Sie sind auf Seite 1von 22

La Naval v CA, 236 S 78 RATIO:

FACTS: Respondent Yao was the owner of a commercial building, a portion of As to the first issue, it was held that jurisdiction over the person must be
which is leased to herein petitioner. However, during the renewal of the seasonably raised, i.e., that it is pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an
contract of lease, the two disagreed on the rental rate, and to resolve the affirmative defense in an answer. Voluntary appearance shall be deemed a
controversy, they submitted their disagreement to arbitration. Two arbitrators waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of affirmative defenses shall
(Alamarez and Sabile) has been appointed by the parties while the not be constructed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense.
appointment of the third arbitrator (Tupang) was held in abeyance because La
With regard to the second issue, it was held that where the court itself clearly
Naval Drug instructed its arbitrator to defer the same until its Board of
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the
Directors could convene and approved Tupang’s appointment. This was
invocation of this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts
theorized by the respondent as dilatory tactics, hence, he prayed that a
nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to confer that
summary hearing be conducted and direct the 2 arbitrators to proceed with
jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. Barring highly
the arbitration in accordance with Contract of Lease and the applicable
meritorious and exceptional circumstances, such as herein before exemplified,
provisions of the Arbitration law, by appointing and confirming the
neither estoppel nor waiver shall apply. The court must then refrain from taking
appointment of the Third Arbitrator; and that the Board of Three Arbitrators
up the claims of the contending parties for damages, which, upon the other
be ordered to immediately convene and resolve the controversy before it. The
hand, may be ventilated in separate regular proceedings.
respondent court announced that the two arbitrators chose Mrs. Eloisa R.
Narciso as the third arbitrator and ordered the parties to submit their position
papers on the issue as to whether or not respondent Yao's claim for damages
may be litigated upon in the summary proceeding for enforcement of ATWEL v CONCEPCION PROGRESSIVE ASSOC INC
arbitration agreement. In moving for reconsideration of the said Order, Doctrine: Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none
petitioner argued that in Special Case No. 6024, the respondent court sits as a over the cause of action or subject matter of the case. It is neither fair nor
special court exercising limited jurisdiction and is not competent to act on legal to bind a party to the result of a suit or proceeding in a court with no
respondent Yao's claim for damages, which poses an issue litigable in an jurisdiction. The decision of a tribunal not vested with the appropriate
ordinary civil action. However, respondent court was not persuaded by jurisdiction is null and void.
petitioner's submission, hence, it denied the motion for reconsideration. While
the appellate court has agreed with petitioner that, under Section 6 of Republic
Act No. 876, a court, acting within the limits of its special jurisdiction, may in
Assemblyman Melgazo founded & organized Concepcion Progressive
this case solely determine the issue of whether the litigants should proceed or
Association (CPA) in Leyte. It aimed to provide livelihood and generate income
not to arbitration, it, however, considered petitioner in estoppel from for its supporters.
questioning the competence of the court to additionally hear and decide in the
summary proceedings private respondent's claim for damages, it(petitioner) Melgazo was elected president. He bought a parcel of land in behalf of the
having itself filed similarly its own counterclaim with the court a quo. association, which was later on converted into a wet market and cockpit. The
income generated, mostly rentals from the market, was paid to CPA.
ISSUE/S:
When Melgazo died, his son, petitioner Manuel, succeeded him as president
1.WON THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON. and admin of the property. On the other hand, petitioners Atwel and Pilpil were
2.WON THE COURT A QUO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER? likewise elected as VP and Treasurer.
In the process of registering as a stock corporation, its other elected officers The issue in this case does not concern the regulation of CPAI or even CPA. The
formed their own group and registered themselves in the SEC as Concepcion determination as to who is the true owner of the disputed property should be
Progressive Association Incorporated (CPAI). Petitioners were not listed as threshed out in a regular court.
officers nor members.
The rule remains that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that
Later, CPAI objected to petitioners’ collection of rentals from the market. has none over the cause of action or subject matter of the case. Jurisdiction by
estoppel is not available here. Consequently, CPAI cannot be permitted to
CPAI filed a case w/ SEC for injunction. With the passage of RA 8799 (Securities
wrest from petitioners (as the remaining CPA officers) the administration of the
Regulation Code), the case was transferred to RTC Leyte then later to RTC
disputed property until after the parties' rights are clearly adjudicated in the
Tacloban. Both were special commercial courts.
proper courts. It is neither fair nor legal to bind a party to the result of a suit or
CPAI alleged that it was the rightful owner. Petitioners refuted by saying that it proceeding in a court with no jurisdiction. The decision of a tribunal not vested
was impossible for CPAI to have acquired ownership over the property in 1968 with the appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.
because only in 1997 was it incorporated.

FIGUEROA vs. PEOPLE ( G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008 )


RTC ruled that the property was in the name of CPA, not Melgazo. It considered
FACTS:On July 8, 1994, an information for reckless imprudence resulting in
CPAI = CPAI
homicide was filed againstthe petitioner before the RTC. The trial court
Petitioners appealed. According to them, they were not CPAI members, hence convicted the petitioner as charged. In his appealbefore the CA, the petitioner
the case did not involve an intra-corporate dispute "between and among questioned, among others, for the first time, the trial court’sjurisdiction.The
members" so as to warrant the special commercial court's jurisdiction over it. appellate court, however, in the challenged decision, considered the petitioner
to haveactively participated in the trial and to have belatedly attacked the
CA held: “petitioners are admittedly not members of CPAI, then, the special jurisdiction of the RTC; thus,he was already estopped by laches from asserting
commercial court should not have taken cognizance of the case… However, as the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction.
correctly pointed out by CPAI, the acts of the petitioners, through their counsel,
in participating in the trial of the case...show that they themselves consider the PROCEDURAL ISSUE: Is the petitioner estopped by laches from assailing the
trial court to have jurisdiction over the case.” jurisdiction of a tribunal?

Issue: Will estoppel bar petitioners from questioning the jurisdiction of the RULING: NO. the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the
special commercial court? jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal
before the appellate court. At that time, no considerable period had yet
Held: NO. Originally, section 5 of PD902 conferred on the SEC original and elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not
exclusive jurisdiction over “intra-corporate controversies.” However, the sustain the defense of estoppel by laches unless it further appears that the
jurisdiction of the SEC was later on transferred to the courts of general party, knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition of
jurisdiction pursuant to the enactment of RA 8799. the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he cannot
The conflict among the parties here was outside the jurisdiction of the special be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due to loss of
commercial court. evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes. In applying
the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy, the
Court therein considered the patent and revolting inequity and unfairness of
having the judgment creditors go up their Cavalry once more after more or less
15 years. The same, however, does not obtain in this instant case. BELLE CORP vs. ERLINDA DE LEON, et. Al (CASE DIGEST)

