the main case with the CA. 26It appears on record
also that on 12 November 2010, petitioners filed yet another Complaint
dated 11 November 201027 (Second Complaint) with the trial court. This
time, they prayed for the nullification of the real estate mortgage, the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale, and the subsequent proceedings, with a
prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO.
With regard to the instant Rule 45 Petition, petitioners assail the
Decision and Resolution of the CA based on the following grounds: 28(1) they
were deprived of the opportunity to present evidence on their application
for a writ of preliminary injunction; and (2) the CA erred when it required
them to pay 12% interest per annum based on Section 2 of the Procedure
on Foreclosure, when the core of their First Complaint was not
excessiveness of the interest but the Banks supposed breach of their
obligations in the loan agreement.29
Respondent Bank, on the other hand, countered as follows: 30 (1)
petitioner Spouses Arevalo were not denied due process, since they were
accorded several opportunities to be heard on their application for the
issuance of an injunctive writ; (2) the CA correctly required petitioners to
pay the interest; and (3) petitioner Spouses Arevalo were guilty of forumshopping when they filed their Second Complaint. For forum-shopping,
respondent Bank likewise moved to hold
_______________
26 Supra note 21.
27 Rollo, pp. 290-299.
28 Rollo, p. 8.
29 Rollo, p. 27.
30 Rollo, pp. 279-301.
259
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 259

Bank
them in contempt,31 arguing that they had sought similar reliefs in their
Second Complaint with the trial court as in the present Petition.

Petitioners filed their Reply32 and Comment33 to the charges on contempt.
Based on the parties submissions, the following issues are presented
for the resolution of this Court:
Whether the requirement to pay 12% interest1. per annumbefore the
issuance of an injunctive writ to enjoin an impending foreclosure sale
is applicable to the instant case; and
Whether petitioner Spouses Arevalo are guilty of forum-shopping and
should consequently be punished for contempt.2.
Ruling of the Court
I.The
to
this
ment
annum before
an
an
sale is moot.
issue
case
to
injunctive
of
of
pay
the
the
12%
the
issuance
writ
impending
to
applicability
require-
interest per
of
enjoin
foreclosure
The Court rules that upon dismissal of the First Complaint by the trial
court on 27 October 2009,34 the issue of whether the writ of injunction
should issue has become moot. Although both parties failed to raise this
particular argument in their submissions, we deny the instant Petition on

this ground.
_______________
31 Id.
32 Rollo, pp. 307-320.
33 Rollo, pp. 334-347.
34 Supra note 20.
260
26
SUPREME COURT
0
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bank
A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or useful purpose that can be served in

passing upon the merits.35
There remains no actual controversy in the instant Petition because the
First Complaint has already been dismissed by the trial court. Upon its
dismissal, the question of the non-issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction necessarily died with it.
A writ of preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy. It is auxiliary
to, an adjunct of, and subject to the outcome of the main case. 36Thus, a writ
of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted upon dismissal of the main case,
any appeal therefrom notwithstanding, 37 as this Court emphasized
in Buyco v. Baraquia38 from which we quote:
The writ is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure
availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it

is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
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.
x x xx x xx x x
_______________
35 Tantoy, Sr. v. Hon. Judge Abrogar, 497 Phil. 615; 458 SCRA 301 (2005).
36 Bustamante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126371, 17 April 2002, 381 SCRA 171.
37 Golez v. Hon. Judge Leonidas, 194 Phil. 179; 107 SCRA 187 (1981).
38 G.R. No. 177486, 21 December 2009, 608 SCRA 699.
262
26
SUPREME COURT
2
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bank
The present case having been heard and found dismissible as it was in
fact dismissed, the writ of preliminary injunction is deemed lifted, its
purpose as a provisional remedy having been served, the appeal therefrom

notwithstanding.
Unionbank v. Court of Appeals enlightens:
xxx a 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. (Emphases supplied.)
39
There will be no practical value in resolving the question of the nonissuance of an injunctive writ in this case. Setting aside the assailed
Orders is manifestly pointless, considering that the First Complaint itself
has already been dismissed, and there is nothing left to enjoin. The
reversal of the assailed Orders would have a practical effect only if the
dismissal were set aside and the First Complaint reinstated. 40 In this case,
however, petitioner Spouses Arevalo admitted to the impossibility of the
reinstatement of the First Complaint when they filed their Second
Complaint.41
_______________
39 Id., at pp. 703-705.
40 Ley Construction & Development Corporation v. Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation, 393
Phil. 633; 339 SCRA 223 (2000).
41 Civil Case no. 10-0519 is anchored on an entirely distinct causes of action, one of which, is that
despite the total approved loan was already annotated on petitioners TCT No. 13168 pursuant to the real
estate mortgage, the respondent bank failed to release the full amount of loan to the petitioners on various
pretexts, thus, a substantial portion of the consideration of the real estate mortgage was not released to
petitioners resulting to their substantial prejudice. Thus, in Civil Case No. CV-09-0126 before Branch 258,
peti-
262
26
SUPREME COURT
2
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bank
Even petitioners plea that this Court give due course to the Petition for
a ruling on the proper application of the Procedure on Foreclosure 42cannot

compel us to resolve this issue.
The Constitution provides that judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable.43 The exercise of judicial power
requires an actual case calling for it. The courts have no authority to pass
upon issues through advisory opinions, or to resolve hypothetical or
feigned problems or friendly suits collusively arranged between parties
without real adverse interests.44Furthermore, courts do not sit to
adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however
intellectually challenging.45As a condition precedent to the exercise of
judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist. 46 An
actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution, as distinguished
from a hypothetical or abstract
_______________
tioners prayed for Specific Performance for the release to the latter of the P602,013.93 which the
respondent bank unjustifiably withheld from them, but instead proceeded with the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the subject property.
Since fulfillment is rendered legally impossible by the extrajudicial foreclosure already
conducted by the respondent bank, as in fact it may have already consolidated its title over
petitioners property, petitioners availed themselves of the remedy provided, for under
paragraph 2 of Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which states:
x x x He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment if the latter should
become impossible. (Emphases supplied.) (Rollo, pp. 335-336.)
42 Rollo, p. 319.
43 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 3.
44 Guingona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 415, 426; 292 SCRA 402, 413 (1998).
45 Id.
46 Id.
263
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 263

Bank
difference or dispute.47 There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can
be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and

jurisprudence.48
This Court cannot issue a mere advisory opinion in relation to the
applicability of the provisions of the Procedure on Foreclosure.
II.Petitioners
are
guilty
of
forum-
shopping.
Petitioners have committed two distinct

acts of forumshopping,49 namely: (1) petitioners willfully and deliberately went to
different courts to avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies founded
on similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs, and (2) they did
not comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second
Complaint within five days from its filing.
A.Petitioners
suits
while
acts
filed
based
seeking
proscribed
on forum-shopping.
multiple
on
similar
similar
by
the
facts
reliefs
rules
We rule that petitioners were guilty of willful and deliberate forumshopping when they filed their Second Complaint with the trial court
insofar as they undertook to obtain similar reliefs as those sought in the

instant Petition.
Respondent Bank argues that the rights asserted by petitioners, as well
as the reliefs petitioners seek in the instant
_______________
47 Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain (GRP), G.R. Nos. 183591, 183752, 183893 & 183591, 14 October 2008, 568 SCRA 402.
48 Id.
49 Sadang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140138, 11 October 2006, 504 SCRA 137.
264
26
SUPREME COURT
4
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bank
Petition, are identical to those raised in their Second Complaint. 50
Petitioners, on the other hand, counter that the disparity between the
two cases lies in the issue to be resolved. More particularly, they allege
that the issue in this Petition is the summary application of the payment
of 12% interest per annum as a precondition for the issuance of a writ, as
opposed to the issue in the Second Complaint involving the validity of the
real estate mortgage and compliance with the rules on the holding of the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale.51
Forum shopping is the act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves
of multiple judicial remedies in differentfora, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the
same essential facts and circumstances; and raising substantially similar
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court;
or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable
decision, if not in one court, then in another. 52The rationale against forumshopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in two different courts, for to do so would constitute abuse of
court processes which tends to degrade the administration of justice,
wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion
of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.53
In Yu v. Lim,54 this Court enumerated the requisites of forum-shopping,

as follows:
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentiaare present or where

a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis
pendentia requires the concurrence of the
_______________
50 Rollo, pp. 285-288.
51 Rollo, pp. 318, 340.
52 Pilipino Telephone Corp. v. Radiomarine Network, Inc., G.R. No. 152092, 04 August 2010, 626 SCRA 702.
53 Id.
54 G.R. No. 182291, 22 September 2010, 631 SCRA 172.
265
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 265

