Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
WHEN
REQUIRED;
FORMAL,
NOT
JURISDICTIONAL
1. Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)
FACTS: Within the freedom period after CBA between Kimberly
Clark (Company) and the incumbent UKCEO-PTGWO (United
Kimberly Clark Employees Union) had expired, KILUSAN-OLALIA, a
newly-formed labor organization filed a certification election with
DOLE-QC. Thereafter, DOLE declared the incumbent Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of Kimberlys employees,
having garnered the highest votes in the election. though remained
uncounted were 64 challenged votes by 64 casual workers whose
regularization was in question.
During the pendency of Kilusan-Olalias petition for certiorari
assailing the DOLE Order, Kimberly dismissed several employees
thereby impelling Kilusan to stage a strike charging the company
thereby with Unfair Labor practice, union-busting and refusal to
bargain. NLRC rendered decision in favor of Kimberly. Aggrieved,
Kilusan-Olalia instituted with CA a Petition for Certiorari but CA
dismissed Kilusans petition on procedural grounds:
The verification was signed only by petitioners president, sans
any board resolution or power of attorney authorizing anybody to
sign the same and the certificate on non-forum shopping.
ISSUE: W/N the disputed requirements of Verification &
Certification against Forum Shopping was sufficient in form
(therefore the respondent CA committed error in dismissing the case
based on sheer technicality and in the merit of the petition itself)
SC: We find as sufficient in form the disputed verification and
certification against forum shopping.
Verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite, as it is mainly
intended to secure an assurance that the allegations therein made
are done in good faith or are true and correct and not mere
speculation.
The Court may order the correction of the pleading, if not verified, or
act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are
such that a strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in
order that the ends of justice may be served
In the instant case, despite the fact that Ernesto Facundo, the union
president, was not shown to have been duly authorized to sign the
verification on behalf of the other petitioners, the CA should not
have been too strict in the application of the Rules.
Necessarily, Facundo, being the union president, was in a position
to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the
petition. Further, the petition was signed by the unions lawyer, who
had been authorized by a majority of the petitioners to represent
them and to sign on their behalf all pleadings and appeals relative
to the labor dispute.
With regard to the certification against forum shopping, suffice
it to state that in Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile,[46] we took cognizance of
a petition although its certification was executed and signed by only
one of several petitioners, thus:
The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be
signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing
by only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also
stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should
not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its
own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial
compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the
certification.
This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the
provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely
underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
disregarded. It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance
with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The petition is REMANDED to
the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits.
VERIFICATION BY COUNSEL
2) IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC. v. SEHWANI, INCORPORATED
AND/OR BENITAS FRITES, INC.
G.R. No. 179127
December 24, 2008 J. Chico-Nazario
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Decision rendered by the
Court of Appeals, which reversed the Decision of the Director
General of IPO. CA decreed that the IPO Director of Legal Affairs and
the IPO Director General do not have jurisdiction over cases
involving unfair competition.
FACTS:
1) Petitioner, In-N-Out Burger, Inc. is a business entity incorporated
under the laws of California, mainly engaged in the restaurant
business which never engaged in busines in the Philippines while
Respondents Sehwani, Inc and Benita Frites, Inc. are corporations
organized in the Philippines.
Kong Sia formed a partnership under the name of Tan Chin Heng &
Company.
After the death of Tang Chin, Feliciano Tang and Tang Kong Suy, the
parties agreed to refer the matter to the Federation of Filipino
Chinese Chamber of Commerce via an agreement they executed on
March 11, 1975.
On February 5, 1991, the petitioners filed a petition for dissolution
and liquidation of the partnership with the SEC.
On February 9, 1993, the Hearing Officer of the SEC
rendered a decision affirming the list of the partnerships properties
which shall be distributed to the partners/heirs in proportion to their
contribution in accordance with the Articles of the Partnership.
Cavile
have
already
been
LABOR ARBITER
1. Dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practices
and damages for lack of merit.
2. Petitioner to pay the respondents separation pay and
proportionate 13th month pay.
***During the pendency of the appeal, respondents Bermeo, Matutina,
and Padua separately filed their respective manifestations and Motions to
Dismiss, praying that the appeal be dismissed as to them due to their
having already executed their respective quitclaims releasing Mariko from
liability
NLRC: Affirmed the decision of the LA but dismissed the claims
of Bermeo, Matutina and Padua as they had executed quitclaims.