FACTS:
We note at this point that estoppel, being in the nature of a forfeiture, is not
favored by law. It is to be applied rarely - only from necessity, and only in Plaintiffs-appellants herein respondents Erlinda Banks, Rhodora Tiatco, Betty
extraordinary circumstances. The doctrine must be applied with great case and Torres,Gregorio De Leon, Alberto De Leon, Eufronio De Leon, Jr. and defendant-
the equity must be strong in its favor. When misapplied, the doctrine of appellee Nelia Allejewere seven of the eight children of the late spouses
estoppel may be a most effective weapon for the accomplishment of injustice. Eufronio and Josefa De Leon, while plaintiff Maria Eliza De Grano also one
Moreover, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is of herein respondents was the daughter and sole heir of the late
void. Hence, the Revised Rules of Court provides for remedies in attacking Angelina De LeonDe Grano, the eighth child. Defendant-
judgments rendered by courts or tribunals that have no jurisdiction is null and appellee Alfredo Alleje was thehusband ofNelia De Leon-Alleje (both
void for want of jurisdiction. hereinafter referred to as SPOUSES ALLEJE), both of whom were the principal
stockholders and officers of defendant-appellee Nelfred Properties
Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc. (SAMELCO II) et al. vs. Ananias Seludo Jr. G.R.
Corporation (NELFRED). The disputed property was a 13.29 hectare parcel of
No. 173840, April 25, 2012
unregistered landoriginally belonging to the late spouses Eufronio and Josefa.
FACTS On February 9, 1979, a Deed of Absolute Sale (1979 DEED) was executed
between the LATE SPOUSES and NELFRED,
Respondent Seludo is a member of SAMELCO II’s BOD. A board
represented therein by Nelia, wherein ownership of the property was convey
resolution was issued disallowing respondent from attending meetings
ed to Neliafor P 60,000.00 and was thereafter registered with
of the BOD effective February 2005 until the end of his term as
the Register of Deeds.
directed and disqualified him for one term to run as candidate for director
in the upcoming district elections. Respondent then filed an Urgent Petition Herein petitioner BELLE, on one hand, and NELFRED and SPOUSES ALLEJE on
for Prohibition against SAMELCO II with the RTC in Calbiga, Samar. RTC the other executed a Contract to Sell covering the disputed property. Deed of
granted a TRO in favour of Seludo effective for 72 hours and later extended for Absolute Sale (1998 DEED) was executed 24, 1998 between BELLE and
another 17 days. Petitioners then raised an affirmative defense of lack of lack NELFRED wherein the latter transferred ownership of the disputed property to
of jurisdiction of RTC over subject matter, the same being with the the former. Meanwhile, on January 19, 1998, respondents filed a Complaint for
National Electrification Administration (NEA). RTC sustained its jurisdiction over "Annulment of Deed of Sale, Reconveyance of Property with Prayer for
the matter, motion for reconsideration was denied. CA affirmed the RTC. Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Damages" against the SPOUSES
ALLEJE, NELFRED and BELLE wherein they sought the annulment of the Contract
ISSUE: Does the NEA have primary jurisdiction over the question of
to Sell. On February 9, 1998, BELLE filed a Motion to Dismiss wherein it alleged
the validity of the Board Resolution issued by SAMELCO II?
that the Complaint stated no cause of action against BELLE, which was an
RULING: Yes, pursuant to Subsection (a), Sec. 24, Chapter III of PD 269 as innocent purchaser for value. RTC dismissed the Complaint against BELLE for
amended by Sec. 7, PD 1645 clearly shows that, pursuant to its power of failure to state a cause of action on the ground that there was no allegation in
supervision and control, NEA is granted the authority to conduct investigations the Complaint that BELLE was a purchaser in bad faith. Herein respondents
and other similar actions as well as to issue orders, rules and regulations with then filed a Motion
respect to all matters affecting electric cooperatives. In addition, while the for Reconsideration. On November 11, 1998, pending the resolution of their
RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition, the NEA, in its Motion for Reconsideration of the September 23, 1998 Order, herein respond
exercise of its power of supervision and control, has primary jurisdiction ents filed aManifestation/Motion to admit their Amended.
to determine the issue of the validity of the subject resolution. Petition granted.
Complaint and at the same time, the RTCadmitted the Amended Complaint of On February 17, 1949, the City Council of Bacolod passed Ordinance No. 66,
the plaintiffs-appellants. BELLE filed a "Motion for Reconsideration or to series of 1949 imposing upon "any person, firm or corporation engaged in the
Dismiss the Amended Complaint" wherein it alleged that the Amended manufacturer bottling of coca-cola, pepsi cola, tru orange, lemonade, and
Complaint still stated no cause of action. RTC reconsidered its Order and lifted other soft drinks within the jurisdiction of the City of Bacolod, ... a fee of ONE
the dismissal against BELLE. Aggrieved by the Order of the RTC, respondents TWENTY-FOURTH (1/24) of a centavo for every bottle thereof," plus "a
filed an appeal with the CA.CA, reversed and set aside RTC order. Hence, this surcharge of 2% every month, but in no case to exceed 24% for one whole
petition for review on certiorari. year," upon "such local manufacturers or bottler above-mentioned who will be
delinquent on any amount of fees due" under the ordinance. This ordinance
ISSUE: WON cause of action exists to warrant the right of herein respondents
was subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 150 by increasing the fee to 1/8
to sue against BELLE.
of a centavo for every bottle thereof.
RULING
Such increase was opposed by the appellant San Miguel.
The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff
Appellee CoB sued appellant SM. Court rendered judgment in favor of CoB
by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an
ordering SM to pay it the sum of P26K and the tax at the rate of 3 centavos oer
obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such
case.
right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of
the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the Appellant SM appealed from the said decision to this Court where it pressed
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action the question of the invalidity of the abovementioned taxing ordinances. In that
for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. In determining whether appeal, however, the Court affirmed the decision appealed from and upheld
a complaint states a cause of action, the RTC can consider all the pleadings the constitutionality of the questioned ordinances and the authority of the
filed, including annexes, motions, and the appellee to enact the same.
evidence on record. The focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the ma
For reasons not extant in the record, it was already after this decision had
terialallegations. Moreover, the complaint does not have to establish facts
become final when appellee moved for the reconsideration thereof, praying
proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be
that the same be amended so as to include the penalties and surcharges
done at the trial on the merits of the case. It is evident from the allegations in
provided for in the ordinances.
the Amended Complaint that respondents specifically alleged that they are
owners of the subject property being held in trust by their sister, Nelia Alleje, Said motion was denied, for the reason that "the decision is already final and
and that petitioner acted in bad faith when it bought the property from may not be amended." When execution was had before the lower court, the
their sister, through her company, Nelfred, knowing that herein respondents appellee again sought the inclusion of the surcharges referred to; and once
claim ownership over it. The Court, thus, finds no error on the part of the CA in again the move was frustrated by the Court of First Instance of Negros
ruling that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to establish acause of Occidental which denied the motion.
action for the nullification of the sale of the subject property to herein
petitioner. Failing thus in its attempt to collect the surcharge provided for in the
ordinances, appellee filed a second action to collection the said surcharges
(P36K).
City of Bacolod v. San Miguel Appellant SM filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that: (1) the
cause of action is barred by a prior judgment, and (2) a party may not institute
FACTS:
more than one suit for a single cause of action. This motion was denied by the
court a quo so appellant filed its answer wherein it substantially reiterated, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct
affirmative defenses, the above-mentioned grounds of its motion to dismiss. legal obligations. On the other hand, it can happen also that several acts or
Thereafter, the parties submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings, omissions may violate only one right, in which case, there would be only one
whereupon, the court rendered judgment ordering the defendant San Miguel cause of action. Again the violation of a single right may give rise to more than
Brewery, Inc. to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P36,519.10 representing the one relief. In other words, for a single cause of action or violation of a right, the
surcharges as provided in section 4 of Ordinance 66, series of 1949 of the City plaintiff may be entitled to several reliefs. It is the filing of separate complaints
of Bacolod. for these several reliefs that constitutes splitting up of the cause of action. This
is what is prohibited by the rule.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner’s act of filing another action for surcharges constitutes
splitting of action?

RULING: YES. Appellant SM’s position was upheld by the Court. There is no In the case at bar, when appellant failed and refused to pay the difference in
question that appellee split up its cause of action when it filed the first bottling charges such act of appellant in violation of the right of appellee to be
complaint seeking the recovery of only the bottling taxes or charges plus legal paid said charges in full under the Ordinance, was one single cause of action,
interest, without mentioning in any manner the surcharges. but under the Ordinance, appellee became entitled, as a result of such non-
payment, to two reliefs, namely: (1) the recovery of the balance of the basic
The rule on the matter is clear. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
charges; and (2) the payment of the corresponding surcharges, the latter being
of 1940 which were still in force then provided:
merely a consequence of the failure to pay the former.
SEC. 3. Splitting a cause of action, forbidden. — A single cause of action cannot
be split up into two or more parts so as to be made the subject of different
complaints. . The obligation of appellant to pay the surcharges arose from the violation by
said appellant of the same right of appellee from which the obligation to pay
SEC. 4. Effect of splitting. — If separate complaints were brought for different
the basic charges also arose. Upon these facts, it is obvious that appellee has
parts of a single cause of action, the filing of the first may be pleaded in
filed separate complaints for each of two reliefs related to the same single
abatement of the others, and a judgment upon the merits in either is available
cause of action, thereby splitting up the said cause of action
as a bar in the others.
Jalandoni v. Martir-Guanzon
Indeed, this rule against the splitting up of a cause of action is an old one. In
fact, it preceded the Rules of Court or any statutory provision. FACTS:

On January 9, 1947, the appellant spouses began a suit (Case No. 573) against
the appellees Antonio Guanzon, eta al., for partition of various lots and for
The classical definition of a cause of action is that it is "a delict or wrong by
recovery of damages caused by the defendants' unwarranted refusal to
which the rights of the plaintiff are violated by the defendant." Its elements
recognize plaintiffs' right and partition said lots, as was to account for and
may be generally stated to be (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff; (2) a
deliver plaintiff's share in the crops obtained during the agricultural years from
corresponding obligation on the part of the defendant to respect such right;
1941-1942 to 1946-1947.
and (3) an act or omission of the plaintiff which constitutes a violation of the
plaintiff's right which defendant had the duty to respect. In the last analysis, a Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental held for plaintiffs and ordered the
cause of action is basically an act or an omission or several acts or omissions. A partition of the lands involved, but denied their claim for damages because of
single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the same time, as failure to "prove the exact and actual damages suffered by them.
The decision having become final because none of the parties appealed if for services in the present case, there is no jurisdiction therefor, since no case
therefrom, the plaintiffs instituted the present action seeking recovery from is made out for the plaintiffs.
the defendants for moral and exemplary damages, share of the products of the
Joseph v. Bautista
property from 1947 until 1955, taxes due unpaid and attorney’s fees.
FACTS:
Upon motion of defendant's, the court a quo dismissed the second complaint
for failure to state a cause of action; and after their motion to reconsider was Respondent Patrocinio Perez is the owner of a cargo truck for conveying
denied, plaintiffs appealed to this Court on points of law. cargoes and passengers for a consideration from Dagupan City to Manila.
ISSUE: W/N dismissal was proper? Said cargo truck driven by defendant Domingo Villa was on its way to
Valenzuela, Bulacan from Pangasinan. Petitioner, with a cargo of livestock,
RULING: YES. The Court found the dismissal of the lower court to have been
boarded the cargo truck at Dagupan City. While said cargo truck was
correctly entered. Except as concomitant to physical injuries, moral and
negotiating the National Highway proceeding towards Manila, defendant
corrective damages (allegedly due to suffering, anguish and axiety caused by
Domingo Villa tried to overtake a tricycle likewise proceeding in the same
the refusal of defendants in 1941 to partition the common property) were not
direction.
recoverable under the Civil Code of 1899 which was the governing law at the
time. Recovery of such damages was established for the first time in 1950 by At about the same time, a pick-up truck, supposedly owned by respondents
the new Civil Code, and action not be made to apply retroactively to acts that Antonio Sioson and Jacinto Pagarigan, then driven by respondent Lazaro
occurred character of these damages. The rule is expressly laid down by Villanueva, tried to overtake the cargo truck thereby forcing the cargo truck to
paragraph 1 of Article 2257 of the new Code. veer towards the shoulder of the road and to ram a mango tree. As a result,
petitioner sustained a bone fracture in one of his legs.
As to the value of the plaintiff's share in the products of the land during the
time that the former action was pending (which are the damages claimed under Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against respondent Patrocinio Perez,
the second cause of action), their recovery is now barred by the previous as owner of the cargo truck, based on a breach of contract of carriage and
judgment. against respondents Antonio Sioson and Lazaro Villanueva, as owner and
driver, respectively, of the pick-up truck, based on quasi-delict.
In the same way that plaintiffs claimed for their share of the produce from 1941
to 1947, these later damages could have been claimed in the first action, either Respondent Sioson filed his answer alleging that he is not and never was an
in the original complaint or else by supplemental pleading. To allow them to be owner of the pick-up truck and neither would he acquire ownership thereof in
recovered by subsequent suit would be a violation of the rule against the future.
multiplicity of suits, and specifically of sections 3 and 4 of Rules 2 of the Rules
of Court, against the splitting of causes of action, since these damages spring Petitioner, with prior leave of court, filed his amended complaint impleading
from the same cause of action that was pleading in the former case No. 573 respondents Jacinto Pagarigan and a certain Rosario Vargas as additional
between the same parties. alternative defendants. Petitioner apparently could not ascertain who the real
owner of said cargo truck was, whether respondents Patrocinio Perez or
Anent the land taxes allegedly overdue and unpaid, it is readily apparent that, Rosario Vargas, and who was the real owner of said pick-up truck, whether
taxes been due to the government, plaintiffs have no right to compel payment respondents Antonio Sioson or Jacinto Pagarigan.
thereof to themselves. Little need be said concerning the claim for attorney's
fees under the fourth cause of action. If they be fees for the lawyer's services Respondent Perez filed her amended answer with crossclaim against her co-
in the former case, they are barred from recovery for the reasons already given; defendants for indemnity and subrogation in the event she is ordered to pay
petitioner's claim, and therein impleaded cross-defendant Alberto Cardeno as
additional alternative defendant.
The trial court was, therefore, correct in holding that there was only one cause
Respondents Lazaro Villanueva, Alberto Cardeno, Antonio Sioson and Jacinto of action involved although the bases of recovery invoked by petitioner against
Pagarigan, thru their insurer, Insurance Corporation of the Philippines, paid the defendants therein were not necessarily identical since the respondents
petitioner's claim for injuries sustained. And by reason thereof, petitioner were not identically circumstanced. However, a recovery by the petitioner
executed a release of claim releasing them from liability. under one remedy necessarily bars recovery under the other. This, in essence,
is the rationale for the proscription in our law against double recovery for the
A few months after, they also paid respondent Patrocinio Perez' claim for
same act or omission which, obviously, stems from the fundamental rule
damages to her cargo truck. Consequently, respondents Sioson, Pagarigan,
against unjust enrichment.
Cardeno and Villanueva filed a "Motion to Exonerate and Exclude Defs/ Cross
defs. Alberto Cardeno, Lazaro Villanueva, Antonio Sioson and Jacinto Pagarigan
on the Instant Case", alleging that respondents Cardeno and Villanueva already
There is no question that the respondents herein are solidarily liable to
paid damages to respondent Perez, and alleging further that respondents
petitioner. On the evidence presented in the court below, the trial court found
Cardeno, Villanueva, Sioson and Pagarigan paid an amount to petitioner.
them to be so liable. It is undisputed that petitioner, in his amended complaint,
Thereafter, respondent Perez filed her "Opposition to Cross-defs.' motion and prayed that the trial court holds respondents jointly and severally liable.
Counter Motion" to dismiss. The so-called counter motion to dismiss was
The respondents having been found to be solidarily liable to petitioner, the full
premised on the fact that the release of claim executed by petitioner in favor
payment made by some of the solidary debtors and their subsequent release
of the other respondents inured to the benefit of respondent Perez,
from any and all liability to petitioner inevitably resulted in the extinguishment
considering that all the respondents are solidarity liable to herein petitioner.
and release from liability of the other solidary debtors, including herein
Respondent judge issued the questioned order dismissing the case, and a respondent Patrocinio Perez.
motion for the reconsideration thereof was denied.

Petitioner, by way of appeal, contends that respondent judge erred in declaring


Republic vs Marcos – Manotoc et. al
that the release of claim executed by petitioner in favor of respondents Sioson,
Villanueva and Pagarig. Facts:

After the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino
created the PresidentialCommission of Good Government (PCGG). The PCGG
ISSUE: W/N petitioner’s contention is correct?
filed a Complaint against Ferdinand Marcos, whohas later substituted by his
estate upon his death; Imelda R. Marcos; and herein respondents
ImeeMarcos – Manotoc, Irene Marcos – Araneta, Bongbong Marcos, Tomas
RULING: NO. The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the-
Marcos, and Gregorio Araneta III.
delict or wrong violating the rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one
injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises. In Issues:
the case at bar, there is no question that the petitioner sustained a single injury
Whether or not the petitioners are parties in interest.
on his person. That vested in him a single cause of action, albeit with the
correlative rights of action against the different respondents through the Ruling:
appropriate remedies allowed by law.
Since the pending case before the Sandiganbayan survives the death of judgment award, much less be deprived of the truck as a consequence of the
Ferdinand E. Marcos, it isimperative therefore that the estate be duly levy in execution.
represented. The purpose behind this rule is the protectionof the right to due
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ff. grounds: (1) respondent has no
process of every party to a litigation who may be affected by the intervening
legal personality to sue, having no real interests over the property subject of
death.The deceased litigant is himself protected, as he continues to be properly
the instant complaint; (2) the allegations in the complaint do not sufficiently
represented in the suitthrough the duly appointed legal representatives of his
state that the respondent has cause of action; (3) the allegations in the
estate. On that note, we take judicial notice ofthe probate proceedings
complaint do not contain sufficient cause of action as against him; and (4) the
regarding the will of Ferdinand E. Marcos. In Republic of the Philippines
complaint is not accompanied by an Affidavit of Merit and Bond that would
v.Marcos II, we upheld the grant by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of letters
entitle the respondent to the delivery of the truck pendente lite.
testamentary in sodium to Ferdinand R. Marcos , Jr. and Imelda
Romualdez – Marcos as executors of the last will and testament ofthe late The NLRC also filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction
Ferdinand E. Marcos and lack of cause of action.