Bank
following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and
reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with
respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment
that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful,
would amount to res judicata in the other case.
55
What is essential in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the

vexation caused the courts and litigants by a party who asks different
courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on similar or related causes
and/or grant the same or substantially similar reliefs, in the process
creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered upon the
same issues.56
A comparison of the reliefs sought by petitioners in the instant Petition
and in their Second Complaint confirms that they are substantially similar
on two points: (1) revocation and cancellation of the Certificate of Sale and
(2) permanent injunction on any transfer and/or consolidation of title in
favor of respondent Bank. These similarities undoubtedly create the
possibility of conflicting decisions from different courts:
Instant Petition
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
most
that
Second Complaint
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully
prayed of the Honorable Court that
Instant Petition
immediately upon filing of this
petition, the same be given due
course, and an order issue, ex parte:
Second Complaint
pending consideration and hearing on
the principal reliefs herein prayed for,
a Temporary Restraining order (TRO)
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
be
_______________
55 Id.
56 Lim v. Vianzon, 529 Phil. 472; 497 SCRA 482 (2006).
57 Rollo, pp. 41-42.
266
266
SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Bank
A Resolution
be
issued (1)
directing
the
ExOfficio
Sheriff and
his Assisting
Sheriff to
undo,
cancel,
revoke the
Certificate
of Sale they
issued;
Enjoining
the Register
of Deeds of
Paraaque
(or any of
her
subordinates
,
agents,
representativ
es
and
persons
acting
in
their
issued
immediatelyrestrai
ning
and/or
stopping
the
defendants
ExOfficio
Sheriff
Atty. Jerry R.
Toledo and Deputy
Sheriff Paulo Jose
N.
Cusi
from
executing
and
issuing a final deed
of sale in favor of
the
defendant
bank and further
ordering
the
defendant
Registrar of Deeds
of Paraaque City
to
hold
in
abeyance
the
registration of the
final deed of sale
and
other
documents
of
consolidation
pending resolution
of this Honorable
266
behalf(2)
to
cease
and desist
from
allowing
any transfer
and/or
consolidatio
n
of
respondents
banks title
to
the
property in
questionand
an order be
issueddirecti
ng
the
Register of
Deeds
to
undo, cance
l and revoke
the
registration
of
the
Certificate
of Sale on
November
13,
2009
and other
proceedings
had
thereafter,
the petition
be given due
course and
judgment be
rendered as
follows:
1. Making
the
SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Court.
Plaintiffs
pray
for
the
following additional
reliefs:
After hearing on the
merits, the Real
Estate Mortgage be
declared
and
rescinded
and/or
null and void;1.
2.The
Certificate of Sale
[dated November
4, 2009] issued by
the
defendant
Sheriffs and its
subsequent
registration
on
November
13,
2009 with the
Registry of Deeds
be declared null
and void;
3.After
due
hearing,
the
preliminary
injunction
be
declared
permanent.x x x58
266
SUPREME
COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
injunction
permanent.
Issuing
a
writ
of
mandatory
injunction
for
the
respondent
2.ExOfficioSherif
f
toundo,
revoke and
cancel the
Certificate
of
Sale
issued
and/or
directing
the Register
of Deeds to
undo,
revoke and
cancel the
registration
of
the
Certificate
of
_______________
58 Rollo, pp. 298-299.
267
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 267

Bank
Sale
and/or
defer
any
consolidation of
title in favor of
respondent
bank pending
final resolution
(Emphases
supplied.)
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012
267
of this petition.
Reversing and
setting aside the
Decision of the
Court
of
Appeals dated
March 24, 2010
and Resolution
dated August 5,
2010.
3.57(Emphasis
supplied.)
As illustrated above, there is a clear violation of the rules on forumshopping, as the Court is being asked to grant substantially similar reliefs
as those that may also be granted by the trial court, in the process creating
a possibility of conflicting decisions.
We emphasize that the grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule
against forum-shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two
separate and contradictory decisions.59 To avoid any confusion, this Court
adheres strictly to the rules against forum shopping, and any violation of
these rules results in the dismissal of a case. 60 The acts committed and
described herein can possibly constitute direct contempt. 61
_______________
59 Guevara v. BPI Securities Corporation, G.R. No. 159786, 15 August 2006, 498 SCRA 613.
60 Dy v. Mandy Commodities Co., Inc., G.R. No. 171842, 22 July 2009, 593 SCRA 440.
61 5.SEC.Certification against forum shopping.The plaintiff or principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
268
26
8
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bank
B.
Petitioners
filing
plaint
violation
of
within
of
did
their
five
not
report
Second
(5)
their
days,
the
Com-
in
undertaking
to do so.
Aside from the fact that petitioners sought substantially similar reliefs
from different courts, they likewise failed to disclose to this Court the filing
of their Second Complaint within five (5) days from its filing, in violation of
their previous undertaking to do so.62
Every litigant is required to notify the court of the filing or pendency of
any other action or such other proceeding involving the same or similar
action or claim within five (5) days of learning of that fact. 63Petitioners
claim that it was merely due to inadvertence that they failed to disclose
the said filing within five (5) days, contrary to their undertaking. 64
_______________
claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to
the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission, of a false certification or
non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts
of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same
shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (Emphases supplied.) (Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5.)
62 Rollo, pp. 43, 317-319 and 341-343.
63 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 4, in relation to Rule 42, Sec. 2; Rule 7, Sec. 5.
64 Rollo, pp. 319 and 343.
269
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 269

Bank
This Court is not inclined to accept this self-serving explanation. We

cannot disregard the glaring fact that respondents had to call the attention
of petitioners to the said requirement before the latter admitted that they
had indeed filed their Second Complaint.
As previously established, petitioners have violated two (2) components
of forum-shopping, more particularly: (1) petitioners willfully and
deliberately went to different courts to avail themselves of multiple judicial
remedies founded on similar facts and raising substantially similar reliefs,
an act which may be punishable as direct contempt; 65 and (2) they did not
comply with their undertaking to report the filing of the Second Complaint
within five days from its filing. The latter action may also possibly be
construed as a separate count for indirect contempt.
While in a limited sense, petitioners have already been given the chance
to rebut the prayer to hold them in contempt, We hereby provide sufficient
avenue for them to explain themselves by requiring them to show cause,
within fifteen (15) days, why they should not be held in direct and indirect
contempt of court.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review filed by Spouses Daisy
Arevalo and Socrates M. Arevalo is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated
24 March 2010 and Resolution dated 05 August 2010 issued by the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110806 are AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, petitioners are required to SHOW CAUSE, within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of this Decision, why they should not be held in
contempt; more specifically: (a) for direct contempt of courtfor availing of
multiple judicial remedies founded on similar facts and raising
substantially similar reliefs from different courts; and (b) for indirect
contempt of
_______________
65 Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5;Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165835, 22 June 2005, 460 SCRA
600.
270
27
0
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bank
courtfor not complying with their undertaking to report the filing of the
Second Complaint within five days from its filing.

SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Perez and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.The provisional remedy of preliminary injunction may only be
resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious

consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard of
compensation. (G.G. Sportswear Manufacturing Corp. vs. Banco de Oro
Unibank, Inc., 612 SCRA 47 [2010])
The Supreme Court, by constitutional design is supreme in its task of
adjudication; judicial power is vested solely in the Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law; This constitutional scheme
cannot be thwarted or subverted through a criminal complaint that under
the guise of imputing a misdeed on the Court and its members seeks to
revive and re-litigate matters that have long been laid to rest by the Court.
(Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director
Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman, 614 SCRA 1 [2010])
o0o
April 23, 2012.G.R. No. 143264.*
LISAM ENTERPRISES, INC. represented by LOLITA A. SORIANO, and

LOLITA A. SORIANO, petitioners, vs. BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.
(formerly
PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL
**
BANK), LILIAN S. SORIANO, ESTATE OF LEANDRO A. SORIANO,
JR., REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEGASPI CITY, and JESUS L. SARTE,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Amendment of Pleadings; A responsive pleading
having been filed, amendments to the complaint may, therefore, be made only by leave of
court and no longer as a matter of right.It should be noted that respondents Lilian S.
Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr. already filed their Answer, to petitioners
complaint, and the claims being asserted were made against said parties. A responsive
pleading having been filed, amendments to the complaint may, therefore, be made only by
leave of court and no longer as a matter of right.
Same; Same; Same; Amendments are generally favored.Amendments are generally
favored, it would have been more fitting for the trial court to extend such liberality towards
petitioners by admitting the amended complaint which was filed before the order dismissing
the original complaint became final and executory. It is quite apparent that since trial
proper had not yet even begun, allowing the amendment would not have caused any delay.
Moreover, doing so would have served the higher interest of justice as this would provide the
best opportunity for the issues among all parties to be thoroughly threshed out and the
rights of all parties finally determined. Hence, the Court overrules the trial courts denial of
the motion to admit the amended complaint, and orders the admission of the same.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
** Per Manifestation dated January 26, 2012, filed by said respondent.
311
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,
2012
11
Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs.

Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.
Corporation Law; Derivative Suits; Requisites for Filing a Derivative Suit.In Hi-Yield
Realty, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, 590 SCRA 548 (2009), the Court enumerated the
requisites for filing a derivative suit, as follows: a) the party bringing the suit should be a
shareholder as of the time of the act or transaction complained of, the number of his shares
not being material; b) he has tried to exhaust intra-corporate remedies, i.e., has made a
demand on the board of directors for the appropriate relief but the latter has failed or
refused to heed his plea; and c) the cause of action actually devolves on the corporation, the
wrongdoing or harm having been, or being caused to the corporation and not to the
particular stockholder bringing the suit. A reading of the amended complaint will reveal
that all the foregoing requisites had been alleged therein. Hence, the amended complaint
remedied the defect in the original complaint and now sufficiently states a cause of action.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Amendment of Pleadings; Due to the changes made by
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, amendments may now substantially alter the cause of
action or defense.Respondent PCIB should not complain that admitting the amended
complaint after they pointed out a defect in the original complaint would be unfair to them.
They should have been well aware that due to the changes made by the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, amendments may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense. It
should not have been a surprise to them that petitioners would redress the defect in the
original complaint by substantially amending the same, which course of action is now
allowed under the new rules.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolution and order of the

Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Br. 4.
Perfecto Nixon C. Taborafor petitioner.
Emmanuel P.J. Tamasefor BDO Unibank, Inc. (PCIB).
Nicolas A. Ocampo for respondent Soriano.

311
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
311
Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

de Oro Unibank, Inc.
PERALTA,J.:
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, praying that the Resolution1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Legaspi City (RTC), dated November 11, 1999, dismissing petitioners
complaint, and its Order2dated May 15, 2000, denying herein petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Admit Amended Complaint, be
reversed and set aside.
The records reveal the following antecedent facts.
On August 13, 1999, petitioners filed a Complaint against respondents
for Annulment of Mortgage with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
& Preliminary Injunction with Damages with the RTC of Legaspi City.
Petitioner Lolita A. Soriano alleged that she is a stockholder of petitioner
Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LEI) and a member of its Board of Directors,
designated as its Corporate Secretary. The Complaint also alleged the
following:
Sometime in 1993, plaintiff LEI, in the course of its business operation, acquired by
purchase a parcel of residential land with improvement situated at Legaspi City, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37866, copy attached as Annex A, which property is more
particularly described as follows:4.
xxxx
On or about 28 March 1996, defendant Lilian S. Soriano and the late Leandro A. Soriano,
Jr., as husband and wife (hereafter Spouses Soriano), in their personal capacity and for
their own use and benefit, obtained a loan from defendant PCIB (Legaspi Branch) (now
known as Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.) in the total amount of P20 Million;5.
That as security for the payment of the aforesaid credit accommodation, the late Leandro A.
Soriano, Jr. and defendant Lilian S. Soriano, as president and treasurer, respectively of
plaintiff LEI, but6.
_______________
1 Penned by Judge Gregorio A. Consulta.
2 Id.
313
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
313

without authority and consent of the board of said plaintiff and with the use of a falsified
board resolution, executed a real estate mortgage on 28 March 1996, over the abovedescribed property of plaintiff LEI in favor of defendant PCIB, and had the same registered
with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Legaspi City, copy of the Real Estate Mortgage is
hereto attached and marked as Annex B, and made part hereof, to the prejudice of
plaintiffs;
That specifically, the Spouses Soriano, with intent to defraud and prejudice plaintiff LEI
and its stockholders, falsified the signatures of plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano as corporate
secretary and director of plaintiff LEI, in a document denominated as board resolution
purportedly issued by the board of plaintiff LEI on 6 November 1995, making it appear that
plaintiff LEIs Board met and passed a board resolution on said date authorizing the
Spouses Soriano to mortgage or encumber all or substantially all of the properties of
plaintiff LEI, when in fact and in truth, no resolution of that nature was ever issued by the
board of plaintiff LEI, nor a meeting was called to that effect, copy of the resolution in
question is hereto attached and marked as Annex C, and made part hereof;7.
That plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano as Corporate Secretary of plaintiff LEI, had never signed a
board resolution nor issued a Secretarys Certificate to the effect that on 6 November 1995 a
resolution was passed and approved by plaintiff LEI authorizing the Spouses Soriano as
president and treasurer, respectively, to mortgage the above-described property of plaintiff
LEI, neither did she appear personally before a notary public on 28 March 1996 to
acknowledge or attest to the issuance of a supposed board resolution issued by plaintiff LEI
on 6 November 1995;8.
That defendant PCIB, knowing fully well that the property being mortgaged by the Spouses
Soriano belongs to plaintiff LEI, a corporation, negligently and miserably failed to exercise
due care and prudence required of a banking institution. Specifically, defendant PCIB failed
to investigate and to delve into the propriety of the issuance of or due execution of subject
board resolution, which is the very foundation of the validity of subject real estate
mortgage. Further, it failed to verify the genuineness of the signatures appearing in said
board resolution nor to confirm the fact of its issuance with plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano, as
the corporate secretary of plaintiff LEI. Furthermore, the height of its negligence was
displayed when it disregarded or failed to notice that the questioned board resolution9.
314
314
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

with a Secretarys Certificate was notarized only on 28 March 1996 or after the lapse of
more than four (4) months from its purported date of issue on 6 November 1995. That these
circumstances should have put defendant PCIB on notice of the flaws and infirmities of the
questioned board resolution. Unfortunately, it negligently failed to exercise due care and
prudence expected of a banking institution;
That having been executed without authority of the board of plaintiff LEI said real estate
mortgage dated 28 March 1996 executed by the Spouses Soriano, as officers of plaintiff LEI
in favor of defendant PCIB, is the null and void and has no legal effect upon said plaintiff.
Consequently, said mortgage deed cannot be used nor resorted to by defendant PCIB
against subject property of plaintiff LEI as no right or rights whatsoever were created nor
granted thereunder by reason of its nullity;10.
Worst, sometime in August 1998, in order to remedy the defects in the mortgage transaction
entered by the Spouses Soriano and defendant PCIB, the former, with the unlawful
instigation of the latter, signed a document denominated as Deed of Assumption of Loans
and Mortgage Obligations and Amendment of Mortgage; wherein in said document,
plaintiff LEI was made to assume the P20 Million personal indebtedness of the Spouses
Soriano with defendant PCIB, when in fact and in truth it never so assumed the same as no
board resolution duly certified to by plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano as corporate secretary was
ever issued to that effect, copy of said Deed is hereto attached and marked as Annex D,
and made part hereof;11.
Moreover, to make it appear that plaintiff LEI had consented to the execution of said deed of
assumption of mortgage, the Spouses Soriano again, through the unlawful instigation and
connivance of defendant PCIB, falsified the signature of plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano as
corporate secretary of plaintiff LEI in a document denominated as Corporate Resolution to
Borrow, to make it appear that plaintiff LEI so authorized the Spouses Soriano to perform
said acts for the corporation, when in fact and in truth no such authority or resolution was
ever issued nor granted by plaintiff LEI, nor a meeting called and held for said purpose in
accordance with its By-laws; copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex E and
made part hereof;12.
That said irregular transactions of defendant Lilian S. Soriano and her husband Leandro A.
Soriano, Jr., on one hand, and defen-13.
315
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
315

Soriano, Jr., to free subject property of plaintiff LEI from such mortgage lien, by paying in
full their personal indebtedness to defendant PCIB in the principal sum of P20 Million.
However, said defendants, for reason only known to them, continued and still continue to
ignore said demands, to the damage and prejudice of plaintiffs;dant PCIB, on the other,
were discovered by plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano sometime in April 1999. That immediately
upon discovery, said plaintiff, for herself and on behalf and for the benefit of plaintiff LEI,
made demands upon defendants Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A.
Hence, on 25 June 1999, plaintiffs commenced a derivative suit against defendants Lilian S.
Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr., before the Securities and Exchange
Commission, docketed as SEC Case No. 06-99-6339 for Fraudulent Scheme and Unlawful
Machination with Damages in order to protect and preserve the rights of plaintiffs, copy of
said complaint is hereto attached as AnnexF;14.
That plaintiffs, in order to seek complete relief from the unauthorized mortgage transaction
between the Spouses Soriano and defendant PCIB, were further compelled to institute this
instant case to seek the nullification of the real estate mortgage dated 28 March 1999.
Consequently, plaintiffs were forced15. to retain the services of a lawyer with whom they
contracted to pay P100,000.00 as and for attorneys fee;
That unfortunately, the plaintiffs learned that on 30 July 1999, defendant Sarte, in his
capacity as Notary Public of Daraga, Albay and upon application of defendant PCIB, issued
a notice of Auction/Foreclosure Sale of the property subject of the mortgage in question and
has set the auction sale on 7 September 1999 x x x;16.
That by reason of the fraudulent and surreptitious schemes perpetrated by defendant Lilian
S. Soriano and her husband, the late Leandro A. Soriano, Jr., in unlawful connivance and
through the gross negligence of defendant PCIB, plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano, as stockholder,
suffered sleepless nights, moral shock, wounded feeling, hurt pride and similar injuries,
hence, should be awarded moral damages in the amount of P200,000.00.17.
After service of summons on all defendants, the RTC issued a

temporary restraining order on August 25, 1990 and, after
316
316
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
hearing, went on to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining

respondent PCIB (now known as Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.) from
proceeding with the auction sale of the subject property.
Respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr.
filed an Answer dated September 25, 1999, stating that the Spouses Lilian
and Leandro Soriano, Jr. were duly authorized by LEI to mortgage the
subject property; that proceeds of the loan from respondent PCIB were for
the use and benefit of LEI; that all notarized documents submitted to
PCIB by the Spouses Soriano bore the genuine signature of Lolita Soriano;
and that although the Spouses Soriano indeed received demands from
petitioner Lolita Soriano for them to pay the loan, they gave satisfactory
explanations to the latter why her demands could not be honored. It was,
likewise, alleged in said Answer that it was respondent Lilian Soriano who
should be entitled to moral damages and attorneys fees.
On September 28, 1999, respondent PCIB filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint on grounds of lack of legal capacity to sue, failure to state cause
of action, and litis pendencia. Petitioners filed an Opposition thereto, while
PCIBs co-defendants filed a Motion to Suspend Action.
On November 11, 1999, the RTC issued the first assailed Resolution
dismissing petitioners Complaint. Petitioners then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of said Resolution. While awaiting resolution of the
motion for reconsideration, petitioners also filed, on January 4, 2000, a
Motion to Admit Amended Complaint, amending paragraph 13 of the
original complaint to read as follows:
That said irregular transactions of defendant Lilian S. Soriano and her husband
Leandro A. Soriano, Jr., on one hand, and defendant PCIB, on the other, were discovered by
plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano sometime in April 1999. That immediately upon discovery, said
plaintiff, for herself and on behalf and for the benefit of plaintiff LEI, made demands upon
defendant Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr., to free subject
property of plaintiff LEI13.
317
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
317

from such mortgage lien, by paying in full their personal indebtedness to defendant PCIB in
the principal sum of P20 Million. However, said defendants, for reason only known to them,
continued and still continue to ignore said demands, to the damage and prejudice of
plaintiffs; that plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano likewise made demands upon the Board of
Directors of Lisam Enterprises, Inc., to make legal steps to protect the interest of the
corporation from said fraudulent transaction, but unfortunately, until now, no such legal
step was ever taken by the Board, hence, this action for the benefit and in behalf of the
corporation;
On May 15, 2000, the trial court issued the questioned Order denying
both the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion to Admit Amended
Complaint. The trial court held that no new argument had been raised by
petitioners in their motion for reconsideration to address the fact of
plaintiffs failure to allege in the complaint that petitioner Lolita A.
Soriano made demands upon the Board of Directors of Lisam Enterprises,
Inc. to take steps to protect the interest of the corporation against the
fraudulent acts of the Spouses Soriano and PCIB. The trial court further
ruled that the Amended Complaint can no longer be admitted, because the
same absolutely changed petitioners cause of action.
Petitioners filed the present petition with this Court, alleging that what
are involved are pure questions of law, to wit:
FIRST, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN
IT DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER LOLITA A.
SORIANO HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE AS SHE IS NOT A REAL PARTY-ININTEREST;
SECOND, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS ANOTHER
ACTION PENDING BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES FOR THE SAME CAUSE;
THIRD, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THE
318
318
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION;
FOURTH, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT DENIED THE ADMISSION OF PETITIONERS AMENDED COMPLAINT
FILED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AFTER THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS ISSUED
BUT BEFORE ITS FINALITY.
FIFTH, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ACTION,
INSTEAD OF MERELY SUSPENDING THE SAME FOLLOWING THE DOCTRINE LAID
DOWN IN UNION GLASS.
The petition is impressed with merit.
The Court shall first delve into the matter of the propriety of the denial
of the motion to admit amended complaint. Pertinent provisions of Rule 10
of the Rules of Court provide as follows:
2.Sec.Amendments as a matter of right.A party may amend his pleadings once as a
matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served x x x.
3Sec.Amendments by leave of court.Except as provided in the next preceding
section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave may
be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay. x x x
It should be noted that respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of

Leandro A. Soriano, Jr. already filed their Answer, to petitioners
complaint, and the claims being asserted were made against said parties.
A responsive pleading having been filed, amendments to the complaint
may, therefore, be made only by leave of court and no longer as a matter of
right. However, in Tiu v. Philippine Bank of Communications,4 the Court
discussed this rule at length, to wit:
_______________
3 Rollo, p. 5.
4 G.R. No. 151932, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 432.
319
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
319

x x x [A]fter petitioners have filed their answer, Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court
specifically allows amendment by leave of court. The said Section states:
3.SECTIONAmendments by leave of court.Except as provided in the next

preceding section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court.
But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made
with intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this section
shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and
an opportunity to be heard.
This Court has emphasized the import of Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure in Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, thus:
Interestingly, Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the
former rule in such manner that the phrase or that the cause of action or defense is
substantially altered was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. The clear
import of such amendment in Section 3, Rule 10 is that under the new rules, the
amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense. This
should only be true, however, when despite a substantial change or alteration in the
cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher
interests of substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable
objective of the rules which is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding.
The granting of leave to file amended pleading is a matter particularly addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court; and that discretion is broad, subject only to the
limitations that the amendments should not substantially change the cause of action or
alter the theory of the case, or that it was not made to delay the action. Nevertheless, as
enunciated inValenzuela, even if the amendment substantially alters the cause of action or
defense, such amendment could still be allowed when it is sought to serve the higher
interest of substantial justice, prevent delay, and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of actions and proceedings.
The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid a
multiplicity of suits and in order that
320
320
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

the real controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined,
and the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay. This liberality is
greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, especially in this case where the
amendment was made before the trial of the case, thereby giving the petitioners
all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial.
Furthermore, amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally
allowed in furtherance of justice in order that every case, may so far as possible, be
determined on its real facts and in order to speed up the trial of the case or prevent the
circuitry of action and unnecessary expense. That is, unless there are circumstances such
as inexcusable delay or the taking of the adverse party by surprise or the like, which might
justify a refusal of permission to amend.
Since, as explained above, amendments are generally favored, it would

have been more fitting for the trial court to extend such liberality towards
petitioners by admitting the amended complaint which was filed before the
order dismissing the original complaint became final and executory. It is
quite apparent that since trial proper had not yet even begun, allowing the
amendment would not have caused any delay. Moreover, doing so would
have served the higher interest of justice as this would provide the best
opportunity for the issues among all parties to be thoroughly threshed out
and the rights of all parties finally determined. Hence, the Court overrules
the trial courts denial of the motion to admit the amended complaint, and
orders the admission of the same.
With the amendment stating that plaintiff Lolita A. Soriano likewise
made demands upon the Board of Directors of Lisam Enterprises, Inc., to
make legal steps to protect the interest of the corporation from said
fraudulent transaction, but unfortunately, until now, no such legal step
was ever taken by the Board, hence, this action for the benefit and in
behalf of the corporation, does the amended complaint now
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 444-445. (Emphasis supplied.)
321
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
321

sufficiently state a cause of action? In Hi-Yield Realty, Incorporated v.

Court of Appeals,6 the Court enumerated the requisites for filing a
derivative suit, as follows:
the party bringing the suit should be a shareholder as of the time of the act or
transaction complained of, the number of his shares not being material;a)
he has tried to exhaust intra-corporate remedies,b) i.e., has made a demand on the
board of directors for the appropriate relief but the latter has failed or refused to heed his
plea; and
the cause of action actually devolves on the corporation, the wrongdoing or harm having
been, or being caused to the corporation and not to the particular stockholder bringing the
suit.c)
A reading of the amended complaint will reveal that all the foregoing
requisites had been alleged therein. Hence, the amended complaint
remedied the defect in the original complaint and now sufficiently states a
cause of action.
Respondent PCIB should not complain that admitting the amended
complaint after they pointed out a defect in the original complaint would
be unfair to them. They should have been well aware that due to the
changes made by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, amendments may now
substantially alter the cause of action or defense. It should not have been a
surprise to them that petitioners would redress the defect in the original
complaint by substantially amending the same, which course of action is
now allowed under the new rules.
The next question then is, upon admission of the amended complaint,
would it still be proper for the trial court to dismiss the complaint? The
Court answers in the negative.
Saura v. Saura, Jr.8 is closely analogous to the present case.
In Saura,9 the petitioners therein, stockholders of a
_______________
6 G.R. No. 168863, June 23, 2009, 590 SCRA 548.
7 Id., at p. 556.
8 G.R. No. 136159, September 1, 1999, 313 SCRA 465.
9 Supra.
322
322
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

corporation, sold a disputed real property owned by the corporation,

despite the existence of a case in the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) between stockholders for annulment of subscription, recovery of
corporate assets and funds,etc. The sale was done without the knowledge
of the other stockholders, thus, said stockholders filed a separate case for
annulment of sale, declaration of nullity of deed of exchange, recovery of

possession, etc., against the stockholders who took part in the sale, and the
buyer of the property, filing said case with the regular court (RTC).
Petitioners therein also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
annulment of sale filed with the RTC, on the ground of forum shopping,
lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, andlitis pendentia among
others. The Court held that the complaint for annulment of sale was
properly filed with the regular court, because the buyer of the property had
no intra-corporate relationship with the stockholders, hence, the buyer
could not be joined as party-defendant in the SEC case. To include said
buyer as a party-defendant in the case pending with the SEC would violate
the then existing rule on jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. The
Court also struck down the argument that there was forum shopping,
ruling that the issue of recovery of corporate assets and funds pending
with the SEC is a totally different issue from the issue of the validity of the
sale, so a decision in the SEC case would not amount to res judicata in the
case before the regular court. Thus, the Court merely ordered the
suspension of the proceedings before the RTC until the final outcome of the
SEC case.
The foregoing pronouncements of the Court are exactly in point with the
issues in the present case. Here, the complaint is for annulment of
mortgage with the mortgagee bank as one of the defendants, thus, as held
in Saura,10 jurisdiction over said complaint is lodged with the regular
courts because the
_______________
10 Supra.
323
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
323

mortgagee bank has no intra-corporate relationship with the stockholders.

