Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018

LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW


CIVIL PROCEDURE

Katarungang Pambarangay
Residence of The Real-Party-In-Interest Vs. Residence Of The Attorney-In-Fact

In barangay conciliation proceedings, the residence of the real-party-in-interest, the plaintiff or defendant, as
the case may be, and not the residence of the attorney-in-fact is material in any barangay conciliation
proceeding, because attorney-in-fact is not the real party-in-interest (Pascual vs. Pascual, 2005; Abagatnan vs.
Clarito, G.R. 211966); the requirement under Section 412 of the 1991 Local Government Code that a case be
referred for conciliation before the Lupon as a precondition to its filing in court applies only to those cases
where the real parties-in-interest actually reside in the same city or municipality (Banting vs. Spouses Maglapuz,
2006).

Rule 2. Cause of Action

There is no such thing as an “action for breach of contract”. Rather, breach of contract is a cause of action,
but not the action or relief itself (Pajares vs. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, February 20, 2017).

Rule 16. Motion to Dismiss (MTD) on the Ground of Lack of jurisdiction Subject Matter

Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, viz:

1. That The Court Has No Jurisdiction Over The Subject Matter Of The Claim. Not
Waivable.

Remedies Available if MTD is Granted or Denied on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter:

If MTD is granted and the order is correct, the REMEDY is to re-file the complaint to the court of proper
jurisdiction; if the order granting the MTD is incorrect, the REMEDY is certiorari under Rule 65 because
if the Order is incorrect in granting the MTD, the act of issuing an incorrect Order is founded on Grave
Abuse of Discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

If the MTD is denied and the order is correct, the REMEDY is to file the Answer.

If the order denying the MTD is incorrect, the REMEDY is certiorari Rule 65, because if the Order is
incorrect in denying the MTD, the act of issuing an incorrect Order is founded on Grave Abuse of
Discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

2. That Venue Is Improperly Laid. Waivable.

Remedies Available if Denied/Granted Order:

If the order of dismissal is correct, re-file the complaint to the court of proper venue. If there is no doubt
that the venue is improperly laid and the trial court DENIES the MTD based on that ground, the remedy
is Certiorari under Rule 65.
Reason: tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

If no doubt that venue is improperly laid and the trial court GRANTS the MTD based on that ground, the
remedy is to RE-FILE the complaint/case in the competent court of proper venue.
Reason: no grave abuse of discretion.

Page 1 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW

If there is no doubt that venue is properly laid and the trial court GRANTS the MTD based on that
ground, the remedy is Certiorari under Rule 65.
Reason: tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

If the trial court DENIES the motion despite the fact that venue is improperly laid, the character of the
order (denial) is interlocutory, therefore, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is Certiorari under
Rule 65, subject of course to the usual requirement of MR.

United Alloy Phils. Corp. v. UCPB, G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015
Complaint was filed arising on the Lease Property Agreement (LPA) containing a stipulation that Makati
City is the exclusive venue of the action arising thereon, but the complaint was filed in Cagayan de Oro
(CDO) trial court. Upon motion based solely on that ground, CDO trial court granted the motion and
dismissed the complaint holding that venue of action should have been in Makati City. Determine the
character of the dismissal order.

Held: The dismissal order is without prejudice, not characterized as final order. If the dismissal is without
prejudice, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is special civil action for Certiorari under Rule 65,
NOT appeal.

If the order of dismissal is correct, which is characterized as without prejudice, it does not preclude the
re-filing of the same action. Procedurally, if the character of dismissal is without prejudice, (no res
judicata), the order of dismissal is without prejudice, therefore, not appealable.

The rule says: where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under rule 65. In UniAlloy, the order granting the MTD on the ground of
improper venue is dismissal is without prejudice, meaning no res judicata yet, thus, the order of dismissal
is without prejudice, therefore, not appealable.

Rule on Venue
The Rule on Venue Enumerated Under Sections 1, 2 And 3 Of Rule 4 (Rules Of Court) Shall Not
Apply:

1. In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise

In cases of voluntary insolvency petition. Section 14 of the Insolvency Law specifies that the proper venue for
a petition for voluntary insolvency is the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the insolvent
debtor has resided in for six (6) months before the filing of the petition. In this case, the issue of which court
is the proper venue for respondent's Petition for Voluntary Insolvency comes from the confusion on an
insolvent corporation's residence (United Alloy Phils. Corp. v. Ucpb, G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015).

To determine the venue of an insolvency proceeding, the residence of a corporation should be the actual place
where its principal office has been located for six (6) months before the filing of the petition. If there is a conflict
between the place stated in the articles of incorporation and the physical location of the corporation's main
office, the actual place of business should control.

Requiring a corporation to go back to a place it has abandoned just to file a case is the very definition of
inconvenience. There is no reason why an insolvent corporation should be forced to exert whatever meager
resources it has to litigate in a city it has already left. In any case, the creditors deal with the corporation's
agents, officers, and employees in the actual place of business. To compel a corporation to litigate in a city it
has already abandoned would create more confusion.

Page 2 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW

Moreover, the six (6)-month qualification of the law's requirement of residence shows intent to find the most
accurate location of the debtor's activities. If the address in a corporation's articles of incorporation is proven
to be no longer accurate, then legal fiction should give way to fact. (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
versus Royal Ferry Services, Inc., G.R. No. 188146, February 1, 2017)

2. Where the Parties Have Validly Agreed In Writing Before The Filing Of The Action On
The Exclusive Venue Thereof

In Supena vs. Judge De La Rosa, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1031, January 28, 1997, it was held that in extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage under Act No. 3135, as amended, which is a special law which deals particularly on
extrajudicial foreclosure sales of real estate mortgages, the Rules of Court on Venue of Actions under the
Rules of Court is not applicable. Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage is NOT an action.