Meanwhile, Lavarez filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Third-


Party Complaint. By way of special and affirmative defenses, he asserted that
Sarsaba v. Vda. De Te represented by Attorney-in-Fact Faustino Castaneda
the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the
FACTS: complaint does not state a cause of action.

A Decision was rendered in NLRC Case entitled, Patricio Sereno v. Teodoro RTC issued an Order denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit.
Gasing/Truck Operator, finding Sereno to have been illegally dismissed and
Petitioner denied the material allegations in the complaint. Lavarez filed a
ordering Gasing to pay him his monetary claims in the amount of P43,606.47.
Motion for Inhibition which was opposed by respondent.
After the Writ of Execution was returned unsatisfied, Labor Arbiter Newton R.
RTC issued an Order of inhibition and directed the transfer of the records. RTC
Sancho issued an Alias Writ of Execution, directing Fulgencio R. Lavarez, Sheriff
issued another Order denying the separate motions to dismiss filed by NLRC
II of NLRC, to satisfy the judgment award.
and Lavarez.
Lavarez, accompanied by Sereno and his counsel, petitioner Atty. Rogelio E.
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the Case on the ff grounds: (1)
Sarsaba, levied a Fuso Truck bearing License Plate No. LBR-514, which at that
lack of jurisdiction over one of the principal defendants; and (2) to discharge
time was in the possession of Gasing. Said truck was sold at public auction, with
respondent’s attorney-in-fact for lack of legal personality to sue.
Sereno appearing as highest bidder.
Respondent Fe Vda. De Te DIED. Respondent, through her lawyer, Atty. William
Meanwhile, respondent Fe Vda. de Te, represented by her attorney-in-fact,
G. Carpentero, filed an Opposition, contending that the failure to serve
Faustino Castañeda, filed with the RTC a Complaint for recovery of motor
summons upon Sereno is not a ground for dismissing the complaint, because
vehicle, damages with prayer for the delivery of the truck pendente lite against
the other defendants have already submitted their respective responsive
petitioner, Sereno, Lavarez and the NLRC. She alleged the ff: (1) she is the wife
pleadings.
of the late Pedro Te, the registered owner of the truck; (2) Gasing merely rented
the truck from her; (3) Lavarez erroneously assumed that Gasing owned the RTC issued the assailed Order denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss.
truck because he was, at the time of the "taking," in possession of the same;
and (4) since neither she nor her husband were parties to the labor case Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition in
between Sereno and Gasing, she should not be made to answer for the which he claimed that the judge who issued the Order was biased and partial.
Petitioner then directly sought recourse from the SC via the present petition to invoke the same in view of his death. Neither can petitioner invoke such
involving purely questions of law, which he claimed were resolved by the RTC ground, on behalf of Sereno, so as to reap the benefit of having the case
contrary to law and existing jurisprudence. dismissed against all of the defendants. Failure to serve summons on Sereno's
person will not be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint against the other
Petitioner submits pure questions of law involving the effect of non-service of
defendants, considering that they have been served with copies of the
summons following the death of the person to whom it should be served, and
summons and complaints and have long submitted their respective responsive
the effect of the death of the complainant during the pendency of the case.
pleadings. In fact, the other defendants in the complaint were given the chance
Petitioner argues that, since Sereno died before summons was served on him,
to raise all possible defenses and objections personal to them in their
the RTC should have dismissed the complaint against all the defendants and
respective motions to dismiss and their subsequent answers.
that the same should be filed against his estate.

Petitioner asks that the complaint should be dismissed, not only against
Sereno, but as to all the defendants, considering that the RTC did not acquire Patricio Sereno died before the summons, together with a copy of the
jurisdiction over the person of Sereno. complaint and its annexes, could be served upon him. However, the failure to
effect service of summons unto Patricio Sereno, one of the defendants herein
Petitioner also moves that respondent's attorney-in-fact, Faustino Castañeda,
does not render the action DISMISSIBLE, considering that the three (3) other
be discharged as he has no more legal personality to sue on behalf of Fe Vda.
defendants, namely, Atty. Rogelio E. Sarsaba, Fulgencio Lavares and the NLRC,
de Te, who passed away on April 12, 2005, during the pendency of the case
were validly served with summons and the case with respect to the answering
before the RTC.
defendants may still proceed independently. Be it recalled that the three (3)
answering defendants have previously filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
which was denied by the Court. Hence, only the case against Patricio Sereno
ISSUE: (Relevant in this topic) Effect of Death of party will be DISMISSED and the same may be filed as a claim against the estate of
Patricio Sereno, but the case with respect to the three (3) other accused will
proceed.
RULING: Jurisdiction over a party is acquired by service of summons by the
sheriff, his deputy or other proper court officer, either personally by handing a
copy thereof to the defendant or by substituted service. On the other hand, As for the issue regarding the respondent’s attorney-in-fact, While it may be
summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought true as alleged by defendants that with the death of Plaintiff, Fe Vda. de Te, the
against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court may acquire Special Power of Attorney she executed empowering the Attorney-in-fact,
jurisdiction over his person. Faustino Castañeda to sue in her behalf has been rendered functus officio,
Petitioner raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the person of Sereno, not however, this Court believes that the Attorney-in-fact had not lost his
in his Motion to Dismiss or in his Answer but only in his Omnibus Motion to personality to prosecute this case.
Dismiss. Having failed to invoke this ground at the proper time, that is, in a
motion to dismiss, petitioner cannot raise it now for the first time on appeal.
Records reveal that the Attorney-in-fact has testified long before in behalf of
the said plaintiff and more particularly during the state when the plaintiff was
The court's failure to acquire jurisdiction over one's person is a defense which vehemently opposing the dismissal of the complainant. Subsequently thereto,
is personal to the person claiming it. Obviously, it is now impossible for Sereno he even offered documentary evidence in support of the complaint, and this
court admitted the same. When this case was initiated, jurisdiction was vested
upon this Court to try and hear the same to the end. Well-settled is the rule to On September 10, 2002, Attys. Manuel B. Imbong and Jo Aurea M. Imbong filed
the point of being elementary that once jurisdiction is acquired by this Court, it a Motion for Substitution stating, among other things, that (1) Gonzales died
attaches until the case is decided. on January 17, 2002; (2) his heirs are not interested to pursue and prosecute
the present special civil action or be substituted as petitioners herein; and (3)
the petition was instituted by Gonzales as a class suit in behalf of "all Filipino
Thus, the proper remedy here is the Substitution of Heirs and not the dismissal citizens, taxpayers and members of the Philippine Bar" and, as such, survives
of this case which would work injustice to the plaintiff. his death. They thus pray that as they are among the "Filipino citizens,
taxpayers and members of the Philippine Bar" for whom the herein class suit
was instituted and are both capable of prosecuting the instant case, they be
SEC. 16, RULE 3 provides for the substitution of the plaintiff who dies pending substituted as petitioners in lieu of Gonzales and that they be given thirty days
hearing of the case by his/her legal heirs. As to whether or not the heirs will from notice within which to file their memorandum.
still continue to engage the services of the Attorney-in-fact is another matter, By Resolution of December 9, 2002, this Court required respondents to file
which lies within the sole discretion of the heirs. their Comments on the Motion for Substitution filed by Attys. Imbong and
Imbong.