There can also be no forum shopping, because there is no identity of
issues. The issue being threshed out in the SEC case is the due execution,
authenticity or validity of board resolutions and other documents used to
facilitate the execution of the mortgage, while the issue in the case filed by
petitioners with the RTC is the validity of the mortgage itself executed
between the bank and the corporation, purportedly represented by the
spouses Leandro and Lilian Soriano, the President and Treasurer of
petitioner LEI, respectively. Thus, there is no reason to dismiss the
complaint in this case.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Resolution of the Regional Trial
Court of Legaspi City, Branch 4, dated November 11, 1999, dismissing
petitioners complaint in Civil Case No. 9729, and its Order dated May 15,
2000, denying herein petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to
Admit Amended Complaint, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 4, is hereby DIRECTED to
ADMIT the Amended Complaint.
Considering further, that this case has been pending for some time and,
under R.A. No. 8799, it is now the regular courts which have jurisdiction
over intra-corporate disputes, the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City,
Branch 4 is hereby DIRECTED to PROCEED with dispatch in trying Civil
Case No. 9729.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.,
concur.
Resolution and order reversed and set aside.

Notes.The rule on amendment of pleadings need not be applied
rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting

party. (Bormaheco, Incorporated vs. Malayan Insurance Company,
Incorporated, 625 SCRA 309 [2010])324
324
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

An amended complaint that changes the plaintiffs cause of action is

technically a new complaint; The action is deemed filed on the date of the
filing of such amended pleading, not on the date of the filing of its original
version; An amendment supplements or amplifies the facts previously
alleged, does not affect the reckoning date of filing based on the original
complaint. (Dionisio vs. Linsangan, 644 SCRA 424 [2011])
April 23, 2012.G.R. No. 175042.*
DANILO A. DU, petitioner,vs. VENANCIO R. JAYOMA, then Municipal

Mayor of Mabini, Bohol, VICENTE GULLE, JR., JOVENIANO MIANO,
WILFREDO MENDEZ, AGAPITO VALLESPIN, RENE BUCIO, JESUS
TUTOR, CRESCENCIO BERNALES, EDGARDO YBANEZ, and REY
PAGALAN, then members of theSangguniang Bayan (SB) of Mabini,
Bohol, respondents.
Remedial Law; Cause of Action; Elements of a Cause of Action; Words and Phrases; A
cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.A cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a
right of another. Corollarily, the essential elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in
favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of the defendant in violation of the plaintiffs right with a
resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may file an action for the
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
Administrative Law; Local Government Code; Cockpits and Cockfighting; It is the
Sangguniang Bayan which is empowered to authorize and license the establishment,
operation and maintenance of cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and commercial breeding
of gamecocks.Under Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the LGC, it is the Sangguniang Bayanwhich
is empowered to authorize and license the establishment, operation and maintenance of
cockpits, and regulate cockfighting and commercial breeding of gamecocks. Considering
that no public bidding was conducted for the operation of a cockpit from January 1, 1993 to
December
31,
1997,
petitioner
cannot
claim
that
he
was
duly
authorized
by
the Sangguniang Bayan to operate his cockpit in the municipality for the period January 1,
1997 to December 31, 1997. Respondent members of the Sangguniang Bayan, therefore, had
every reason to suspend the operation of petitioners cockpit by enacting Municipal
Resolution No. 065, series of 1997. As the chief executive of the municipal government,
respon_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
334
3
34
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Du vs. Jayoma
dent mayor was duty-bound to enforce the suspension of the operation of petitioners
cockpit pursuant to the said Resolution.
Same; Same; Same; It is well enshrined in our jurisprudence that a license authorizing
the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of which the holder may not be
deprived without due process of law, but a mere privilege that may be revoked when public
interests so require.It is well enshrined in our jurisprudence that a license authorizing
the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of which the holder may not be
deprived without due process of law, but a mere privilege that may be revoked when public
interests so require. Having said that, petitioners allegation that he was deprived of due
process has no leg to stand on.
Same; Same; Same; Damages; Without any legal right to operate a cockpit in the
municipality, petitioner is not entitled to damagesinjury alone does not give petitioner the
right to recover damages; he must also have a right of action for the legal wrong inflicted by
the respondents.Without any legal right to operate a cockpit in the municipality,
petitioner is not entitled to damages. Injury alone does not give petitioner the right to
recover damages; he must also have a right of action for the legal wrong inflicted by the
respondents. We need not belabor that in order that the law will give redress for an act
causing damage, there must bedamnum et injuriathat act must be not only hurtful, but
wrongful.

Court of Appeals.
Lord M. Marapao for petitioner.

Oscar B. Glovasa for respondents.
DEL CASTILLO,J.:
In the absence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff, there can be no
cause of action.335
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
335
Du vs. Jayoma
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court assails the Decision2 dated July 11, 2006 and the Resolution3dated
October 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00492.
Factual Antecedents
On July 7, 1988, theSangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Mabini,
Bohol, enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 1, series of 1988,4 requiring the
conduct of a public bidding for the operation of a cockpit in the said
municipality every four years.
For the period January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992, the winning
bidder was Engr. Edgardo Carabuena. 5However, due to his failure to
comply with the legal requirements for operating a cockpit,
the Sangguniang Bayan on December 1, 1988 adopted Resolution No. 127,
series of 1988,6 authorizing petitioner Danilo Du to continue his cockpit
operation until the winning bidder complies with the legal requirements. 7
On July 9, 1997, upon discovering that petitioner has been operating his
cockpit in violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 1, series of 1988,
theSangguniang Bayan passed Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of

1997,8suspending petitioners cockpit operation effective upon approval. 9
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-107 with Annexes A to J-1 inclusive.
2 Id., at pp. 85-93; penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale and concurred in by Associate
Justices Vicente L. Yap and Romeo F. Barza.
3 Id., at pp. 104-105; penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale and concurred in by Associate
Justices Romeo F. Barza and Antonio L. Villamor.
4 Id., at p. 40.
5 Id., at p. 86.
6 Id., at p. 41.
7 Id., at p. 86.
8 Records, p. 8.
9 Rollo, pp. 86-87.
336
33
6
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Du vs. Jayoma
On July 11, 1997, pursuant to Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of

1997, respondent Venancio R. Jayoma, then Mayor of Mabini, in a
letter,10 ordered petitioner to desist from holding any cockfighting activity
effective immediately.11
Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed with Branch 51 of the Regional Trial

Court (RTC) of Bohol, a Petition for Prohibition, 12docketed as Special Civil
Action No. 4, against respondent mayor and nine members of
theSangguniang Bayan of Mabini, namely: Vicente Gulle, Jr., Joveniano
Miano, Wilfredo Mendez, Agapito Vallespin, Rene Bucio, Jesus Tutor,
Crescencio Bernales, Edgardo Ybanez and Rey Pagalan. Petitioner prayed
that a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order be
issued to prevent respondents from suspending his cockpit
operation.13 Petitioner claimed that he has a business permit to operate
until December 31, 1997;14and that the Municipal Resolution No. 065,
series of 1997, was unlawfully issued as it deprived him of due process. 15
In their Answer,16respondents interposed that under the Local
Government Code (LGC) of 1991, the power to authorize and license the
establishment, operation and maintenance of a cockpit is lodged in
theSangguniang Bayan;17 that respondent mayor, in ordering the
suspension of petitioners cockpit operation, was merely exercising his
executive power to regulate the establishment of cockpits in the
municipality, pursuant to the ordinances and resolutions enacted by
the Sangguniang Bayan;18and that Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of
1997, does not need to be approved by the Sang_______________
10 Records, p. 7.
11 Rollo, pp. 87-88.
12 Id., at pp. 29-33.
13 Id., at p. 32.
14 Id., at p. 29.
15 Id., at pp. 31-32.
16 Id., at pp. 34-39.