COURT OF APPEALS
Petition for Certiorari Partly Granted.
1. No irreversible substantial losses warranting the closure of the
Galleria branch.
2. ULP was a question of fact that was beyond the ambit of the
present recourse for certiorari.
3. Release
and
quitclaims
executed
by
respondents
Padua, Bermeo and Matutina did not preclude them from assailing
their termination.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION INSOFAR AS THE FOUR OTHER
ALLEGED PETITIONERS THEREIN WERE CONCERNED, CONSIDERING ONLY
JOSE DEL CARMEN SIGNED AND VERIFIED THE PETITION.
RULING:
Section 1 of Rule 65 in relation to Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
requires that a petition for review filed with the CA should be verified and
should contain a certificate of non-forum shopping.
VERIFICATION
The purpose of requiring verification is to secure an assurance that the
allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and
correct, not merely speculative. As to Verification, non-compliance
therewith does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective;
hence, the court may:
1. order a correction if Verification is lacking; or
2. act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may
be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be
served
speak on behalf of his co-respondents in stating that they have not filed
any action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal,
nor is there any other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal
involving the same issues. Thus, even if only respondent Jose del Carmen
signed the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, the rule on substantial
compliance applies.
CA: (brought only by MCC) Affirmed TC. Held that Atty. Mendoza
was properly authorized to sign the verification and certification
thru a Board Resolution dated June 3, 2003.
CERTIFICATION
failure to comply therewi
not
curable
by
its
subsequent to the filing
nor by amendment, and
dismissal.
signed by a person on
corporation which is unac
proof that the signatory i
file the petition is gen
cause for dismissal.
In several cases, howev
relaxed
the
applicatio
requirements upon ap
attendant special circu
compelling reasons.
The term "ultimate facts" means the essential facts constituting the
plaintiff's cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken
out without leaving the statement of the cause of action
insufficient.
12. PHILIPPINES STOCK EXCHANGE VS MANILA BANKING
CORPORATION
FACTS: TMBC acquired Manila Stock Exchange (MSE) Seat No. 97,
registered in the name of Roberto K. Recio (Recio), through an
execution sale which arose from a levy on execution to satisfy a
loan obligation of Recio to TMBC. Thereafter, TMBC requested MSE
to record its ownership of MSE Seat No. 97 in MSEs membership
books. Initially, MSE refused to register TMBC in its membership
books and contested the latters ownership of said seat. According
to MSE, its by-laws allow only individuals or corporations engaged
primarily in the business of stocks and bonds brokers and dealers in
securities to be a member or to hold a seat in the MSE. In the end,
TMBC settled for a mere acknowledgment from MSE of its legal or
naked ownership of, or proprietary right over, MSE Seat No. 97
which was done by MSE through its Acknowledgment Letter.
Before the aforementioned acknowledgment of MSEs title, the
Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. (PSEI) was incorporated unifying the
MSE and the Makati Stock Exchange (MKSE) into one exchange. The
PSEI issued a certificate of membership to Recio as Member No. 29.
Believing that MSE Seat No. 97 became PSE Seat No. 29 of the
unified exchanges and that the certificate of membership to PSEI
was issued to Recio on the basis of his previous ownership of MSE
Seat No. 97, TMBC sought to rectify the PSEIs listing of Recio as a
member without any reservation or annotation therein that TMBC
owns proprietary rights over PSE Seat No. 29. Armed with MSEs
acknowledgment of its legal ownership or naked title over MSE Seat
No. 97, TMBC sought PSEIs recognition of its legal ownership of PSE
Seat No. 29. However, TMBCs efforts were met with PSEIs
repeated refusal.
TMBC lodged a Petition for Mandamus with Claim for Damages, at
the SEC SICD, against herein petitioners PSEI and its Board of
Governors. The petition prayed that the SEC order the PSEI to
acknowledge TMBCs proprietary interest or legal or naked
ownership of PSE Seat No. 29 to enable TMBC to register said seat
to a qualified nominee or otherwise sell the same to a qualified
vendee.
the
MTC
dismissed
the
complaint
and
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC with the
awarded for damages in favor of the spouses Spouses Gaza.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the
respondents hence the present case.
