CASES IN REMEDIAL LAW I

CIVIL PROCEDURE
(Dean Lope E. Feble)

JURISDICTION

PH COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION INC. (COCOFED) vs. REPUBLIC, G.R. NO.

177857-58. JANUARY 24, 2012
SANTO vs. CLARAVALL, G.R. NO. 173915, FEBRUARY 22, 2010
SEBASTIAN vs. LAGMAY, G.R. NO. 164594, APRIL 22, 2015
GARCIA vs. DRILON, G.R. NO. 179267, JUNE 25, 2013
Loloy Unduran et al. vs. Ramon Abersaturi, G.R. No. 181284; October 20, 2015

ESTOPPEL: EXCEPTIONAL CASE OF WAIVER OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT

MATTER

LA’O vs. REPUBLIC, G.R. NO. 160719, JANUARY 23, 2006

TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY, G.R. NO. L-21450, APRIL 15, 1968
CUDIAMAT vs. BATANGAS SAVINGS & LOANS BANK, G.R. NO 182403, MARCH 9,
2010

JURISDICTION IS NOT THE SAME AS THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

REPUBLIC vs. MANGOTARA, G.R. NO. 170375, JULY 7, 2010

ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

RAYMUNDO vs. CA, G.R. NO. 97805, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
BARRIDO vs. NONATO, G.R. NO. 176492, OCTOBER 20, 2014

DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS: EXCEPTION

KULAYAN vs. TAN, G.R. NO. 187298, JULY 3, 2012
DY vs. BIBAT-PALAMOS, G.R. NO. 196200, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013

NON-INTERFERENCE WITH OMBUDSMAN’S EXERCISE OF INVESTIGATIVE AND

PROSECUTORIAL POWERS

1
ANGELES vs. GUTIERREZ, G.R. NO. 189161, MARCH 21, 2012

DOCKET AND OTHER LAWFUL FEES

GIPA vs. SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUE, G.R. NO. 177425, JUNE 18, 2014
NAVAREZ vs. ABROGAR, G.R. NO. 191641, SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

COURT TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER ADMINISTRATIVE CASE

RE: MISSING EXHIBITS ABD COURT PROPERTIES IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 4, PANABO CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, A.M. NO. 10-2-41-RTC, FEBRUARY
27, 2013
DUYON vs. CA, G.R. NO. 172218, NOVEMBER 26, 2014

CIVIL PROCEDURES
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
VILLAMOR vs. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 172110, AUGUST 1, 2011

RELAXATION OF THE RULES

ESTINO vs. PEOPLE, G.R. Nos. 163957-58, APRIL 7, 2009

MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE: EXCEPTION

NICART vs. TITONG, G.R. NO. 207682, DECEMBER 2014
NARRA NICKEL MINING DEV’T. CORP vs. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES
CORP., G.R. NO. 195580, APRIL 21, 2014

RULE 1- GENERAL PROVISIONS

CONSTRUCTION
SPS. DADIZON vs. CA, G.R. NO. 159166, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
LABAO vs. FLORES, G.R. NO. 187984, NOVEMBER 15, 2010
ALFONSO vs. SPS. ANDRES, G.R. NO. 166236, JULY 29, 2010

2
 RULE 2- CAUSE OF ACTION
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
MACASLANG vs. SPS. ZAMORA, G.R. NO. 156375, MAY 30, 2011

CAUSE OF ACTION
TURNER vs. LORENZO SHIPPING CORP., G.R. NO. 157479, NOVEMBER 24, 2010,
citing Surigao Mine Exploration Co., Inc. vs. HARRIS, G.R. NO. L-45543, MAY 17,
1939
ABAD vs. PH COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP., G.R. NO. 200620, MARCH 18,
2015

SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION

PEREZ vs. CA, G.R. NO. 157616, JULY 22, 2005
DASMARINAS VILLAGE ASSN. vs. CA, G.R. NO. 127276, DECEMBER 3, 1998
RIVIERA GOLF CLUB vs. CCA HOLDINGS, G.R. NO. 173783, JUNE 17, 2015

JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

ADA vs. BAYLON, G.R. NO. 182435, AUGUST 31, 2012
PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. vs. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
G.R. NO. 140746, MARCH 16, 2005
ASSERT PRIVATIZATION TRUST vs. CA, G.R. NO. 81024, FEBRUARY 3, 2000

RULE 3- PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTION

PARTIES IN INTEREST
ORTIZ vs. SAN MIGUEL CORP., G.R. Nos. 151983-84, JULY 31, 2008
ALONSO vs. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB INC., G.R. NO. 188471, APRIL 20, 2010
GO vs. CORDERO, G.R. NO. 164703, MAY 4, 2010
MAMBA vs. LARA, G.R. NO. 165109, DECEMBER 14, 2009
CUA, JR. vs. TAN. G.R. Nos. 181455-56 & 182008, DECEMBER 4, 2009
MAGALLANES vs. PALMER ASIA INC., G.R. NO. 205719, JULY 18, 2014
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS vs. REYES, G.R. NO. 180771, APRIL 21, 2015
ANG vs. ANG, G.R. NO. 186993, AUGUST 22, 2012
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO vs. CUENCA, G.R. NO. 173297, MARCH 6, 2013