17 Id., at p. 35.
18 Id.
337
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
337
Du vs. Jayoma
guniang Panlalawiganbecause it is not an ordinance but an expression of

sentiments of theSangguniang Bayan of Mabini.19
On October 22, 1997, a Temporary Restraining Order 20 was issued by the
RTC enjoining respondents from suspending the cockpit operation of
petitioner until further orders from the court.21
The Petition for Prohibition was later amended 22 to include damages,
which the RTC admitted in an Order23 dated January 21, 1998.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On October 5, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision 24 in favor of petitioner,
to wit:
WHEREFORE, and on the ground that petitioner was able to prove his case with
preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and
against the respondents, ordering the respondents jointly and severally to pay the
petitioner:
The amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) in the concept of moral damages;
1.
The amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) in the concept of unearned income
considering the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner [that] he lost Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000.00) for each of the fifteen (15) Sundays that his cockpit was closed as its operation
was ordered suspended by the respondent. By mathematical computation P4,000.00 x 15
amounts to P60,000.00;2.
_______________
19 Id.
20 Records, p. 54.
21 Rollo, p. 88.
22 Id., at pp. 44-50.
23 Id., at p. 51.
24 Id., at pp. 52-61; penned by Executive Presiding Judge Patsita Sarmiento-Gamutan.
338
33
8
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Du vs. Jayoma
The amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as exemplary damages to deter other
public officials from committing similar acts;3.

The amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as attorneys fees, and to pay the
cost.4.
SO ORDERED.
25
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA reversed the Decision of the RTC. According to the

CA, petitioner did not acquire a vested right to operate a cockpit in the
municipality as he was only granted a temporary privilege by
theSangguniang Bayan.26Hence, there being no right in esse, petitioner is
not entitled to damages.27 Thus, the dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The
assailed decision granting petitioner the award of damages is SET ASIDE and the petition
filed by petitioner against respondents is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
28
Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a

Resolution29 dated October 4, 2006.
Issue
Hence, the instant petition raising the core issue of whether the CA
erred in finding that petitioner is not entitled to damages. 30
_______________
25 Id., at p. 61.
26 Id., at pp. 91-92.
27 Id.
28 Id., at pp. 92-93.
29 Id., at pp. 104-105.
30 Id., at pp. 146-147 and 169.
339
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
339
Du vs. Jayoma
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioner contends that Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997,
is ultra vires as it was maliciously, hastily, and unlawfully enforced by
respondent mayor two days after its passage without the review or
approval of theSangguniang Panlalawiganof Bohol.31 He alleges that
respondents suspended the operation of his cockpit without due process
and that the suspension was politically motivated. 32 In addition, he claims
that as a result of the incident, he is entitled to actual, moral and
exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees.33
Respondents Arguments
Echoing the ruling of the CA, respondents insist that petitioner is not
entitled to damages because he did not acquire a vested right to operate a
cockpit in the municipality.34 They also maintain that the suspension of
petitioners cockpit operation was pursuant to law and prevailing
ordinance.35
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
A cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another.36Corollarily, the essential elements of a cause of
action are: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part
of the defendant to respect such right; and (3) an act or omission on the
part of the defendant in violation of the plain_______________
31 Id., at p. 148.
32 Id.
33 Id., at pp. 148-149.
34 Id., at pp. 169-172.
35 Id.
36 RULES OF COURT, Rule 2, Section 2.
340
34
0
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Du vs. Jayoma
tiffs right with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the
latter may file an action for the recovery of damages or other appropriate
relief. 37
Petitioner
has
no
legal
right
to
operate a cockpit.
In this case, we find that petitioner has no cause of action against the
respondents as he has no legal right to operate a cockpit in the
municipality. Under Resolution No. 127, series of 1988, theSangguniang
Bayan allowed him to continue to operate his cockpit only because the
winning bidder for the period January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992 failed
to comply with the legal requirements for operating a cockpit. Clearly,
under the said resolution, petitioners authority to operate the cockpit
would end on December 31, 1992 or upon compliance by the winning
bidder with the legal requirements for operating a cockpit, whichever
comes first. As we see it, the only reason he was able to continue operating
until July 1997 was because theSangguniang Bayan of Mabini failed to

monitor the status of the cockpit in their municipality.
And even if he was able to get a business permit from respondent mayor
for the period January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997, this did not give him
a license to operate a cockpit. Under Section 447(a)(3)(v) of the LGC, it is
the Sangguniang Bayan which is empowered to authorize and license the
establishment, operation and maintenance of cockpits, and regulate
cockfighting and commercial breeding of gamecocks. Considering that no
public bidding was conducted for the operation of a cockpit from January
1, 1993 to December 31, 1997, petitioner cannot claim that he was duly
authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan to operate his cockpit in the
municipality for the period January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997.
Respondent members of theSangguniang Bayan, therefore,
_______________
37 Soloil, Inc. v. Philippine Coconut Authority, G.R. No. 174806, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 185, 190.
341
VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012
341
Du vs. Jayoma
had every reason to suspend the operation of petitioners cockpit by

enacting Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997. As the chief
executive of the municipal government, respondent mayor was duty-bound
to enforce the suspension of the operation of petitioners cockpit pursuant
to the said Resolution.
It bears stressing that no evidence was presented to show that upon
review by theSangguniang Panlalawiganof Bohol, the resolution was
declared invalid or that the resolution was issued beyond the powers of
theSangguniang Bayan or mayor. Jurisprudence consistently holds that an
ordinance, or in this case a resolution, is presumed valid in the absence of
evidence showing that it is not in accordance with the law. 38 Hence, we
find no reason to invalidate Municipal Resolution No. 065, series of 1997.
License
to
operate
cockpit
is a mere privilege.
In addition, it is well enshrined in our jurisprudence that a license
authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of
which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law, but a
mere privilege that may be revoked when public interests so
require.39Having said that, petitioners allegation that he was deprived of
due process has no leg to stand on.
Petitioner not entitled to damages
Without any legal right to operate a cockpit in the municipality,
petitioner is not entitled to damages. Injury alone does not give petitioner
the right to recover damages; he must also have a right of action for the
legal wrong inflicted by the re_______________
38 Judge Leynes v. Commission on Audit, 463 Phil. 557, 580; 418 SCRA 180, 203 (2003).
39 Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal, 56 Phil. 123, 132 (1931).
342
34
2
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Du vs. Jayoma
spondents.40 We need not belabor that in order that the law will give
redress for an act causing damage, there must be damnum et injuriathat
act must be not only hurtful, but wrongful.41
All told, we find no error on the part of the CA in dismissing petitioners
case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision
dated July 11, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 4, 2006 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00492 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corona
(C.J.,
Chairperson),
Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
Leonardo-De
Castro,
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.Cockfighting, orsabong in the local parlance, has a long and
storied tradition in our culture and was prevalent even during the Spanish
occupationwhile it is a form of gambling, the morality thereof or the
wisdom in legalizing it is not a justiciable issue. (Teves vs. Commission on
Elections, 587 SCRA 1 [2009])
In resolving whether the complaint states a cause of action or not, only

the facts alleged in the complaint are considered. (Macaslang vs. Zamora,
649 SCRA 92 [2011])
o0o
_______________
40 Tan v. Perea, 492 Phil. 200, 210; 452 SCRA 53, 64-65 (2005).
41 Id
April 23, 2012.G.R. No. 179488.*
COSCO PHILIPPINES SHIPPING,

INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.
INC.,
petitioner,
vs. KEMPER
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Certification Against Forum Shopping; The

certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties. If, for any
reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have
been duly authorized.We have consistently held that the certification against forum
shopping must be signed by the principal parties. If, for any reason, the principal party
cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized.
With respect to a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for
and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the
facts required to be disclosed in such document.
Corporation Law; Actions; Board of Directors; The power of a corporation to sue and be
sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In
turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be performed only
by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific act of
the board of directors.A corporation has no power, except those expressly conferred on it
by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a
corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized
officers and agents. Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and be
sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers.
In turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be performed
only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific
act of the board of directors.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Certification Against Forum Shopping; Only
individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of nonforum shopping on behalf of
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
344
3
44
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cosco Philippines Shipping,

Inc. vs. Kemper Insurance
Company
a corporation.In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants and Stewards
Association of the Philippines (FASAP), 479 SCRA 605 (2006), we ruled that only
individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of nonforum shopping on behalf of a corporation. We also required proof of such authority to be
presented. The petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted
unaccompanied by proof of the signatorys authority.
Same; Same; Same; The lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not
curable by mere amendment of the complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice.In the present case, since respondent is a corporation, the
certification must be executed by an officer or member of the board of directors or by one
who is duly authorized by a resolution of the board of directors; otherwise, the complaint
will have to be dismissed. The lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not
curable by mere amendment of the complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping
signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said
signatory is authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the corporation.
Same; Same; Same; If a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not
authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not
produce any legal effect.InTamondong v. Court of Appeals, 444 SCRA 509 (2004), we held
that if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so,
the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal
effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff. Accordingly, since Atty. Lat was not duly
authorized by respondent to file the complaint and sign the verification and certification
against forum shopping, the complaint is considered not filed and ineffectual, and, as a
necessary consequence, is dismissable due to lack of jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Courts; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are
invested for administering justice; that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the
court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties.Jurisdiction is the power with which
345
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

2012
3
45
Cosco Philippines Shipping,

Inc. vs. Kemper Insurance
Company
courts are invested for administering justice; that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In
order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first
be subjected to the courts jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with
the RTC, Branch 8, Manila, the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
respondent.