Issue: Whether or not there was an implied admission on the part of
the Spouses Gaza
Held:
Section 11, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, provides that material averments in the complaint, other
than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be
deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Section 10 of the
same Rule provides the manner in which specific denial must be
made:
"Section 10. Specific Denial. A defendant must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant
desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so
much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the
remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment
made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the
effect of a denial."
TEST
TO
DETERMINE
NATURE
OF
Reversed the trial court ruling and held that Calibre had no
cause of action against Bayerphil as there was honest
difference in the computations, which were evidenced by:
a) Bayerphils actual examination of records; b) Bayerphils
sending of its representatives to meet with Calibre; c)
Bayerphils exerted efforts to arrive at a compromise; and
d) Bayerphils willingness to grant several concessions to
Calibre.
Bayerphils counterclaim was compulsory hence it need not
pay the docket and filing fees as it rose from the same
distributorship agreement from which the claims of Calibre
in its complain were likewise based.
occurrence.
It is a settled doctrine that although the payment of the prescribed
docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, its non-payment x x x
should not result in the automatic dismissal of the case
provided the docket fees are paid within the applicable
prescriptive period. The prescriptive period therein mentioned
refers to the period within which a specific action must be filed. It
means that in every case, the docket fee must be paid before the
lapse of the prescriptive period.
In accordance with the aforementioned rules on payment of docket
fees, the trial court upon a determination that Bayerphils
counterclaim was permissive, should have instead ordered
Bayerphil to pay the required docket fees for the permissive
counterclaim, giving it reasonable time but in no case
beyond the reglementary period. At the time Bayerphil filed its
counter-claim against Calibre and the spouses Sebastian without
having paid the docket fees up to the time the trial court rendered
its Decision, Bayerphil could still be ordered to pay the docket fees
since no prescription has yet set in. Besides, Bayerphil should not
suffer from the dismissal of its case due to the mistake of the trial
court.
Finally, the SC held that it was more inclined to affirm the CAs ruling
anent Bayerphils counterclaim and ruled that Bayerphil was entitled
to the collection of money it prayed for, with interests.
WHEREFORE, Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Considering that the counterclaim is permissive, respondent Bayer
Philippines, Inc. is ORDERED to pay the prescribed docket fees with
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of this Decision.
AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS;
WHEN
ISSUES
JOINED,
SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENTS
DISCRETIONARY AND SUBJECT TO THERULE THAT THE CAUSE
OF ACTION IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED OR THE
THEORY ALTERED
18. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK V LZK HOLDINGS AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APRIL 15, 2005 CALLEJO, SR.,
J:
FACTS: LHDC is a duly organized corporation, Planters
Development Bank is a banking institution duly-organized.
On December 16, 1996, LHDC through its CEO and the PDB entered
into a Loan Agreement in the amount of P40,000,000.00.
To secure the loan, LHDC executed in favor of PDB a real estate
mortgage. The latter executed 2 PNs in favor of PDB. Thereafter,
LHDC executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of the PDB, wherein
it assigned to the latter all its rental incomes from its AGZ Building.
For non-payment of loan, non-compliance with Deed of Assignment
and failure to comply with the conditions of the PNs, PDB cause the
extra-judicial foreclosure of the REM.
On April 5, 1999, LHDC filed with RTC of Makati City a complaint
against PDB for Annulment of Extrajudicial Foreclosure, Mortgage
Contract, PNs and for Damages. It alleged that REM was void
because it was executed a day before the title of the property was
issued and two months before the execution of the PNs.
PDB filed in due course its answer. Thereafter LHDC moved that the
case be set for a pre-trial conference.
Before the scheduled pre-trial, LHDC filed a Motion for Leave to file
a Supplemental Complaint to cover occurrences subsequent to the
original complaint. It alleged that after the filing of the original
complaint, it agreed in principle to enter into a contract of lease
with AMA Computer College. LHDC wrote to PDB regarding the
contract, however, the latter gave unreasonable conditions,
resulting to AMAs backing out.
PDB opposed the supplement complaint, it argued that what goes
against its admission is the fact that the supplemental matters
involved therein would bring into the case new causes of action,
distinct from those mentioned in the original complaint.
TC found the supplement complaint to be just and proper. CA found
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of TC in admitting the
supplemental complaint.
After the petition was filed, the petitioner filed a motion to admit a
supplemental complaint.