3
 REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES
RIOFERIO vs. CA, G.R. NO. 129008, JANUARY 13, 2004
GOCHAN vs. YOUNG, G.R. NO. 131889, MARCH 12, 2001

COMPULSORY JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

REGNER vs. LOGARTA, G.R. NO. 168747, OCTOBER 19, 2007
SPEED DISTRIBUTING CORP. vs. CA, G.R. NO. 149351, MARCH 17, 2004
CABUTIHAN vs. LANDCENTER CONSTRUCTION & DEV’T. CORP. G.R. NO. 146594,
JUNE 10, 2002

MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES

LEONIS NAVIGATION CO., INC. vs. VILLAMETER, G.R. NO. 179169, MARCH 3, 2010
REPUBLIC vs. HERBIETO, G.R. NO. 156117, MAY 26, 2005

CLASS SUIT
MVRS PUBLICATIONS vs. ISLAMIC DA’WAH COUNCIL, G.R. NO. 135306, JANUARY
28, 2003

DEATH OF PARTY: DUTY OF COUNSEL

SUMALJAG vs. SPS. LITERATO, G.R. NO. 149787, JUNE 18, 2008
DOMINGO vs. LANDICHO, G.R. NO. 170015, AUGUST 29, 2007
POE vs. MACAPAGAL-AROYO, P.E.T. CASE NO. 002, MARCH 29, 2005
CARABEO vs. SPS. DINGCO, G.R. NO. 190823, APRIL 4, 2011, citing BONILLA VS.
BARCENA, G.R. No. L-41715
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE NIMFA SIAN vs. PNB, G.R. NO. 168882, JANUARY
31, 2007

INDIGENT PARTY
SPS. ALGURA vs. CITY OF NAGA, G.R. NO. 150135, OCTOBER 30, 2006
RE: QUERY OF MR. ROGER C. PRIORESCHI RE EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL AND
FILING FEES OF THE GOOD SHEPERD FOUNDATION, INC., A. M. NO. 09-6-9-SC,
AUGUST 19, 2009

4
 RULE 4- VENUE OF ACTIONS
PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA, INC. vs. SCHONFELD, G.R. NO.
166920, FEBRUARY 19, 2007

COMPLIMENTARY-CONTRACTS-CONSTRUED-TOGETHER DOCTRINE
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS vs. LIM, G.R. NO. 158138, APRIL 12,
2005

VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS

LATORRE vs. LATORRE, G.R. NO. 183926, MARCH 29, 2010
GUMABON vs. LARIN, G.R. NO. 142523, NOVEMBER 27, 2001

VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS

SALUDO, JR. vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS INT’L INC., G.R. NO. 159507, APRIL 19, 2006

WHEN RULE NOT APPLICABLE

UNIWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. vs. CRUZ, G.R. NO. 171456, AUGUST 9, 2007
MANGILA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 125027, AUGUST 12, 2002
SAN MIGUEL CORP. vs. MONASTERIO, G.R. NO. 151037, JUNE 30, 2005
OCHOA vs. CHINA BANKING CORP., G.R. NO. 192877, MARCH 23, 2011
PAGLAUM MGT. & DEV’T CORP. vs. UNION BANK, G.R. NO. 179018, JUNE 18, 2012

RULE 6- KIND OF PLEADINGS

COUNTERCLAIM
LIMA vs. TRANSWAY SALES CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 106770, OCTOBER 22, 1999

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. FLORES, G.R. NO. 175339, DECEMBER 16,
2008
CRUZ-AGANA vs. SANTIAGO-LAGMAN, G.R. NO. 139018, APRIL 11, 2005
FINANCIAL BUILDING CORP. vs. FORBES PARK ASSN., G.R. NO. 133119, AUGUST
17, 2000

REPLY

5
VELUZ vs. CA, G.R. NO. 139951, NOVEMBER 23, 2000

THIRD (FOURTH, etc.) – PARTY COMPLAINT

TAYAO vs. MENDOZA, G.R. NO. 162733, APRIL 12, 2005

RULE 7 – PARTS OF A PLEADING

VERIFICATION
VALLACAR TRANSIT, Inc. vs. CATUBIG, G.R. NO. 175512, MAY 30, 2011, citing
PAJUYO vs. CA, G.R. NO.146364, JUNE 3, 2004
VDA. DE FORMOSO, vs. PNB, G.R. NO. 154704, JUNE 1, 2011, citing TRAVENO vs.
BOBONGON BANANA GROWERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, G.R. NO.
164205, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009
BAUTISTA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 173002, JULY 4, 2008

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORP. vs. STO. TOMAS, G.R. NO. 173326,
DECEMBER 15, 2010
ABARIA vs. NLRC, G.R. NO. 154113, DECEMBER 7, 2011
COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES, Inc. vs. CAPAROSO, G.R. NO. 159919, AUGUST 8, 2007
PHILIPPINE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSN. vs. HEIRS OF ILIGAN, G.R. NO.
171562, JULY 27, 2006
SANTO TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL vs. SPS. SURLA, G.R. NO. 129718, AUGUST
17, 1998
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. vs. SPS. BANCE, G.R. NO. 167280, APRIL 30,
2008
METROBANK vs. ABAD SANTOS, G.R. NO. 157867, DECEMBER 15, 2009