Court of Appeals.
Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma & Carbonell for
petitioner.
Rodolfo A. Lat Law Officefor respondent.
PERALTA,J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 and Resolution2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 75895, entitled Kemper

Insurance Company v. Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. The CA Decision
reversed and set aside the Order dated March 22, 2002 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Manila, which granted the Motion to Dismiss
filed by petitioner Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc., and ordered that the
case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
The antecedents are as follows:
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
and Mario L. Guaria III, concurring; Rollo, pp. 31-38.
2 Id., at pp. 40-41.
346
346
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc.

vs. Kemper Insurance Company
Respondent Kemper Insurance Company is a foreign insurance company

based in Illinois, United States of America (USA) with no license to engage
in business in the Philippines, as it is not doing business in the
Philippines, except in isolated transactions; while petitioner is a domestic
shipping company organized in accordance with Philippine laws.
In 1998, respondent insured the shipment of imported frozen boneless
beef (owned by Genosi, Inc.), which was loaded at a port in Brisbane,
Australia, for shipment to Genosi, Inc. (the importer-consignee) in the
Philippines. However, upon arrival at the Manila port, a portion of the
shipment was rejected by Genosi, Inc. by reason of spoilage arising from

the alleged temperature fluctuations of petitioners reefer containers.
Thus, Genosi, Inc. filed a claim against both petitioner shipping
company and respondent Kemper Insurance Company. The claim was
referred to McLarens Chartered for investigation, evaluation, and
adjustment of the claim. After processing the claim documents, McLarens
Chartered recommended a settlement of the claim in the amount of
$64,492.58, which Genosi, Inc. (the consignee-insured) accepted.
Thereafter, respondent paid the claim of Genosi, Inc. (the insured) in
the amount of $64,492.58. Consequently, Genosi, Inc., through its General
Manager, Avelino S. Mangahas, Jr., executed a Loss and Subrogation
Receipt3 dated September 22, 1999, stating that Genosi, Inc. received from
respondent the amount of $64,492.58 as the full and final satisfaction
compromise, and discharges respondent of all claims for losses and
expenses sustained by the property insured, under various policy numbers,
due to spoilage brought about by machinery breakdown which occurred on
October 25, November 7 and 10, and December 5, 14, and 18, 1998; and, in
consideration thereof, subrogates respondent to the claims of
_______________
3 Records, p. 10.
347
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

2012
347

Genosi, Inc. to the extent of the said amount. Respondent then made
demands upon petitioner, but the latter failed and refused to pay the said
amount.
Hence, on October 28, 1999, respondent filed a Complaint for Insurance
Loss and Damages4 against petitioner before the trial court, docketed as
Civil Case No. 99-95561, entitledKemper Insurance Company v. Cosco
Philippines Shipping, Inc. Respondent alleged that despite repeated
demands to pay and settle the total amount of US$64,492.58, representing
the value of the loss, petitioner failed and refused to pay the same, thereby
causing damage and prejudice to respondent in the amount of
US$64,492.58; that the loss and damage it sustained was due to the fault
and negligence of petitioner, specifically, the fluctuations in the
temperature of the reefer container beyond the required setting which was
caused by the breakdown in the electronics controller assembly; that due
to the unjustified failure and refusal to pay its just and valid claims,
petitioner should be held liable to pay interest thereon at the legal rate
from the date of demand; and that due to the unjustified refusal of the
petitioner to pay the said amount, it was compelled to engage the services
of a counsel whom it agreed to pay 25% of the whole amount due as
attorneys fees. Respondent prayed that after due hearing, judgment be
rendered in its favor and that petitioner be ordered to pay the amount of
US$64,492.58, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the prevailing
foreign exchange rate, or a total of P2,594,513.00, with interest thereon at
the legal rate from date of demand, 25% of the whole amount due as
attorneys fees, and costs.
In its Answer5 dated November 29, 1999, petitioner insisted, among
others, that respondent had no capacity to sue since it was doing business
in the Philippines without the required license; that the complaint has
prescribed and/or is
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 1-4.

5 Id., at pp. 13-19.
348
348
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

barred by laches; that no timely claim was filed; that the loss or damage
sustained by the shipments, if any, was due to causes beyond the carriers
control and was due to the inherent nature or insufficient packing of the
shipments and/or fault of the consignee or the hired stevedores or arrastre
operator or the fault of persons whose acts or omissions cannot be the
basis of liability of the carrier; and that the subject shipment was
discharged under required temperature and was complete, sealed, and in
good order condition.
During the pre-trial proceedings, respondents counsel proffered and
marked its exhibits, while petitioners counsel manifested that he would
mark his clients exhibits on the next scheduled pre-trial. However, on
November 8, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, 6contending that
the same was filed by one Atty. Rodolfo A. Lat, who failed to show his
authority to sue and sign the corresponding certification against forum
shopping. It argued that Atty. Lats act of signing the certification against
forum shopping was a clear violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules
of Court.
In its Order7 dated March 22, 2002, the trial court granted petitioners
Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, ruling that it
is mandatory that the certification must be executed by the petitioner

himself, and not by counsel. Since respondents counsel did not have a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to act on its behalf, hence, the
certification against forum shopping executed by said counsel was fatally
defective and constituted a valid cause for dismissal of the complaint.
Respondents Motion for Reconsideration8 was denied by the trial court
in an Order9 dated July 9, 2002.
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 119-122.
7 Id., at pp. 141-142.
8 Id., at pp. 145-147.
9 Id., at pp. 171-172.
349
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

2012
349

On appeal by respondent, the CA, in its Decision 10dated March 23, 2007,
reversed and set aside the trial courts order. The CA ruled that the
required certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and that the same
must be signed by the plaintiff or principal party concerned and not by
counsel; and in case of corporations, the physical act of signing may be
performed in behalf of the corporate entity by specifically authorized
individuals. However, the CA pointed out that the factual circumstances of
the case warranted the liberal application of the rules and, as such,
ordered the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration11 was later denied by the CA in
the Resolution12 dated September 3, 2007.
Hence, petitioner elevated the case to this Court viaPetition for Review
onCertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with the following issues:
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT ATTY. RODOLFO
LAT WAS PROPERLY AUTHORIZED BY THE RESPONDENT TO SIGN THE
CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS
THAT:
THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (SPA)
APPOINTING ATTY. LAT AS RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT WAS MERELY AN
UNDERWRITER OF THE RESPONDENT WHO HAS NOT SHOWN PROOF THAT HE
WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RESPONDENT TO DO SO.
A)
THE POWERS GRANTED TO ATTY. LAT REFER TO [THE AUTHORITY TO
REPRESENT DURING THE] PRE-TRIAL [STAGE] AND DO NOT COVER THE
SPECIFIC POWER TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE.B)
_______________
10 CA Rollo, pp. 74-81.
11 Id., at pp. 86-95.
12 Id., at pp. 105-106.
13 Rollo, p. 15.
350
13
350
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to submit any board resolution

or secretarys certificate authorizing Atty. Lat to institute the complaint
and sign the certificate of non-forum shopping on its behalf. Petitioner
submits that since respondent is a juridical entity, the signatory in the
complaint must show proof of his or her authority to sign on behalf of the
corporation. Further, the SPA14 dated May 11, 2000, submitted by Atty.
Lat, which was notarized before the Consulate General of Chicago, Illinois,
USA, allegedly authorizing him to represent respondent in the pre-trial
and other stages of the proceedings was signed by one Brent Healy
(respondents underwriter), who lacks authorization from its board of
directors.
In its Comment, respondent admitted that it failed to attach in the
complaint a concrete proof of Atty. Lats authority to execute the certificate
of non-forum shopping on its behalf. However, there was subsequent
compliance as respondent submitted an authenticated SPA empowering
Atty. Lat to represent it in the pre-trial and all stages of the proceedings.
Further, it averred that petitioner is barred by laches from questioning the
purported defect in respondents certificate of non-forum shopping.
The main issue in this case is whether Atty. Lat was properly authorized
by respondent to sign the certification against forum shopping on its
behalf.
The petition is meritorious.
We have consistently held that the certification against forum shopping

must be signed by the principal parties. 15 If, for any reason, the principal
party cannot sign the petition, the
_______________
14 Records, pp. 148-149.
15 Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 156905, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 343,
351;Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147217, October 7, 2004, 440 SCRA
200, 205.
351
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

2012
351

one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. 16 With respect to
a corporation, the certification against forum shopping may be signed for
and on its behalf, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal
knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document. 17 A
corporation has no power, except those expressly conferred on it by the
Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence.
In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors
and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, it has been observed
that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged
with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers. In turn,
physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be
performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by
corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of directors. 18
In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants and Stewards