In the supplemental complaint, the
petitioner invoked her right as a co-owner of the partitioned
property to legal redemption. The RTC denied this petition. On
petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals denied the petition, it
held that the supplemental complaint is entirely different from the
original complaint, hence this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reliefs in the supplemental complaint
merely developed and extended the original causes of action.
HELD: YES. The supplemental complaint was not a substantial
amendment of the original complaint.
As the name suggests, a supplemental pleading only serves to
bolster or add something to the primary pleading. A supplement
exists side by side with the original, it does not replace the latter. It
is considered a continuation of the complaint.
In Leobrera vs. Court of Appeals, the court ruled that when the
cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint is different
from the causes of action mentioned in the original complaint, the
court should not admit the supplemental complaint. However, in
Planters Development Bank vs. LZK Holdings, the court relaxed the
rule: While a matter stated in a supplemental complaint should
have some relation to the cause of action stated in the original
pleading, the fact that the supplemental pleading states a new
cause of action should not be a bar to its allowance , but only a
factor to be considered by the court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
In this case, when the respondents proceeded to consolidate their
title over the property which the petitioner claims co-ownership
over, was a new matter which occurred after the filing of the
original complaint. The relief prayed for in the supplemental
complaint (legal redemption) is germane to and intertwined with
the cause of action in the original complaint (nullification of the
extrajudicial partition).
Specifically, the right of petitioner to
redeem is dependent on the nullification of the partition. Hence,
petitioners cause of action in the supplemental complaint stems
directly from and is an extension of her rights as co-owner of the
property subject of the complaint.
Should the supplemental complaint not be admitted, the result
would be a multiplicity of suits.
AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS;
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT
21. Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989)
5. Before BPI could foreclose the mortgage, petitioner filed with the
trial court on 11 March 1987 a "Motion to File Supplemental
Complaint," attaching the supplemental complaint which prayed for
the issuance of an injunction to restrain BPI from foreclosing the
third mortgage. The next day, 12 March 1987, the trial court
granted Leobrera's motion to file the supplemental complaint and
issued a restraining order enjoining BPI from proceeding with
any "Legal, court or other action" arising from the promissory note
evidencing the three-year term loan.
Issue: Whether or not the court erred in admitting the supplemental
complaint. YES.
1. The Court ruled that when the cause of action stated in the
supplemental complaint is different from the causes of action
mentioned in the original complaint, the court should not admit the
supplemental complaint; the parties may file supplemental
pleadings only to supply deficiencies in aid of an original pleading,
but not to introduce new and independent causes of action.
As to the supplemental complaint, what likewise militates against
its admission is the fact that the matters involved therein are
entirely different from the causes of action mentioned in the
original complaint.
2. The petitioner's main cause of action in the original complaint
filed in Civil Case No. 15644 concerned BPI's threat to foreclose two
real estate mortgages securing the two 90 day promissory notes
executed by petitioner in 1986. Petitioner alleges that this
threatened foreclosure violated the terms of the 1980 amicable
settlement between BPI and petitioner.While the supplemental
complaint alleged acts of harassment committed by BPI in
unreasonably opting to declare petitioner in default and in
demanding full liquidation of the 1985 three-year term loan. This
three-year term loan, as previously mentioned, was entirely distinct
and separate from the two promissory notes. It was independent of
the 1980 amicable settlement between petitioner and BPI which
gave rise to the credit facility subject of the original complaint.
Although there is Identity in the remedies asked for in the original
and supplemental complaints, i.e. injunction, petitioner's
subsequent cause of action giving rise to the claim for damages in
the supplemental complaint is unrelated to the amicable settlement
which brought about the grant of the credit facilities, the breach of
which settlement is alleged to be the basis of the original
complaint.
learned of the existence of the deed. The trial court denied the
motion to dismiss for lack of merit
Petitioners second counsel, who took over the case, filed an
amended pre-trial brief which reiterated the allegation that
respondents were not the real parties in interest as they had sold
the property to de Juan. Trial ensued and after respondents
rested their case, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave of Court to
Admit Attached Amended Answer. They sought the amendment of
their Answer by adding the alternative defense that even if
respondents were the owners of the property by inheritance from
Leopoldo Quirao, they (respondents) executed a Deed of ExtraJudicial Partition of Property with Sale in favor of de Juan. They
further claimed that in turn, de Juan sold part of the property to
them. The second sale appears to be evidenced by a Deed of Sale
involving part of the subject property executed by de Juan and
petitioners. It also appears that Rodrigo made a partial payment
of P50,000.00, evidenced by the receipt signed by de Juan.