EXCEPTIONS
HEIRS OF DOMINGO, SR. vs. MINGOA, SR., G.R. NO. 146548, DECEMBER 18, 2009
HEIRS OF GALLARDO vs. SOLIMAN, G.R. NO. 178592, APRIL 10, 2013

CORPORATE OFFICERS WHO CAN SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING
MID-PASIG LAND DEV’T. CORP. vs. TABLANTE, G.R. NO. 162924, FEBRUARY 4,
2010

6
 RULE 8 – MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
FRAUD, MISTAKE, CONDITION OF THE MIND
GONZALES vs. CLIMAX MINING Ltd., G.R. Nos. 161957, JANUARY 22, 2007
VILLALON vs. LIRIO, G.R. NO. 183869, AUGUST 3, 2015

SPECIFIC DENIAL
PNB vs. CA, G.R. NO. 126153, JANUARY 14, 2004

ALLEGATIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED DEEMED ADMITTED

ACQUINTEY vs. SPS. TIBONG, G.R. NO. 166704, DECEMBER 20, 2006

RULE 9 – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS NOT PLEADED
HEIRS OF VALIENTES vs. RAMAS, G.R. NO. 157852, DECEMBER 15, 2010
PNB vs. AZNAR, G.R. Nos. 171805, MAY 30, 2011, citing FELICIANO vs. CANOZA,
G.R. NO. 161746, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

DECLARATION OF DEFAULT
SPS. LUMANAS vs. SABILAS, G.R. NO. 144568, JULY 3, 2007
TANCHAN vs. CA, G.R. NO. 113150, MARCH 29, 1999

REMEDIES IN CASE OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

CRISOLOGO vs. GLOBE TELECOM Inc., G.R. NO. 167631, DECEMBER 16, 2005

RULE 10 – AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED PLEADINGS

AMENDMENTS AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
NAMAWU vs. CALDERON-BARGAS, G.R. NO. 157232, DECEMBER 10, 2007
REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP. vs. CA, G.R. NO. 133657, MAY 29, 2002
MARANAN vs. MANILA BANKING CORP., G.R. NO. 164398, MARCH 30, 2007

AMENDMENTS BY LEAVE OF COURT

7
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY vs. WILLIAM GOTHING & ABOITIZ Inc., G.R. NO.
158401, JANUARY 28, 2008

AMENDMENT TO CONFORM TO OR AUTHORIZE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

ASEAN PACIFIC PLANNERS vs. CITY OF URDANETA, G.R. NO. 162525, SEPTEMBER
23, 2008
CHUA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 109840, JANUARY 21, 1999
LIM vs. BPI AGRICULTURAL DEV’T. BANK, G.R. NO. 179230, MARCH 9, 2010

SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO. vs. CIR, G.R. NO. 138919, MAY 2, 2006
PLANTERS DEV’T. BANK vs. LZK HOLDINGS & DEV’T CORP., G.R. NO. 153777, APRIL
15, 2005
DE RAMA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 131136, FEBRUARY 28, 2001

EFFECT OF AMENDED PLEADINGS

FIGURATION vs. SPS. LIBI, G.R. NO. 155688, NOVEMBER 28, 2007

RULE 13 – FILING AND SERVING OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER

PAPERS
PRIVATE LETTER FORWARDING AGENCY
HEIRS OF MIRANDA, SR. vs. MIRANDA, G.R. NO. 179638, JULY 8, 2013
PROOF OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL
PLANTERS DEV’T. vs SPS. LOPEZ, G.R. NO. 186332, OCTOBER 23, 2013

FILING AND SERVICE

HEIRS OF MENDOZA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 170247, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008
METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT (MCWD) vs. ADALA, G.R. NO. 168914,
JULY 4, 2007

MANNER OF FILING
GSIS vs. NLRC, G.R. NO. 180045, NOVEMBER 17, 2010

8
 SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
AFDAL vs. CARLOS, G.R. NO. 173379, DECEMBER 1, 2010

SERVICE OF JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS OF RESOLUTION

PHILEMPLOY SERVICES AND RESOURCES Inc. vs. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. NO. 152616,
MARCH 31, 2006; Section 9 in relation to Section 10
BERNARTE vs. PBA, G.R. NO. 192084, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

PRIORITIES IN MODES OF SERVICE AND FILING

SPS. ELLO vs. CA, G.R. NO. 141255, JUNE 21, 2005
DOMINGO vs. CA, G.R. NO. 169122, FEBRUARY 2, 2010
CITY OF DUMAGUETE vs. PH PORTS AUTHORITY, G.R. NO. 168973, AUGUST 24,
2011 citing MUSTA vs. AMOR
SPS. DE LA CRUZ vs. RAMISCAL, G.R. NO. 137882, FEBRUARY 4, 2005
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
HEIRS OF BANG vs. SY, G.R. Nos. 114217, OCTOBER 13, 2009
MR HOLDINGS, LTD. Vs. BAJAR, G.R. NO. 153478, OCTOBER 10, 2012

RULE 14 – SUMMONS
ECHEVARIA vs. PARSONS HARDWARE, G.R. NO. L-26464, APRIL 2, 1927
TOYOTA CUBAO vs. CA, G.R. 126321, OCTOBER 23, 1997
UMANDAP vs. SABIO, JR., G.R. NO. 140244, AUGUST 29, 2000

SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS NOT REQUIRED IN A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION

TUJANMILITANTE vs. CADA-DEAPERA, G.R. NO. 210636, JULY 28, 2014

SERVICE IN PERSON DEFENDANT

BIACO vs. PH COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, G.R. NO. 161417, FEBRUARY 8, 2007
REGNER vs. LOGARTA, G.R. NO. 168747, OCTOBER 19, 2OO7

SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
ORION SECURITY CORP. vs. KALFAM ENTERPRISES, INC., G.R. NO. 163287, APRIL
27, 2007

9
ANG vs. CHINATRUST COMMERCIAL BANK CORP., G.R. NO. 200693, APRIL 18,
2016
MACASAET vs. CO., G.R. NO. 156759, JUNE 5, 2013

SECTION 6 IN RELATION SECTION 7

PASCUAL vs. PASCUAL, G.R. NO. 171916, DECEMBER 9, 2009
MADRIGAL vs. CA, G.R. NO. 129955, NOVEMBER 26, 1999
MADRIGAL vs. CA, supra

REQUIREMENTS TO EFFECT A VALID SUBSTITUTED SERVICE

PASCUAL vs. PASCUAL, supra, citing MANOTOC vs. CA, G.R. NO. 130974,
AUGUST 16, 2006
PALMA vs. GALVEZ, G.R. NO. 165273, MARCH 10, 2010 citing MONTALBAN vs.
MAXIMO, NO. L-22997, MARCH 15, 1968

SERVICE UPON DOMESTIC PRIVATE UPON JURIDICAL ENTITY

DOLE PHL, Inc. vs. QUILALA, G.R. NO. 168723, JULY 9, 2008

SERVICE UPON FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY

SEC. 12. SERVICE UPON FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY

DEFENDANT WHOSE IDENTITY OR WHEREABOUTS ARE UNKNOWN

SANTOS vs. PNOC, G.R. NO. 170943, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE
REGNER vs. LOGARTA, G.R. NO. 168747, OCTOBER 19, 2007
VELAYO-FONG vs. SPS. VELAYO, G.R. NO. 155488, DECEMBER 6, 2006
PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE Pte Ltd. vs. DAKILA TRAFING CORP., G.R. NO. 172242,
AUGUST 14, 2007

RESIDENTS TEMPORARILY OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGNER vs. LOGARTA, G.R. NO. 168747, OCTOBER 19, 2007

VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE

10
LHUILLIER vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS, G.R. NO. 171092, MARCH 15, 2010, citing
GARCIA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 170122, OCTOBER 12, 2009
NM ROTHSCHILD & SONS Ltd. vs. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., G.R.
NO. 175799, NOVEMBER 28, 2011

RULE 15 – MOTIONS
THREE – DAY NOTICE RULE
REPUBLIC vs. PCGG, G.R. NO. 181458, MARCH 20, 2013

HEARING OF MOTIONS
ANAMA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 187021, JANUARY 25, 2012
SARMIENTO vs. ZARATAN, G.R. NO. 167471, FEBRUARY 5, 2007
CITY OF DUMAGUETE vs. PH PORTS AUTHORITY, G.R. NO. 168973, AUGUST 24,
2011 citing PNB vs. PANEDA, G.R. NO. 149236, FEBRUARY 14, 2007
PHILIPPINE CREDIT CORP. vs. CA, G.R. NO. 109648, NOVEMBER 22, 2001

RULE 16 – MOTION TO DISMISS

HASEGAWA vs. KITAMURA, G.R. NO. 149177, NOVEMBER 23, 2007
OBANDO vs. FIGUERAS, G.R. NO. 134854, JANUARY 18, 2000
ASSOCIATED BANK vs. SPS. MONTANO, G.R. NO. 166383, OCTOBER 16, 2009
HOME DEV’T. MUTUAL FUND vs. SPS. SEE, G.R. NO. 170292, JUNE 22, 2011

GROUND (e): THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ACTION PENDING BETWEEN THE SAME
PARTIES FOR THE SAME CAUSE
DOTMATRIX TRADING vs. LEGASPI, G.R. NO. 155622, OCTOBER 26, 2009
GROUND (f), (h), and (i)
SPS. CRUZ vs. SPS. CARAOS, G.R. NO. 138208, APRIL 23, 2007

GROUND (g): THAT THE PLEADING ASSERTING THE CLAIM STATES NO CAUSE OF
ACTION
PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE Pte Ltd. vs. DAKILA TRADING CORP., G.R. NO. 172242,
AUGUST 14, 2007
DOMONDON vs. JUDGE LOPEZ, A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1696, JUNE 20, 2009

11
 RULE 16 – MOTION TO DISMISS
PLEADING GROUNDS AS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
CALIFORNIA & HAWAIIAN SUGAR vs. PIONEER INSURANCE, G.R. NO. 139273,
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
Rosa Pamaran vs. Bank of Commerce, G.R. No. 205753; July 4, 2016]

RULE 17 – DISMISSAL OF ACTION

LIMACO vs. SHONAN GAKUEN CHILDREN’S HOUSE PHL, Inc., G.R. NO. 158245,
JUNE 30, 2005
SHIMIZU PHL CONTRACTORS, Inc., vs. MAGSALIN, G.R. NO. 170026, JUNE 20, 2012