Association of the Philippines (FASAP),19 we ruled that only individuals
vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate
of non-forum shopping on behalf of a corporation. We also required proof of
such authority to be presented. The petition is subject to dismissal if a
certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatorys
authority.
In the present case, since respondent is a corporation, the certification
must be executed by an officer or member of the board of directors or by
one who is duly authorized by a resolution of the board of directors;
otherwise, the complaint will
_______________
16 Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 178989, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA
116, 132.
17 Athena Computers, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 156905, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 343, 351.
18 Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 161838, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 491,
498.
19 G.R. No. 143088, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 605, 608.
352
352
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

have to be dismissed.20 The lack of certification against forum shopping is

generally not curable by mere amendment of the complaint, but shall be a
cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. 21 The same rule
applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on
behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said
signatory is authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the corporation. 22
_______________
20 Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158397, November 26, 2004, 444 SCRA 509, 520-521.
21 Section 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SEC.5.Certification against forum shopping.The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a
sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission
of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts
of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions. (Emphasis supplied.)
22 Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc.,supra note 18, at p. 499.
353
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

2012
353

There is no proof that respondent, a private corporation, authorized

Atty. Lat, through a board resolution, to sign the verification and
certification against forum shopping on its behalf. Accordingly, the
certification against forum shopping appended to the complaint is fatally
defective, and warrants the dismissal of respondents complaint for
Insurance Loss and Damages (Civil Case No. 99-95561) against petitioner.
In Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., 23 the Court cited
instances wherein the lack of authority of the person making the
certification of non-forum shopping was remedied through subsequent
compliance by the parties therein. Thus,
[w]hile there were instances where we have allowed the filing of a certification against nonforum shopping by someone on behalf of a corporation without the accompanying proof of
authority at the time of its filing, we did so on the basis of a special circumstance or
compelling reason. Moreover, there was a subsequent compliance by the submission of the
proof of authority attesting to the fact that the person who signed the certification was duly
authorized.
In China Banking Corporation v. Mondragon International Philippines, Inc., the CA
dismissed the petition filed by China Bank, since the latter failed to show that its bank
manager who signed the certification against non-forum shopping was authorized to do so.
We reversed the CA and said that the case be decided on the merits despite the failure to
attach the required proof of authority, since the board resolution which was subsequently
attached recognized the pre-existing status of the bank manager as an authorized
signatory.
In Abaya Investments Corporation v. Merit Philippines, where the complaint before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila was instituted by petitioners Chairman and President,
Ofelia Abaya, who signed the verification and certification against non-forum shopping
without proof of authority to sign for the corporation, we also relaxed the rule. We did so
taking into consideration the merits of the case and to avoid a re-litigation of the issues and
further delay the administration of justice, since the case had already been de_______________
23 Supra note 18.
354
354
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED

cided by the lower courts on the merits. Moreover, Abayas authority to sign the certification
was ratified by the Board.
24
Contrary to the CAs finding, the Court finds that the circumstances of
this case do not necessitate the relaxation of the rules. There was no proof
of authority submitted, even belatedly, to show subsequent compliance
with the requirement of the law. Neither was there a copy of the board
resolution or secretarys certificate subsequently submitted to the trial
court that would attest to the fact that Atty. Lat was indeed authorized to
file said complaint and sign the verification and certification against forum
shopping, nor did respondent satisfactorily explain why it failed to comply
with the rules. Thus, there exists no cogent reason for the relaxation of the
rule on this matter. Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is
needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the
rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal
construction.25
Moreover, the SPA dated May 11, 2000, submitted by respondent
allegedly authorizing Atty. Lat to appear on behalf of the corporation, in
the pre-trial and all stages of the proceedings, signed by Brent Healy, was
fatally defective and had no evidentiary value. It failed to establish Healys
authority to act in behalf of respondent, in view of the absence of a
resolution from respondents board of directors or secretarys certificate
proving the same. Like any other corporate act, the power of Healy to
name, constitute, and appoint Atty. Lat as respondents attorney-in-fact,
with full powers to represent respondent in the proceedings, should have
been evidenced by a board resolution or secretarys certificate.
Respondents
allegation
that
petitioner
is
estopped
by
laches from raising the defect in respondents certificate of non-forum
shopping does not hold water.
_______________
24 Id., at pp. 500-501. (Citations omitted.)
25 Clavecilla v. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 623, 631.
355
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

2012
355

In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals,26 we held that if a complaint is filed

for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the
complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not
produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on
the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the
plaintiff.27Accordingly, since Atty. Lat was not duly authorized by
respondent to file the complaint and sign the verification and certification
against forum shopping, the complaint is considered not filed and

ineffectual, and, as a necessary consequence, is dismissable due to lack of
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for
administering justice; that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for
the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts
acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and
to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to the courts
jurisdiction.28Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the RTC,
Branch 8, Manila, the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
respondent.
Since the court has no jurisdiction over the complaint and respondent,
petitioner is not estopped from challenging the trial courts jurisdiction,
even at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. This is so because the issue
of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on
appeal, and is not lost by waiver or byestoppel.29
_______________
26 Supra note 20, cited inNegros Merchant's Enterprises, Inc. v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No.
150918, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 478, 487.
27 Id., at p. 519.
28 Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007,
530 SCRA 170, 186.
29 Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 63, 81.
356
356
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
In Regalado v. Go,30 the Court held that laches should be clearly present
for theSibonghanoy31 doctrine to apply, thus:
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length
of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier, it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it.
The ruling in People v. Regalario that was based on the landmark doctrine enunciated
inTijam v. Sibonghanoy on the matter of jurisdiction by estoppel is the exception rather
than the rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only
in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that in the cited case . In such
controversies,laches should have been clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction must have
been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it
had abandoned or declined to assert it.
In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a
motion to dismiss filed by the Surety almost 15 years after the questioned ruling had been
rendered. At several stages of the proceedings, in the court a quoas well as in the Court of
Appeals, the Surety invoked the jurisdiction of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief
and submitted its case for final adjudication on the merits. It was only when the adverse
decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question
of jurisdiction.
32
The factual setting attendant in Sibonghanoy is not similar to that of

the present case so as to make it fall under the doctrine
ofestoppel by laches. Here, the trial courts jurisdiction
_______________
30 G.R. No. 167988, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 616.

31 In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 131 Phil. 556; 23 SCRA 29 (1968), the Court held that a party may be
barred by laches from invoking lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling everything
done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea of lack of jurisdiction.
32 Id., at pp. 635-636.
357
VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

2012
357

was questioned by the petitioner during the pre-trial stage of the

proceedings, and it cannot be said that considerable length of time had
elapsed for laches to attach.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated March 23, 2007 and September
3, 2007, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 75895 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court, dated March 22, 2002 and
July 9, 2002, respectively, in Civil Case No. 99-95561, are REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.,
concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.The power to institute actions necessarily includes the power to
execute the verification and certification against forum shopping required
in initiatory pleadings. (Cunanan vs. Jumping Jap Trading Corporation,

586 SCRA 620 [2009])
As to the certification against forum shopping, non-compliance
therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not
curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof. (Mactan-Cebu
International Airport Authority vs. Heirs of Estanislao Mioza, 641 SCRA
520 [2011])
o0o

Spouses Daisy and Socrates M. Arevalo, Petitioners, vs. Planters Development Bank and The Register of Deeds of Parañaque City, Respondents

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Spouses Daisy and Socrates M. Arevalo, Petitioners, vs. Planters Development Bank and The Register of Deeds of Parañaque City, Respondents

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Arevalo p1

8) Du vs. Jayoma, 670 SCRA 333, April 23, 2012 p33

April 18, 2012.G.R. No. 193415.*

Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Preliminary Injunction; A writ of

VOL. 670, APRIL 18,

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 253

This is a Rule 45 Petition for Review, which seeks to reverse the

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 255

17 Order dated 24 August 2009;Rollo, pp. 102-103.

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 257

22 Rollo, pp. 178-186.

of the CA affirming the non-issuance of the injunctive writ.

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 259

Second Complaint with the trial court as in the present Petition.

particular argument in their submissions, we deny the instant Petition on

controversy between the parties or useful purpose that can be served in

availed of during the pendency of the action and it is ancillary because it

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

purpose as a provisional remedy having been served, the appeal therefrom

dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction, regardless of

cases where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on

rule applies that a temporary injunction terminates automatically on the

a ruling on the proper application of the Procedure on Foreclosure 42cannot

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 263

be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and

Petitioners have committed two distinct

insofar as they undertook to obtain similar reliefs as those sought in the

In Yu v. Lim,54 this Court enumerated the requisites of forum-shopping,

Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentiaare present or where

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 265

What is essential in determining the existence of forum-shopping is the

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 267

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012

Arevalo vs. Planters Development

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 269

This Court is not inclined to accept this self-serving explanation. We

Arevalo vs. Planters Development

Second Complaint within five days from its filing.

resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious

April 23, 2012.G.R. No. 143264.*

LISAM ENTERPRISES, INC. represented by LOLITA A. SORIANO, and

VOL. 670, APRIL 23,

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolution and order of the

Nicolas A. Ocampo for respondent Soriano.

VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

After service of summons on all defendants, the RTC issued a

hearing, went on to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining

VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

The petition is impressed with merit.

It should be noted that respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of

VOL. 670, APRIL 23, 2012

Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco

3.SECTIONAmendments by leave of court.Except as provided in the next