Gonzales v. PAGCOR In their separate Comments, respondents PAGCOR and SAGE both argue that,
among others things, movants Attys. Imbong and Imbong may not be
FACTS: substituted for Gonzales as the former are neither legal representatives nor
Ramon A. Gonzales, as a citizen, taxpayer and member of the Philippine Bar, heirs of the latter within the purview of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
filed on September 28, 2000 the instant Petition as a class suit under Section Respondents PAGCOR and SAGE further argue that neither Gonzales nor
12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court seeking to restrain PAGCOR from continuing its movants have substantiated the allegation that the instant case is a class suit
operations and prohibit it and its co-respondents from enforcing: (1) the "Grant as defined under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Hence, so said
of an Authority and Agreement for the Operation of Sports Betting and Internet respondents argue, the petition should be considered a personal action which
Gambling" executed between PAGCOR and SAGE; (2) the "Grant of Authority was extinguished with the death of Gonzales.
to Operate Computerized Bingo Games"4 between PAGCOR and BEST WORLD;
and (3) the "Agreement” among PAGCOR, BELLE and FILGAME to conduct jai- Movants argue, however, that "unless the herein substitution is allowed, the
alai operations. citizens and taxpayers represented by Gonzales in this class suit will be denied
due process."
Petition was given due course. Consequently, the parties were required to
submit their respective Memoranda. Only respondents PAGCOR and SAGE
submitted their Memoranda, on December 6, 2001 and January 24, 2002, ISSUE: Duty of counsel upon death of party.
respectively. Gonzales having failed to file his Memorandum within the
prescribed period, this Court which, in the meantime, was informed of the
alleged demise of Gonzales, required by Resolution 1) respondents to confirm
RULING: See Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
the death of Gonzales, and 2) the parties to manifest whether they were still
interested in prosecuting the petition, or whether supervening events had *Take note that even if the SC in this case were to consider the Motion for
rendered it moot and academic. Substitution as a seasonably filed Motion for Intervention (Sec. 12, Rule 3),
instant petition would have to be dismissed for being moot and academic.
foreclosure of the Nueva Ecija properties and the Bulacan properties. The Bank
was the highest bidder on both occasions.
[Bonilla v. Barcena]
The Bank then caused the annotation of the Notarial Certificate of Sale covering
x x x The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the
the Nueva Ecija properties on the certificates of title concerned. Later, the
nature of the action and the damage sued for. If the causes of action which
Notarial Certificate of Sale covering the Bulacan properties was annotated on
survive the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property
the certificates of title of said properties. The foregoing facts led to Rosemoor’s
and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in
filing of separate complaints against the Bank, one before the Regional Trial
the causes of action which do not survive the injury complained of is to the
Court of Manila.
person the property and rights of property affected being incidental. x x x
Rosemoor and Dr. Pascual filed a Complaint, originally captioned as one for
"Damages, Accounting and Release of Balance of Loan and Machinery and for
United Overseas Bank v. Rosemoore Mining & Dev’t Co. Injunction" before the Manila RTC. Impleaded as defendants were the Bank and
Notary Public Jose Sineneng, whose office was used to foreclose the mortgage.
FACTS: The complaint was twice amended, the caption eventually reflecting an action
Respondent Rosemoor a Philippine mining corporation with offices at Quezon for "Accounting, Specific Performance and Damages." Through the
City, applied for and was granted by petitioner Westmont Bank (Bank) a credit amendments, Pascual was dropped as a plaintiff while several officers of the
facility in the total amount of P80 million consisting of P50,000,000.00 as long Bank were included as defendants.
term loan and P30,000,000.00 as revolving credit line. The Bank moved for the dismissal of the original and amended complaints on
To secure the credit facility, a lone real estate mortgage agreement was the ground that the venue had been improperly laid. The motion was denied
executed by Rosemoor and Dr. Lourdes Pascual (Dr. Pascual), Rosemoor’s by the trial court through an Omnibus Resolution.
president, as mortgagors in favor of the Bank as mortgagee in the City of Plaintiff Rosemoor prayed for the ff: (1) Bank to render an acctg; (2) actual
Manila. The agreement, however, covered six parcels of land located in San damages for operational losses; (3) exemplary damages; (4) indemnity and
Miguel, Bulacan, all registered under the name of Rosemoor and two parcels other relief.
of land situated in Gapan, Nueva Ecija (Nueva Ecija properties), owned and
registered under the name of Dr. Pascual. The Bank filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
the ground of forum-shopping since, according to it, Rosemoor had filed
Rosemoor subsequently opened with the Bank four irrevocable Letters of another petition earlier before the Malolos RTC. The Bank contended that as
Credit (LCs) totaling US$1,943,508.11. between the action before the Manila RTC and the petition before the Malolos
To cover payments by the Bank under the LCs, Rosemoor proceeded to draw RTC, there is identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs prayed for, the relief
against its credit facility and thereafter executed promissory notes amounting being founded on the same set of facts. The Bank further claimed that any
collectively to P49,862,682.50. Two other promissory notes were also executed judgment that may be rendered in either case will amount to res judicata in the
by Rosemoor in the amounts of P10,000,000.00 and P3,500,000.00, other case.
respectively, to be drawn from its revolving credit line. Manila RTC denied the motion to dismiss. It also denied the Bank’s motion for
Rosemoor defaulted in the payment of its various drawings under the LCs and reconsideration of the order of denial.
promissory notes. In view of the default, the Bank caused the extra-judicial The Bank challenged the Manila RTC’s denial of the Bank’s second motion to
dismiss before the Court of Appeals, through a petition for certiorari. The
appellate court dismissed the petition. The Bank filed a motion for
reconsideration which, however, was denied through a Resolution.
As to the existence of identity of parties, several bank officers and employees
In the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Bank argues that the Court of impleaded in the Amended Complaint in the Manila case were not included in
Appeals erred in holding that no forum-shopping attended the actions brought the Malolos case.
by Rosemoor.
As regards the identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the main
ISSUE: (Central issue) W/N Rosemoor committed forum-shopping in filing the contention of Rosemoor in the Manila case is that the Bank had failed to deliver
Malolos case during the pendency of the Manila case? the full amount of the loan, as a consequence of which Rosemoor demanded
the remittance of the unreleased portion of the loan and payment of damages
consequent thereto.
RULING: NO.

The rule on venue of real actions is provided in Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997
In contrast, the Malolos case was filed for the purpose of restraining the Bank
Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads in part:
from proceeding with the consolidation of the titles over the foreclosed
Bulacan properties because the loan secured by the mortgage had not yet
become due and demandable. Moreover, the Malolos case is an action to annul
Section 1. Venue of Real Actions. Actions affecting title to or possession of real the foreclosure sale that is necessarily an action affecting the title of the
property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court property sold. It is therefore a real action which should be commenced and
which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a tried in the province where the property or part thereof lies.
portion thereof, is situated.

The Manila case, on the other hand, is a personal action involving as it does the
The venue of the action for the nullification of the foreclosure sale is properly enforcement of a contract between Rosemoor, whose office is in Quezon City,
laid with the Malolos RTC although two of the properties together with the and the Bank, whose principal office is in Binondo, Manila.Personal actions may
Bulacan properties are situated in Nueva Ecija. The venue of real actions be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
affecting properties found in different provinces is determined by the resides, or where the defendants or any of the principal defendants resides, at
SINGULARITY or PLURALITY of the transactions involving said parcels of land. the election of the plaintiff.
Where said parcels are the object of one and the same transaction, the venue
is in the court of any of the provinces wherein a parcel of land is situated. Clearly, with the foregoing premises, it cannot be said that respondents
committed forum-shopping.

Elements of forum-shopping: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as


represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and Magaspi v. Ramolete
reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
FACTS:
identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such
that any judgment rendered in the pending cases, regardless of which party is On September 16, 1970, the petitioners filed a complaint for the recovery of
successful, amount to res judicata in the other case. ownership and possession of a parcel of land with damages against The Shell
Co. of the Philippines, Ltd. and/or The Shell Refining Co. (Phil.) Inc., Central
Visayan Realty & Investment Co., Inc. and Cebu City Savings & Loan Association RULING:The rule is well-settled that a case is deemed filed only upon payment
in the CFI of Cebu. Upon filing and the payment of P60.00 as docketing fee and of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of its filing in court. The Court
P10.00 for sheriff fees, the case was assigned. holds that it was docketed upon the payment of P60.00 although said amount
is insufficient. Accordingly, the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the
Central Visayan Realty & Investment Co., Inc. and Cebu City Savings and Loan
case and the proceedings thereafter had were proper and regular.
Assn. filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs to pay the correct amount for
docket fee within the time prescribed by Court, as properly computed by the
Clerk of Court and failing to pay the same within the prescribed period to
The next question is in respect of the correct amount to be paid as docket fee.
dismiss the case. Further, until such time as the correct docket fee is paid, the
Judge Canonoy ordered the payment of P3,104.00 as additional docket fee
time for filing of responsive pleadings by the defendants be suspended. The
based on the original complaint. However, the petitioners assert as an
motion was opposed by the petitioners who claimed that the main cause of
alternative view, that the docket fee be based on the amended complaint. The
action was the recovery of a piece of land and on the basis of its assessed
petitioners have a point. "When a pleading is amended, the original pleading is
valued, P60.00 was the correct docketing fee and that although the Revised
deemed abandoned. The original ceases to perform any further function as a
Rules of Court do not exclude damages in the computation of the docket fee,
pleading. The case stands for trial on the amended pleading only. On the basis
damages are nonetheless still to be excluded.
of the foregoing, the additional docket fee to be paid by the petitioners should
On October 5, 1970, the presiding judge ordered the Clerk of Court to comment be based on their amended complaint.
on the motion and the opposition which it assessed that the correct fees shall
be fixed at of P3,164.00 plus P2.00 Legal Research fee (the value of the land,
which is P17,280.00, plus the damages amounting to P3,390,633.24). Hence, WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted: the petitioners shall be assessed
petitioner shall pay P3,104, net of the P60.00 already paid. However, private a docket fee on the basis of the amended complaint; and after all of the lawful
respondents filed their respective answers that the same was exclusive of fees shall have been paid, the proceedings in Civil Case No. R-11882 shall be
exemplary damages must be included in the computation therein. resumed.
On November 3, 1970, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint so as to include the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
as a defendant. Nine days after, respondents filed an opposition to the Manchester Dev’t v. CA
admission of the amended complaint. FACTS:
On November 16, 1970, Judge Canonoy admitted the amended complaint - This was originally a case of an action for torts and damages and specific
although the plaintiffs had not yet complied with his Order that they should performance with a prayer for temporary restraining order. The damages were
pay an additional P3,104.00 docket fee. On April 3, 1971, Judge Jose R. not specifically stated in the prayer but the body of the complaint assessed a P
Ramolete who had replaced Judge Canonoy, issued the same order. 78.75 M. damages suffered by the petitioner. The amount of docket fee paid
was only P410.00. The petitioner then amended the complaint and reduced the
damages to P10 M only.
ISSUE:W/N the case may be considered as having been filed and docketed
when P60.00 was paid to the Clerk of Court even on the assumption that said
payment was not sufficient in amount? ISSUE/S:

When does a court acquire jurisdiction?


Does an amended complaint vest jurisdiction in the court? RULING: YES. It was held that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee
that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a
HELD: reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the reglamentary period. Same rule goes for permissive counterclaims, third party
prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will claims and similar pleadings.
not vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee
based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading. All complaints,
petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of In herein case, obviously, there was the intent on the part of PR to defraud the
damages being prayed for. Damages shall be considered in the assessment of government of the docket fee due not only in the filing of the original complaint
the filing fees in any case. but also in the filing of the second amended complaint. However, a more liberal
interpretation of the rules is called for considering that, unlike in Manchester,
the private respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by
Sun Insurance v. Asuncion paying the additional docket fees as required.

FACTS:

Petitioner Sun Insurance (or SIOL) filed a complaint for the annulment of a Where a trial court acquires jurisdiction in like manner, but subsequently, the
decision on the consignation of fire insurance policy. judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same
has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee shall
Subsequently, the Private Respondent (PR) filed a complaint for the refund of constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of
premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in a civil case Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect
against SIOL. In addition, PR also claims for damages, attorney’s fees, litigation the additional fee.
costs, etc., however, the prayer did not state the amount of damages sought
although from the body of the complaint it can be inferred to be in amount of
P 50 million. Hence, PR originally paid only PhP 210.00 in docket fees. Heirs of the Late Ruben Reinoso Jr. v. CA
The complaint underwent a number of amendments to make way for FACTS:
subsequent re-assessments of the amount of damages sought as well as the
corresponding docket fees. The respondent demonstrated his willingness to
abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required.
ISSUE:

ISSUE: Did the Court acquire jurisdiction over the case even if private
RULING:
respondent did not pay the correct or sufficient docket fees?
The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period
is mandatory.
In Manchester v. Court of Appeals, it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction In this case, it cannot be denied that the case was litigated before the RTC and
over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. The strict said trial court had already rendered a decision. While it was at that level, the
application of this rule was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case of matter of non-payment of docket fees was never an issue. It was only the CA
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, wherein the Court decreed that where which motu propio dismissed the case for said reason.
the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee,
the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but
in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglamentary period. This Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of
ruling was made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated his the rules so that the petitioners would be able to fully and finally prosecute
willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees required. their claim on the merits at the appellate level rather than fail to secure justice
Thus, in the more recent case of United Overseas Bank v. Ros, the Court on a technicality, for, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate
explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing
court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the
rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal administration of justice
doctrine enunciated in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict regulations
set in Manchester, will apply. It has been on record that the Court, in several
instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in As the Court has taken the position that it would be grossly unjust if P’s claim
order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the would be dismissed on a strict application of the Manchester doctrine, the
merits. appropriate action, under ordinary circumstances, would be for the Court to
remand the case to the CA. Considering, however, that the case at bench has
been pending for more than 30 years and the records thereof are already
In the case of La Salette College v. Pilotin, the Court stated: before the Court, a remand of the case to the CA would unnecessarily prolong
its resolution. In the higher interest of substantial justice and to spare the
parties from further delay, the Court will resolve the case on the merits.
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of
appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified
by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)
allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should
be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in FACTS:Within the freedom period after CBA between Kimberly Clark
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal (Company) and the incumbent UKCEO-PTGWO (United Kimberly Clark
of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances. 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
Kimberly’s employees, having garnered the highest votes in the election.
While there is a crying need to unclog court dockets on the one hand, there is,
though remained uncounted were 64 challenged votes by 64 casual workers
on the other, a greater demand for resolving genuine disputes fairly and
whose regularization was in question.
equitably, for it is far better to dispose of a case on the merit which is a
primordial end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice.
During the pendency of Kilusan-Olalia’s petition for certiorari assailing the petition was signed by the union’s lawyer, who had been authorized by a
DOLE Order, Kimberly dismissed several employees thereby impelling Kilusan majority of the petitioners to represent them and to sign on their behalf all
to stage a strike charging the company thereby with Unfair Labor practice, pleadings and appeals relative to the labor dispute.
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 Kilusan’s petition on procedural grounds: With regard to the certification against forum shopping, suffice it to state that
in Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, we took cognizance of a petition although its
“The verification was signed only by petitioners’ president, sans any board
certification was executed and signed by only one of several petitioners, thus:
resolution or power of attorney authorizing anybody to sign the same and the
certificate on non-forum shopping”.

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
ISSUE: W/N the disputed requirements of Verification & Certification against
insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum
Forum Shopping was sufficient in form (therefore the respondent CA
shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly
committed error in dismissing the case based on sheer technicality and in the
administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute
merit of the petition itself)
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.
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 This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions
secure an assurance that the allegations therein made are done in good faith regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its
or are true and correct and not mere speculation. 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 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 The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The petition is REMANDED to the Court of
justice may be served Appeals for adjudication on the merits

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
In-n-Out burger, Inc. V. Sehwani, Incorporated and/or Benitas Frites, inc.
of the other petitioners, the CA should not have been too strict in the
application of the Rules. 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
Necessarily, Facundo, being the union president, was in a position to verify the
reversed the Decision of the Director General of IPO. CA decreed that the IPO
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. Further, the
Director of Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General do not have jurisdiction registration in their favor; and e) In-N-Out Burger, Inc. had no legal capacity to
over cases involving unfair competition. sue because it never operated in the Philippines.

FACTS: 6) IPO Director of Legal Affairs, Estrelita Beltran-Abelardo decided in favor of


petitioner In-N-Out Burger, Inc. and held that petitioner had legal capacity to
1) Petitioner, In-N-Out Burger, Inc. is a business entity incorporated under the
sue in the Philippines since its country of origin was a member and signatory of
laws of California, mainly engaged in the restaurant business which never
the Convention of Paris on Protection of Industrial Property and that the mark
engaged in business in the Philippines while Respondents Sehwani, Inc and
was widely known in this country and are internationally well-known, given the
Benita Frites, Inc. are corporations organized in the Philippines.
world-wide registration of the mark. However, it also ruled that respondents
used the mark in good faith and were not guilty of unfair competition.