DISMISSAL UPON NOTICE BY PLAINTIFF

DAEL vs. SPS. BELTRAN, G.R. NO. 156470, APRIL 30, 2008
CHING vs. CHING, G.R. NO. 175507, OCTOBER 8, 2014

DISMISSAL DUE TO FAULT OF PLAINTIFF

RODRIGUEZ vs. JARDIN, G.R. NO. 141834, JULY 30, 2007
OLIVARES, VILLALON, JR., A.C. NO. 6323, APRIL 13, 2007
BPI vs CA, G.R. NO. 117385, FEBRUARY 11, 1999
SHIMIZU PHL CONTRACTORS, Inc., vs. MAGSALIN, G.R. NO. 170026, JUNE 20, 2012

FAILURE TO MOVE FOR PRE – TRIAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
SOLIMAN vs. FERNANDEZ, G.R. NO. 176652, JUNE 4, 2014

RULE 18 – PRE-TRIAL
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
ANG PING vs. CA, G.R. NO. 126947, JULY 15, 1999
PNB vs. SPS. PEREZ, G.R. NO. 187640, JUNE 15, 2011
ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORP. vs. METROBANK, G.R. NO. 190277, JULY 23,
2014

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR

12
PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. vs. ENARIO, G.R. NO.
182075, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010

PRE – TRIAL BRIEF

REPUBLIC vs. OLETA, G.R. NO. 156606, AUGUST 17, 2007
SAGUID vs. CA, G.R. NO. 150611, JUNE 10, 2003

RULE 19 – INTERVENTION
INTERVENTION
NIETO, JR. vs. CA, G.R. NO. 166984, AUGUST 17, 2007
OMBUDSMAN vs. SISON, G.R. NO. 185954, FEBRUARY 16, 2010
HEIRS OF MEDRANO vs. DE VERA, G.R. NO. 165770, AUGUST 9, 2010
MALVAR vs. KRAFT FOODS PHL Inc., G.R. NO. 183952, SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
PULGAR vs. RTC OF MAUBAN, QUEZON, G.R. NO. 157582, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
Neptune Metal Scrap Recycling Inc. vs. MERALCO
G.R. No. 204222; July 4, 2016

TIME TO INTERVENE
LEARNING CHILD, Inc. vs. AYALA ALABANG VILLAGE ASSN., G.R. Nos. 134269, JULY
7, 2010
MANALO vs. CA, G.R NO. 141297, OCTOBER 8, 2001
STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEV’T. CORP. vs. RADSTOCK SECURITIES Ltd., G.R. NO.
178158, DECEMBER 4, 2009

RULE 22 – COMPUTATION OF TIME

SPS. LEYNES vs. CA, G.R. NO. 154462, JANUARY 19, 2011
REINER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, Inc. vs. GUEVARRA, G.R. NO. 157020,
JUNE 19, 2013
RULE 23 – DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION
JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., Inc. vs. SPS. MANGUDADATU, G.R.
NO. 155010, AUGUST 16, 2004
SANTAMARIA vs. CLEARY, G.R. NO. 197122, JUNE 15, 2016

13
RESORT TO A PARTICULAR METHOD OF DISCOVERY WILL NOT BAR SUBSEQUENT
USE OF OTHER DISCOVERY DEVICES
FORTUNE CORP. vs. CA, G.R. NO. 108119, JANUARY 19, 1994
RULE 25 – INTERROGATIONS TO PARTIES
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
SPS. AFULUGENCIA vs. METROBANK, G.R. NO. 185145, FEBRUARY 5, 2014
NG MENG TAM vs. CHINA BANKING CORP., G.R. NO. 214054, AUGUST 5, 2015

RULE 27 – PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS

AIR PHL CORP. vs. PENNSWELL, Inc, G.R. NO. 172835, DECEMBER 13, 2007
SOLIDBANK CORP. vs. GATEWAY ELECTRONICS CORP., G.R. NO. 164805, APRIL 30,
2008
EAGLERIDGE DEV’T. CORP. vs. NAVAL, G.R. NO. 204700, NOVEMBER 24, 2014

RULE 30 – TRIAL
JUDGE TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE: DELEGATION TO CLERK OF COURT

RULE 31 – CONSOLIDATION OF SEVERANCE

REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 152375, DECEMBER 16, 2011
REPUBLIC vs. ORIBELLO, G.R. NO. 199501, MARCH 6, 2013

RULE 33 – DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

GMA NETWORK, Inc. vs. CENTRAL CATV, Inc., G.R. NO. 176694, JULY 18, 2014

RULE 34 – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

DINO vs. VALENCIA, G.R. NO. L-43886, JULY 19, 1989

RULE 35 – SUMMARY JUDGMENTS

MARCELO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 156605, AUGUST 26, 2007
PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK vs. CHUA, G.R. NO. 178899, NOVEMBER 15, 2010