Respondents opposed the motion on the grounds that: (1) it is
dilatory and (2) the amendments are substantial and cannot be
allowed as the parties have already undergone a pre-trial
conference.
The motion was again denied by the trial court on the ground
that the amendments will prejudice the respondents since they had
already rested their case and the alleged facts were already
existing and known to the petitioners when they filed their answer.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which also
dismissed their petition for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled
that the amendments are basically the same issues raised in their
motion to dismiss and are substantial ones which may properly be
refused. It cited Batara vs. Court of Appeals,where we held that
the negligence and ignorance of petitioners previous counsels
cannot qualify as transcendental matters which can outweigh
technicalities. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but
were again denied.
Issue: Whether the amended answer should be admitted.
Held: Yes.
AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS;
EFFECT OF AMENDED PLEADINGS
SUPERSEDES ORIGINAL PLEADING
AS
A
CONSEQUENCE,
JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS
MADE
IN
ORIGINAL
PLEADINGS NEED TO BE OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE
23. Director of Lands v Ca G.R. No. L-31408 April 22, 1991
NARVASA, J.:
Facts: Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
In October 1956 the corporation R. Borromeo Bros. Estate, Inc.
instituted in the Court of First Instance of Leyte original proceedings
for confirmation and registration of title in its favor of a parcel of
land fronting the sea in the coastal town of San Isidro, Leyte with an
area of 130,537 square meters. The application alleged that the
land was bounded on the North, East and South by property of the
applicant and on the West by San Isidro Bay; that it had been
formed by accretion of sediments carried from the highlands by the
natural action of the Si-ong and Sinubdan Rivers when these
overflowed their banks during the rainy season; that it had been
publicly, openly, continuously and adversely possessed by the
applicant for 20 years prior to the filing of the application; and that
to the applicant's knowledge there existed no mortgage, lien or
other adverse claim on the land.
Two oppositions to the application were filed. One, filed by the
Director of Lands, asserted that the land applied for was part of the
public domain, and that the applicant or its predecessors-in-interest
had no sufficient title to the land, by way of either composition of
possessory information, or by virtue of open, public, adverse and
continuous possession under claim of ownership since July 26,
1894.
The other opposition, filed by the Municipality of San Isidro, echoed
the contention of the Director of Lands that the land formed part of
the public domain, alleging that it was classified as Timber Block-J,
Leyte Project No. 40; denied the applicant's claim of open, adverse,
continuous and exclusive possession and averred that the land was
occupied by other parties who had waived their claims in favor of
said oppositor; and alleged, further, that it (oppositor) needed the
land for municipal expansion, having in fact adopted resolutions
requesting the Government to reserve the land for that purpose,
and that the applicant had applied for, but had been denied, a
lease of the land after it had been released for private occupation
by the Bureau of Forestry.
The case was then heard. It would appear that after the applicant
had presented its evidence, it sought and was allowed to amend its
application, which originally alleged that the land applied for had
been formed of alluvium deposited by the action of the sea in order
to allege, as said appellant's evidence had tended to establish, that
said land had been formed instead from accretions of soil and
sediment carried from higher places by the currents of the Si-ong
and Sinubdan Creeks.
Thereafter, evidence for the oppositors also having been presented,
the Trial Court rendered judgment denying the application and
declaring the land applied for public land formed by the action of
the sea and not of any river.
The applicant then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
reversed the decision of the Trial Court, sustained the applicant's
contention as to the origin of the land, on that basis declared the
land to be private land of said applicant and decreed its registration
in the applicant's name.
Issue: W/N the applicant is bound by the averment in its original
application that the land was formed by the natural action of the
sea.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals also correctly overruled the petitioner's
contention that the averment in the original application for
registration attributing the origin of the land to the action of the
sea, which averment, with leave of court, was later superseded by
an amendment to the effect that the land was formed by the action
of rivers, was binding on the private respondent as a judicial
admission. Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the
record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial
admissions. While they may nonetheless be utilized against the
pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they must, in order to have
such effect, be formally offered in evidence. It does not appear that
the original application for registration containing the averment in
question, or that particular averment itself, was offered or received
in evidence for the petitioner in the Trial Court.