2) In-N-Out Burger, Inc. filed trademark and service mark applications (1997)
with the Bureau of Trademarks of IPO for “IN-N-OUT” and “IN-N-OUT Burger &
7) Both parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration. Both
Arrow design” but through Action Papers issued by IPO, it found out that such
motions were denied which thus led to two separate cases.
mark was already registered to Sehwani, Inc. and is used by Benitas Frites, Inc.
by virtue of a licensing agreement.

8) Case by respondents Sehwani, Inc. and Benitas Frites, Inc. (G.R. No. 171053)

3) Petitioner filed before the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPO an Upon receipt of Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration,
administrative complaint (2001) against respondents for unfair competition respondents filed an appeal to the IPO Director General, which was later
and cancellation of trademark registration arguing that the these marks are: a) dismissed. An appeal was filed before the CA. CA later ordered the cancellation
Registered in the Office of the US and internationally well-known in various of the registration of Sehwani, Inc. and to enjoin respondents from using the
parts of the world; and b) Petitioner’s use misleads ordinary and unsuspecting same. Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied hence, Sehwani,
consumers that they are purchasing petitioner’s products. Inc. filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

4) In-N-Out Burger, Inc. then sent a demand letter to Sehwani, Inc. to cease and SC held that:
desist from caliming ownership of the mark and to voluntarily cancel its
a) In-N-Out Burger, Inc. had legal capacity to sue for protection of its
trademark registration. Sehwani, Inc., in its reply, refused to accede to the
trademarks even though it was not doing business in the Philippines;
demand but expressed willingness to surrended for a fair and reasonable
consideration. b) Appeal for the decision of IPO Director General was out of time;

c) Registration in favor of Sehwani, Inc. must be cancelled.


5) Respondents, on their part, filed an Answer with Counterclaim, asserting Another Motion for Reconsideration was filed by respondents but it was later
that: a) They have been using the mark in the Philippines since 1982; b) Such denied with finality in a Resolution by the Court (2008).
mark was registered in the name of Sehwani, Inc. as early as 1991; c) They were
issued a certificate of registration by the IPO; d) There is presumption of valid
Case by petitioner In-N-Out Burger, Inc. (G.R. No. 179127)

In-N-Out Burger, Inc. was able to file a timely appeal before the IPO Director RULING: NO.
General;
The Secretary’s Certificate was valid because it requires only a jurat and not an
During the pendency of the appeal, CA rendered a decision dismissing acknowledgment. (Discussion about difference between jurat and
respondent’s petition. acknowledgment)

IPO Director General later held that Sehwani, Inc. and Benitas Frites, Inc. were However, assuming arguendo that the Secretary’s Certificate was flawed, Atty.
guilty of unfair competition as the sole distinction of having a star inside the Barranda may still sign the Verification attached to the present Petition
“O” was insufficient and the non-use of the mark was immaterial. because a party’s representative, lawyer or any other person who personally
knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the Verification.
In-N-Out Burger, Inc. was entitled to actual and exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees. The purpose of the Verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of
the petition has been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely
speculative. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the
10) Respondents filed another Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal
Court of Appeals which ruled that IPO did not have jurisdiction to try the case knowledge or based on authentic records.
because Article 168 of the IP Code provides that the regular courts, not the BLA-
Atty. Barranda, as In-N-Out Burger, Inc.’s counsel, was in the position to verify
IPO, had sole jurisdiciton to thear and decide cases involving provisions of the
the truth and correctness of the allegations of the present petition. Hence, the
IP Code, particularly trademarks. CA granted the petition by Sehwani, Inc.,
Verification signed by Atty. Barranda substantialy complies with the formal
reversed the decision of the IPO Director General and dismissed the claims by
requirements for such.
In-N-Out Burger, Inc. Hence, the present petition by In-N-Out Burger, Inc.
Finally, the SC ruled that verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional
requirement. In the interest of substantial justice, strict observance of
12) As one of the defenses of respondent Sehwani, Inc., it raised questions procedural rules may be dispensed with for compelling reasons. WHEREFORE,
pertaining to formal defects in the present petition by In-N-Out Burger, Inc. and petition is hereby GRANTED.
argued that due to In-N-Out Burger, Inc.’s failure to comply with formal
Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance vs. Jorge Valdez
requisites, the petition must be dismissed outrightly.
January 28, 2008, Sandoval-Gutierrez, j:
Respondents contend that the Verification/Certification executed by Atty.
Edmund Barranda attached to the present petition is defective because the FACTS: Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company Incorporated is a domestic
Secretary’s Certification executed by Arnold Wensinger, stating that petitioner corporation engaged in the insurance business. The individual petitioners are
had authorized lawyers of Villaraza & Angangco to represent it in the present its corporate officers.
Petition and to sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping,
was not properly notarized and hence are invalid.
Jorge Valdez (respondent) was a former unit manager of Tokio Marine pursuant
to a Unit Management Contract entered into between them on August 16,
ISSUE: Whether the petition by In-N-Out Burger, Inc. contained formal defects, 1977.
which can cause its outright dismissal by the Court. (Verification by Counsel)
On October 15, 1998, respondent filed with the RTC a complaint for damages Section 5, Rule 7 provides:
against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-91356. He alleged therein
“The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or
that petitioners violated the terms of the Unit Management Contract by
other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
refusing to pay him, among others, his commissions, and bonuses. Petitioners
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
filed their separate motions to dismiss the complaint.
… (c) if he should thereafter learn that same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
On December 17, 1998, respondent manifested before the trial court that he court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.”
filed various criminal complaints against petitioners with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Makati City.
The Court took note that in respondent’s certification against forum shopping,
Trial Court denied petitioners’ motions to dismiss. TC and CA did not find
respondent manifested that he filed criminal charges against petitioners.
respondent guilty of forum shopping.
SC agreed with CA that the certification of respondent is a substantial
compliance with Section 5 Rule 7. Moreover, it should be recalled that
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of forum shopping. respondent manifested before the trial court on December 16, 1998 that he
actually filed criminal charges against petitioners.

HELD:NO. Respondent is not guilty of forum shopping.


Negros Slashers v Teng - 666 S 629 G.R. No. 187122; February 22, 2012
Forum shopping is described as: “the act of a litigant who repetitively availed
of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, FACTS: Respondent Alvin Teng is a basketball player for the Negros Slashers
all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts team of the now defunct Metropolitan Basketball Association (MBA).Because
and circumstances, and all raisingsubstantially the same issues either pending of below par performance, he was pulled from the line up in the middle of the
in, or already resolved adversely by some other court to increase his chances game and "untied his shoelaces". In the succeeding game, he called in sick, to
of obtaining a favorable decision of not in one court, then in another.Differently the consternation of his teammates. Negros Slashers consequently terminated
put, it is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause Teng. On July 28, 2001, Teng filed a complaint with the Commissioner of the
of action, either simultaneously or for the purpose of obtaining favorable MBA. Later, on November 6, 2001, and because of the inaction of the MBA
judgment.” commissioner, Teng filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. The
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Teng. The NLRC however dismissed the case for
being premature considering that there was a pending arbitration case before
The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to the MBA commissioner. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the
pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts as it constitutes abuse decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence this petition.
of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice,
ISSUE: Whether or not Teng violated the rule on forum shopping.
wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of
the heavily burdened dockets. HELD: NO. There was no forum shopping. The following are the elements need
to be present for there to be forum shopping:
a. There must be identity of the parties, or at least the parties represent the 94 requiring that the Petition must be accompanied by a Certification against
same interests in both actions; Non-Forum Shopping signed by the Petitioner.