RULE 36 – JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY TEHREOF

PAHILA-GARRIDO VS. TORTOGO, G.R. NO. 156358, AUGUST 17, 2011

14
SHIMIZU PHL CONTRACTORS vs. MAGSALIN, G.R. NO. 170026, JUNE 20, 2012

FALLO vs. OPINION

THE LAW FIRM OF ARMOVIT vs. CA, G.R. NO. 154559, OCTOBER 5, 2011

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. vs. CHIOK, G.R. NO. 172652, NOVEMBER 26,
2014
RULE 37 – NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
GROUNDS OF AND PERIOD FOR FILING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR
RECONSIDERATION
TUMANG v. CA, G.R. NO. 82072, APRIL 17, 1989
SPS. ROGELIO vs. PCIB, G.R. NO. 182735, DECEMBER 4, 2009
GARCIA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 169005, JANUARY 28, 2013

SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

SM LAND, Inc. vs. BCDA, G.R. NO. 203655, SEPTEMBER 7, 2015

SECOND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

EFFECT OF GRANTING OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

PINEDA vs. CA, G.R. NO. L-38196, JULY 22, 1975

REMEDY AGAISNT ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR

RECONSIDERATION
HEIRS OF SPS. RETERTA vs. SPS. MORES, G.R. NO. 159941, AUGUST 17, 2011

FRESH 15 – DAY PERIOD AFTER DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

NEYPES vs. CA, G.R. NO. 141524, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
JOSE vs. JAVELLANA, G.R. NO. 158239, JANUARY 25, 2012

RULE 38 – RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS

FRANCISCO vs. PUNO, G.R. NO. 55694, OCTOBER 23, 1981

15
LOPEZ vs. ESQUIVEL, JR. G.R. NO. 168734, APRIL 24, 2009
MADARANG vs. SPS. MORALES, G.R. NO. 199283, JUNE 9, 2014

A PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY IN THE

SUPREME COURT
PURCON, JR. vs. MRM PHL, Inc., G.R. NO. 182718, SEPTEMBER 26, 2008

RULE 39 – EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS

MACASASA vs. SICAD, G.R. NO. 146547, JUNE 20, 2006
TIOROSIO-ESPINOSA vs. HOFILEÑA-EUROPA, G.R. NO. 185746, JANUARY 20, 2016

MOTION FOR EXECUTION

BOAC vs. CADAPAN, G.R. Nos. 184461-62, MAY 31, 2011
VARIANCE RULE
KKK FOUNDATIONM, Inc. vs. CALDERON-BARGAS, G.R. NO. 163785, DECEMBER
27, 2007
EXECUTION BY MOTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION
UCPB vs. LUMBO, G.R. NO. 162757, DECEMBER 11, 2013
BASILONIA vs. VILLARUZ, G.R. Nos. 191370-71, AUGUST 10, 2015
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS FOR MONEY
VALENZUELA vs. DE AGUILAR, G.R. Nos. L-18083, MAY 31, 1963

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT

FGU INSURANCE CORP. vs. RTC, G.R. NO. 161282, FEBRUARY 23, 2011

DEED AND POSSESSION TO BE GIVEN AT EXPIRATION OF REDEMPTION PERIOD;

BY WHOM EXECUTED OR GIVEN
CABLING vs. LUMAPAS, G.R. NO. 196950, JUNE 18, 2014

EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS

CITY OF CEBU vs. DEDAMO, JR., G.R. NO. 172852, JANUARY 30, 2013
PNB vs. LIM, G.R. NO. 171677, JANUARY 30, 2013
LBP vs. SPS. ORILLA, G.R. NO. 194168, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

16
 EXECUTION OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD
KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., Ltd., vs. LERMA, G.R. NO. 143581, JANUARY 7, 2008

APPEAL
APPEAL IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT BUT IS MERELY A STATUTORY PRIVILEGE - Land
Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Manuel Bolaños G.R. No.
221636; July 11, 2016

THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN TRY MATTERS BEYOND THE ASSIGNED ERRORS IF
WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, Heirs of Teodora Loyola vs. Court of
Appeals and Alicia R. Loyola, G.R. No. 188658; January 11, 2017

VICARIOUS APPEAL
MARICALUM-MINING CORP. vs. REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP., G.R. NO.
158332, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
FRESH PERIOD RULE
TORRES vs. SPS. ALAMAG, G.R. NO. 169569, AUGUST 3, 2010
GAGUI vs. DEJERO, G.R. NO. 196036, OCTOBER 23, 2013
YU vs. SAMSON-TATAD, G.R. NO. 170979, FEBRUARY 9, 2011
PATES vs. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 184915, JUNE 30, 2009

RULE 40 – APPEAL FROM MTC TO RTC

PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, Inc. vs. MILAN, G.R. NO. 151215, APRIL 5, 2010
SAN LORENZO RUIZ BUILDERS Inc. vs. BAYANG, G.R. NO. 194702, APRIL 20, 2015

PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES IS BOTH MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL

JULIAN vs. DBP, G.R. NO. 174193, DECEMBER 7, 2011

RULE 42 – PEITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE RTC TO CA

BRGY. SANGALANG vs. BRGY. MAGUIHAN, G.R. NO. 159792, DECEMBER 23, 2009
SPS. CASTILLO vs. CA, G.R. NO. 189151, JANUARY 25, 2012
HEIRS OF GARCIA vs. MUNICIPALITY OF IBA, ZAMBALES, G.R. NO. 162217, JULY
22, 2015
AN APPEAL ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN TO THE CA SHALL BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT
Spouses Augusto and Nora Navarro vs. Rural Bank of Tarlac, Inc.
17
G.R. No. 180060; July 13, 2016