Bilihan ng Lupa dated 17 August 1979 except that they were just
misled as to the purpose of the document, x x x." Virgilios answers
were unsure and quibbled. Hence, the general rule that the
admissions made by a party in a pleading are binding and
conclusive upon him applies in this case.
In petitioners Answer and Amended Answer to the Complaint for
Reconveyance with Damages, both petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo
made an admission that indeed they acted as witnesses in the
execution of the "Bilihan ng Lupa," dated 17 August 1979. However,
in order to avoid their obligations in the said "Bilihan ng Lupa,"
petitioner Virgilio, in his cross-examination, denied having
knowledge of the sale transaction and claimed that he could not
remember the same as well as his appearance before the notary
public due to the length of time that had passed. Noticeably,
petitioner Virgilio did not categorically deny having signed the
"Bilihan ng Lupa," dated 17 August 1979.
RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS;
ANSWER JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS NOT BINDING ON
PARTY
26. Gardner v CA 131 S 585
CASE: Petition for the review of the Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed in toto the judgment of the Court of First
Instance .
FACTS:
-
VERROYA transfer
NATIVIDADS
of
the
properties
to
respondent
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the RTC did
not validly acquire jurisdiction over it due to improper service of
summons. It argued that, among other things, there was no
observance of the rule that service of summons on a defendantcorporation must be made upon its president, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel.
Petitioner sought relief from this Court via petition for review on
certiorari.
HELD: Petitioner correctly points out that the rule is that a
defendant's answer should be admitted where it is filed before a
declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the
plaintiff. Indeed, where the answer is filed beyond the reglementary
period but before the defendant is declared in default and there is
no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer
should be admitted.[13]
In the case at bar, it is inconsequential that the trial court declared
petitioner in default on the same day that petitioner filed its
Answer. As reflected above, the trial court slept on petitioners
Motion to Dismiss for almost a year, just as it also slept on
respondents Motion to Declare petitioner in Default. It was only
when petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss and to
Admit Answer that it denied the Motion to Dismiss, and acted
on/granted respondents Motion to Declare petitioner in
Default. This is procedurally unsound.
The policy of the law is to have every litigant's case
tried on the merits as much as possible. Hence,
judgments by default are frowned upon. A case is
best decided when all contending parties are able to
ventilate their respective claims, present their
arguments and adduce evidence in support
thereof. The parties are thus given the chance to be
heard fully and the demands of due process are
subserved. Moreover, it is only amidst such an
atmosphere that accurate factual findings and
correct legal conclusions can be reached by the
courts.
RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS;
REMEDIES OF PARTY DECLARED IN DEFAULT
28. Roberto Otero vs. Roger Tan, GR No. 200134, August 15,
2012
Doctrine:
GR: A defendant who fails to file an answer may, upon motion,
be declared by the court in default; a party in default loses his
right to present his defense, control the proceedings, and
examine or cross-examine witness. He has no right to expect
that his pleadings would be acted upon by the court nor may be
object to or refute evidence or motions filed against him.
A defendant who has been declared in default is precluded from
raising any other ground in his appeal from the judgment by
default since, otherwise, he would then be allowed to adduce
evidence in his defense, which right he had lost after he was
declared in default.
In the case of LINA vs. CA, et. Al, this Court enumerated the
remedies available to a party who has been declared in default:
(a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery
thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to
set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure
to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
neglect (FAME), and that he has meritorious defenses (Sec
3, R18);
(b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the
defendant discovered the default, but before the same has
become final and executory, he may file a motion for new
trial (MNT) under Sec 1(a), R37);
(c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment
has become final and executory, he may file a petition for
relief under Sec 2, R38;
(d) He may also appeal the judgment rendered against him as
contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to
set aside the order of default has been presented by him
(Sec 2, R41).
FACTS:
1. A complaint for collection of sum of money and damages
was filed by respondent Tan with the MTCC of Cagayan De
Oro on July 28, 2005 against Roberto Otero;
2. Respondent alleged that Otero made purchases on credit
petroleum products from his Petron outlet in Valencia City,
Bukidnon in the aggregate amount of Php 270,818. And that
despite several verbal demands, Otero failed to settle his
obligations;
3. Summons were served through Oteros wife, Grace Otero on
August 31, 2005, yet petitioner failed to file his answer with
the MTCC of CDO;
RATIO:
1ST Issue:
a. A defendant who fails to file an answer loses his standing in
court, Sec 3, Rule 9;