b. There must be identity of the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts;
In this case, the Petition of Digital Microwave was signed by its counsel hence
c. Any judgment in one of the two actions will, regardless of which party is it was dismissed by CA. Petitioner then filed an MR and submitted a
successful, amount to res judicata for the other. Certification against Non-Forum Shopping signed this time by the Corporation’s
Senior Officer but the CA still dismissed the MR for failure to explain its failure
to comply with the Circular at the onset
The first two elements in this case, however, the third element, res judicata is
missing. Any judgement of the MBA commissioner will not render a bar
preventing redress in other courts. Issue: WON the Court erred in denying the petitioner’s MR and for disallowing
the new Certification against Non-Forum Shopping?
Under the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree
rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter
within its jurisdiction, is conclusive upon the rights of the parties and their
Held: NO. The petitioner and NOT the Counsel must sign the Certification
privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit.
against Non-Forum Shopping. It is the petitioner who has actual knowledge
Res judicatamust contain the following elements:
whether or not he initiated a similar action in different courts or agencies. The
a. Judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; petitioner also failed to explain why the first certification was not signed by the
Corporate Officer and why the same should be justified. The Court held that
b. Decision must be made by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter
the petitioner cannot disregard the strict compliance of the circular and the
and the parties;
subsequent filing of the correct certification does not cure its defect.
c. Disposition must be a judgment on the merits; and
Guy v Court of Appeals (GR 163707, September 15, 2006)
d. There must be as between the actions, identity of the parties, subject matter
FACTS:
and causes of action.
1. The special proceeding case concerns the settlement of the estate of Sima
The arbitration commission of the MBA is not a court of competent jurisdiction,
Wei (a.k.a. Rufina Guy Susim). Private-respondents Karen and Kamille alleged
therefore, any decision it renders cannot produce res judicatatherefore, there
that they are the acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei who died
is no forum shopping.
intestate. The minors were represented by their mother Remedios Oanes who
filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration before the RTC of
Makati City.
Digital Microwave Corp. vs. CA
2. Petitioner who is one of the children of the deceased with his surviving
FACTS: Asian High Tech Corp. filed a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages spouse, filed for the dismissal of the petition alleging that his father left no
against Digital Microwave. Digital Microwave filed a Motion to Dismiss but was debts hence, his estate may be settled without the issuance of letters
denied- Filed an MR but was likewise denied by Court. Hence Petitioner filed administration. The other heirs filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging that the
Petition for Certiorari with the CA. CA denied the same for its failure to comply
with Revised Circular No. 28-91, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 04-
certification of non-forum shopping should have been signed by Remedios and 2. After the death of Tang Chin, Feliciano Tang and Tang Kong Suy, the parties
not by counsel. agreed to refer the matter to the Federation of Filipino Chinese Chamber of
Commerce via an agreement they executed on March 11, 1975.
3. Petitioners further alleged that the claim has been paid and waived by reason
of a Release of Claim or waiver stating that in exchange for financial and 3. On February 5, 1991, the petitioners filed a petition for dissolution and
educational assistance from the petitioner, Remedios and her minor children liquidation of the partnership with the SEC.
discharged the estate of the decedent from any and all liabilities.
4. On February 9, 1993, the Hearing Officer of the SEC rendered a decision
4. The lower court denied the joint motion to dismiss as well as the affirming the list of the partnership’s properties which shall be distributed to
supplemental motion ruling that the mother is not the duly constituted the partners/heirs in proportion to their contribution in accordance with the
guardian of the minors hence, she could not have validly signed the waiver. It Articles of the Partnership.
also rejected the petitioner's objections to the certificate of non-forum
5. The petitioners moved for partial reconsideration contending that the
shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the lower court. Hence,
properties should be divided equally in accordance with the 1975 Agreement.
this petition.
The motion was denied by the hearing officer on August 11, 1993.
Issue: whether private respondents' petition should be dismissed for failure to
6. The petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal but this was not perfected due to
comply with the rules on certification of non-forum shopping;
their failure to file the Memorandum on Appeal and to pay the docket fees
Held: within the period provided for by the Revised Rules of Procedure of the SEC.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification of non- 7. Consequently, a motion for execution was filed by respondents on October
forum shopping should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal party. 28, 1993 which was granted by the hearing officer on January 5, 1994.
Failure to comply with the requirement shall be cause for dismissal of the case. Petitioners filed an opposition thereto asserting that there was a need to
However, a liberal application of the rules is proper where the higher interest check/investigate the information that some of the partnership properties
of justice would be served. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,11 we ruled that while were already adjudicated to Feliciano Tangs heirs in an Intestate Proceeding
a petition may have been flawed where the certificate of non-forum shopping before the then Court of First Instance of Manila in 1964. The Opposition was
was signed only by counsel and not by the party, this procedural lapse may be denied.
overlooked in the interest of substantial justice.12 So it is in the present
8. Thus, petitioners went up to the Commission En Banc. Private respondents
controversy where the merits of the case and the absence of an intention to
filed an opposition asserting that the SEC no longer had jurisdiction over the
violate the rules with impunity should be considered as compelling reasons to
case considering that the decision of the hearing officer had already become
temper the strict application of the rules.
final and executory.

9. The SEC, nonetheless, took cognizance of the case and disposed it in this
Sy Chin v Court of Appeals (GR 136233, November 23, 2000) wise:

1. In 1952, the brothers Tang Chin, Feliciano Tang, Ricardo Alonzo a.k.a. Tang “Since the alleged CFI adjudication in the Intestate Proceeding has not, as yet,
Kong Suy, Tang Chin Heng and William Tang a.k.a. Tang Kong Sia formed a been duly established however, and this appeal, having been treated as an
partnership under the name of Tan Chin Heng & Company. action to annul the questioned orders of the hearing officer, we are
constrained, as we HEREBY RESOLVE to remand the case to the department of
origin for proper action. All other motions filed in relation herewith are, by this
DECISION, likewise referred to the Securities Investigation and Clearing motion for writ of execution is not appealable as provided under Rule 41,
Department of (sic) its disposition. SO ORDERED.” Section 1.

10. A Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification was filed by the private Clearly, therefore, the SEC committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to
respondents but this was denied by the SEC Commission en banc. lack of jurisdiction when it entertained petitioners appeal and treated it as a
direct attack against the orders of the hearing officer. This in effect re-opened
11. A petition for certiorari was consequently filed with the Court of Appeals
the case that has already become final and executory.
assailing the SEC decision. On August 18, 1998, the CA ruled that the SEC acted
in excess of its jurisdiction. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as A careful perusal of the records reveals that the list of partnership properties
follows: was never an issue in this case. No one questioned the list of properties or
asserted that some of the properties belong to any of the heirs particularly to
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the petition, the Court issues the writ of certiorari
the heirs of Feliciano Tang. In the March 11, 1975 Agreement executed before
and annuls the Decision dated December 6, 1995 and the Resolution dated July
the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and notarized by
25, 1997 of the respondent Commission.
Atty. Eriberto H. Decena, the parties acknowledged that the properties listed
12. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was, likewise, denied. Hence, therein are partnership assets commonly owned by the partners although the
this petition titles thereto may have been placed in the names of one or more of them. The
prefatory clause of said agreement reads as follows:
Issue related to topic:
“WHEREAS, the above parties are the common owners of the following
W/N THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO properties, both real and personal, although the titles thereto may have been
DISMISS AND/OR DENY DUE COURSE TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS PETITION in the names of one or more of them.”
Held: NOTE:
The Decision of the Hearing Officer rendered on February 9, 1993 to which a THE ONLY PART PERTINENT TO THE TOPIC, “COUNSEL CANNOT SIGN
timely motion for partial reconsideration was filed had already become final CERTIFICATION; EXCEPTION” WAS TACKLED FLEETINGLY AND ONLY ON THE
and executory for petitioners failure to perfect their appeal to the SEC en banc. LAST PARAGRAPH BEFORE THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE CASE:
Section 3. How Appeal is Taken: When Perfected Appeal may be taken by filing “Finally,the petitioners aver that the respondent court should have outrightly
with the Hearing Officer who promulgated the decision, order or ruling within dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the requirements
thirty (30) days from notice thereof, and serving upon the adverse party, notice on non-forum shopping. While it is true that the petition may have been flawed
of appeal and a memorandum on appeal and paying the corresponding docket as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by
fee therefor. The appeal shall be considered perfected upon the filing of the the party, suffice it to say that this procedural lapse may be overlooked in the
memorandum on the appeal and payment of the docket fee within the period interest of substantial justice. Given the facts and circumstances of the case,
hereinabove fixed. (Amended). we likewise find no reversible error with the respondent courts evaluation that
It is clear that the appeal to the SEC en banc was not perfected and resultantly, there is prima facie merit in the petition.”
the Decision of February 9, 1993 has become final and executory. There was,
therefore, nothing for the SEC en banc to review. It must be noted that
petitioners’ appeal to the Commission en banc was an appeal on the order of
execution which is not permissible under the rules. The order granting the
Co-owner or co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or co-parties