RULE 43 – APPEAL FROM THE CTA AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE CA

FRANCISCO, JR. vs. DESIERTO, G.R. NO. 154117, OCTOBER 2, 2009
CITY OF MANILA vs. GRECIA-CUERDO, G.R. NO. 175723, FEBRUARY 4, 2014
NARRA NICKEL MINING DEV’T. CORP vs. REDMONT CONSOLIDATED MINES
CORP., G.R. NO. 202877, DECEMBER 9, 2015
BASIANA MINING EXPLORATION CORP. vs. SECRETARY OF THE DENR, G.R. NO.
191705, MARCH 7, 2016

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS

MILESTONE FARMS, Inc. vs. OP, G.R. NO. 182332, FEBRUARY 23, 2011

CONTENTS OF PETITION
MANIEBO vs. CA, G.R. NO. 158708, AUGUST 10, 2010
APPEAL OF CIAC ARBITRAL AWARD
J PLUS ASIA DEV’T. CORP. vs. UTILITY ASSURANCE CORP., G.R. NO. 199650, JUNE
26, 2013

RULE 47 – ANNULMENTS OF JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTION

BULAWAN vs. AQUENDE, G.R. NO. 182819, JUNE 22, 2011
LOPEZ vs. ESQUIVEL, JR., G.R. NO. 168734, APRIL 24, 2009
YU vs. YU, G.R. NO. 200072, JUNE 20, 2016
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR FILING A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT
ALABAN vs. CA, G.R. NO. 156021, SEPTEMBER 23, 2005
DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORP. vs. CA, G.R. NO. 161122, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

RULE 56 – PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

EXTENT OF REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT
MARICALUM MINING CORP. vs. BRION, G.R. Nos. 157696-97, FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PETITION FOR REVIEW, GENERALLY LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW,

EXCEPTIONS
TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL PHL, Inc. vs. APOSTOL, G.R. NO. 164423, JUNE 16, 2009
18
FAILURE TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF THOUGH NOT JURISDICTIONAL, RESULT IN
THE ABANDONMENT OF THE APPEAL, Patricia Sibayan vs. Emilio Costales. G.R.
No. 191492; July 4, 2016

FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE CA ARE NOT BINDING ON THE SC WHEN THE CA

MANIFESTLY OVERLOOKED CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS NOT DISPUTED BY THE
PARTIES, WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION, Techno Development & Chemical Corporation vs. Viking Metal
Industries, G.R. No. 203179; July 4, 2016

URGENCY POSED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE RENDERS COMPLIANCE

WITH THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
UNREASONABLE, The Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728; July 5,
2016

FILING OF 2ND MOTION FOR EXECUTION NOT ALLOWED IF DENIAL OF THE 1ST
MOTION HAD BECOME FINAL AND BOTH HAVE THE SAME PARTIES SUBJECT
MATTER AND CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA,
Richard V. Funk vs. Santos Ventura Hocorna Foundation Inc., G.R. No. 212346;
July 7, 2016

FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FORECLOSE THE

RIGHT TO ASSAIL THE DECISION OF THE COURT, Barrio Fiesta Restaurant vs. Helen
Beroula. G.R. No. 206690; July 11, 2016

A FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGEMENT IS IMMUTABLE AND CAN NO LONGER BE

MODIFIED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED, Tarcisio S. Calilung vs. Paramount
Insurance Corporation RP Technical Services Inc., Renato L. Punzalan and Jose
Manalo Jr., G.R. No. 195641; July 11, 2016

AGREEMENT CONTRARY TO AN SC INJUCTIVE WRIT DOES NOT SUBSEQUENT

RENDER THE LATTER MOOT AND ACADEMIC, Richard K. Tom vs. Samuel N.
Rodriguez, G.R. No. 215764; July 13, 2016

APPELLATE JURISDICTION ATTACHES WHEN A PETITION FOR REVIEW IS FILED

WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD WITH PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES AND
OTHER LAWFUL FEES, Julius Bautista, et al. vs. Lt. Col. Benito Deniego Jr., et al.,
G.R. No. 218865; July 20, 2016

RULE 57 - PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

MEGA-WORLD PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS, Inc. vs. MAGNETIC FINANCE &
INVESTMENT CO., G.R. NO. 169694, DECEMBER 9, 2015
LUZON DEV’T. BANK vs. KRISHMAN, G.R. NO. 203530, APRIL 13, 2015

WAYS TO DISSOLVE OR DISCHARGE A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

19
MAGALING vs. ONG, G.R. NO. 173333, AUGUST 13, 2008
WATERCRAFT VENTURE CORP. vs. WOLFE, G.R. NO. 181721, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

RULE 58 – PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

WHEN A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUCTION MAY ISSUE, Carmelita T. Borlongan
vs. Banco De Oro (Formerly Equitable PCI Bank), G.R. No. 217617; April 5, 2017

STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEV’T CORP. vs. STAR INFRASTRACTURE DEV’T COPR., G.R.
NO. 1878712, APRIL 11, 2011

FLORES vs. LINDO, JR., G.R. NO. 183984, APRIL 13, 2011 RTC HAS NO
JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUANCE OF TRO AND WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUCTION AS PROVIDED UNDER EPIRA, Energy Regulatory Commission vs. Hon.
Gregorio L. Vega Jr., G.R. No. 225141; September 26, 2016

CERTIORARI

REMEDY TO ASSAIL DECISION OF COA IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IS APPEAL TO

THE CSC AND NOT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 64, Annaliza J. Galindo
and Evelinda P. Pinto vs. Commission on Adult, G.R. No. 210788; January 10, 2017;
Hambre Mohammad vs. Grace Belgado-Saqueton, G.R. No. 193584; July 12, 2016

CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 MAY BE RESORTED TO ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF

APPEAL OF ANY PLAIN SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF LAW, Atty. Allan S. Hilbero vs. Florencio A. Morales Jr., G.R. No.
198760; January 11, 2017; Robert C. Martinez vs. Noel S. Buen, G.R. No. 187342;
April 5, 2017

CERTIORARI MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY TO ASSAIL AN

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER WHEN THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, Labsky
Maximo vs. Francisco Villapando Jr., G.R. No. 214925; April 26, 2017

CERTIORARI WILL ISSUE ONLY TO CORRECT ERRORS OF JURISDICTION, National

Home Mortgage Finance Corporation vs. Florita C. Tarobal, G.R. No. 206345;
January 23, 2017

CERTIORARI WILL LIE AGAINST DENIAL OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, Aroyo vs.

Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016

MANDAMUS

A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS MUST BE INSTITUTED BY A PARTY AGGRIEVED BY

THE ALLEGED INACTION OF THE RESPONDENT, Rodolfo Lagyo and Willie Lagyo vs.
Municipal Mayor of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, G.R. No. 188448; January 11, 2017

20
AGGRIEVED PARTIES MAY RESORT TO MANDAMUS TO COMPEL CORPORATIONS
WHO WRONGFULLY REFUSE TO ISSUE OR TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF STOCK,
Joseph Omar O. Andaya vs. Rural Bank of Cabadbaran, Inc., G.R. No. 188769;
August 3, 2016

A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS MUST BE FILED BY ONE WHO HAS A CLEAR LEGAL
RIGHT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ACT TO BE COMPELLED, City of Davao vs.
Robert Olanolan, G.R. No. 1811149; April 17, 2017

RULE 67 – EXPROPRIATION
PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION IS A REQUISITE TO A VALID EXERCISE OR
EMINENT DOMAIN, Alvin Vergara vs. Lourdes Grecia, et al., G.R. No. 185638;
August 10, 2016

THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IN EXPROPRIATION CASES IS A

FUNCTION ADDRESSED TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURTS, Republic of the
Philippines represented by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) vs.
Rolando Cebuan, et al., G.R. No. 206702; June 7, 2017

THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH COMPLIANCE

WITH EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS OF JUST COMPENSATION AND USE FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO RENDER SUCH EXPROPRIATION VALID, Republic of the
Philippines, represented by Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Limbonhai and Sons, G.R. No. 217956; November 16, 2016

RULE 68 - QUO WARRANTO

Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)

RULE 69 – PARTITION
PARTITION NOT SUBJECT TO PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES, DE GUIA vs. CA, G.R.
NO. 120864, OCTOBER 8, 2003

RULE 70 – FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

QUIJANO vs. AMANTE, G.R. NO. 164277, OCTOBER 8, 2014
SUAREZ vs EMBOY, G.R. NO. 18794, MARCH 12, 2014
NUÑEZ vs. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, Inc., G.R. NO. 180542, APRIL 12, 2010
REPUBLIC vs. PERALTA, G.R. NO. 184253, JULY 6, 2011
DEMAND TO PAY IS NOT A REQUISITE IN AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE IF THE
CONTRACT HAS ALREADY BEEN RESCINDED, Union Bank of the Philippines vs.
Philippine Rabbit Bus Line, G.R. No. 205951; July 4, 2016

21
NO WRIT OF POSSESSION IN CONSOLIDATION OF TITLE CASE, Spouses Archibal
Latoja and Charito Latoja vs. Hon. Elvie Lim, et al., G.R. No. 198925; July 13, 2016

IN EJECTMENT CASES, PROOF OR PRIOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION IS SUFFICIENT TO

RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY EVEN FROM THE OWNER OF THE SAME
Victoria Echanes vs. Spouses Patricio and Adoracion Hailar, G.R. No. 20388;
August 10, 2016

IN A COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER THE DEMAN TO VACATE MUST

INDICATE A BREACH OF LEASE CONTRACT, Efren Quesada et al. vs. Bonanza
Restaurants Inc., G.R. No. 207500; November 14, 2016 IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT IN
EJECTMENT RESPONDENTS SHOULD ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPROVEMNETS
INTRODUCED BY PETITIONERS DISPOSSESSED THEM OF THE LAND THEY OWNED,
Loreta Sambalilo et al. vs. Spouses Pablo Llaneras and Fe Llaneras, G.R. No.
222685; June 21, 2017

RULE 71 – CONTEMPT
FORTUN vs. QUINSAYAS, G.R. NO. 194578, FEBRUARY 13, 2013
BARREDO-FUENTES vs. ALBARRACIN, A.M. NO. MTJ-05-1587, APRIL 15, 2005
ESPINOSA vs. CA, G.R. NO. 128686, MAY 28, 2004
GARCIA vs. MANRIQUE, G.R. NO. 186592, OCTOBER 10, 2012

22