“Parties Are Not Real-Parties-In-Interest” Falls Under The Category Of Failure To State A
Cause Of Action.

Real party in interest vs. indispensable party.

Real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit.

Indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action.

Necessary party, which is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete
relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim
subject of the action.

If a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on
the ground that the complaint states no cause of action. However, the dismissal on this ground entails an
examination of whether the parties presently pleaded are interested in the outcome of the litigation, and not
whether all persons interested in such outcome are actually pleaded. Both indispensable and necessary parties
are considered as real parties in interest, since both classes of parties stand to be benefited or injured by the
judgment of the suit” (Carandang vs. Heirs of de Guzman).

The rule on joinder of indispensable parties is founded on equity. And the spirit of the law is reflected in S11,
R3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder or
misjoinder of parties and allows the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through
motion or on order of the court on its own initiative. Failure to implead indispensable party is curable by
amendment as allowed by S5, R10. If the indispensable party sought to be impleaded is already dead and can
no longer be included in the complaint as indispensable parties because of his death during the pendency of the
case, the heirs can be impleaded, because their hereditary rights are to be affected or might be affected by the
case. Upon his death, however, their ownership and rights over their properties were transmitted to their
heirs, including herein petitioners, pursuant to Article 774 in relation with Article 777 of the Civil Code (Pacaña-
Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, G.R. No. 168979, December 2, 2013, citing Orbeta, vs. Sendiong).

Page 3 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW
Rule 17. Dismissal of Action
Dismissal of Action Dismissal Without Prejudice and With Prejudice:

(1) On filing of initiatory pleading, dismissal of the complaint for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the
certification of non-forum shopping. Dismissal is always without prejudice, unless otherwise provided in the
order (S5, R7).

(2) Plaintiff fails to appear during the pre-trial conference, or plaintiff fails to file pre-trial brief, the dismissal is
with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court) (S5 & S6, R18).

(3) When plaintiff fails to appear at the preliminary conference, dismissal of complaint is always without
prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court (S7 in relation to S6 Rules on Summary Procedure).

(4) Plaintiff fails to appear at the trial in small claims cases, the dismissal of the claim is always without prejudice
(S18, Rules on Small Claims).

(5) Repeated and unjustified failure of plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial conference, or to file pre-trial brief in
environmental cases, dismissal of the case is always without prejudice (S7 R3, Rules on Procedure for
Environmental Cases).

(6) Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff under Section 1 of Rule 17, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the
dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by
a plaintiff who was once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim.

(7) Dismissal of action upon motion of plaintiff under Section 2, Rule 17, of 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure (without prejudice) (Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided in the
preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court
and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a
defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to
the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he manifests his
preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a
dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised
without the approval of the court).

Res Judicata
Two Concepts of Res Judicata

The first is the so-called ‘bar by former judgment’ and the other one is ‘conclusiveness of judgment’.

There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the
second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Where
there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action,
there is conclusiveness of judgment. The first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and
directly controverted and determined, not as to matters merely involved therein.

To easily remember, in bar by former judgment, the primordial consideration is the existence of two (2) cases;
the identicality of the parties, the subject-matter and the cause or causes of action; there is judgment on the
merits in the first case; the judgment on the merits in the first case is invokable as an absolute bar to the second
case; the absolute bar to the subsequent action also covers any other admissible matter which might have been
offered for that purpose and to all matters that could have been adjudged in that case, because the absolute

Page 4 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW
bar to the subsequent action is not only limited to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or
defeat the claim or demand.

In conclusiveness of judgment, if the second action between the same parties is based upon a different claim or
demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel and conclusive only as to those matters in
issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or judgment was rendered.

In short, the first is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim,
demand or cause of action, while the second precludes the re-litigation of a particular fact or issues in another
action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action (Lopez vs. Reyes, 76 SCRA 179).

Legal Theories Do Not Operate To Constitute A Cause Of Action

New legal theories do not amount to a new cause of action so as to defeat the application of the principle of
res judicata (Perez vs. CA, G.R. No. 157616, July 22, 2005).

Rule 39. Execution of Judgement


Revival of Judgment

An action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a previous
judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five years without it being executed upon motion of
the prevailing party. It is not intended to re-open any issue affecting the merits of the judgment debtor’s case
nor the propriety or correctness of the first judgment (Panotes, vs. City Townhouse Development
Corporation, 2007).

It is premised on the assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by independent action, is
already final and executory (Saligumba vs. Palanog, 2008).

A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its
entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be
enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date
of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations (S6, R39, [Execution by
motion or by independent action]). The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing
judgment by action is precisely to prevent the winning parties from sleeping on their rights (Macias vs. Lim,
2004).

A new and independent action, different and distinct from either the recovery of property case or the
reconstitution case, wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon
which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered (Juco vs. Heirs of Tomas Siy Chung Fu, 2005). Action
to revive is 10 years (Article 1144(3) provides that an action upon a judgment “must be brought within 10
years from the time the right of action accrues”).

If the revival of judgment action is a personal one (accion in personam), the venue of the action is in the
residence of the plaintiff, or at the latter’s option, residence of the defendant, and if the revival of judgment
action involves a real action, the venue of the action is in the place where the property subject of the revival
action is situated (Infante vs, Aran Builders, Inc., 2007).

Judgment does not attain finality when record is destroyed during pendency of motion for reconsideration. It
has the effect of suspending the statutory period after which an order, decision, or judgment, in connection
with which said motion was filed, becomes final. The motion for reconsideration prevents the decision from

Page 5 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW
attaining finality. Cannot therefore be a proper subject of an action for revival of judgment (Juco vs. Heirs of
Tomas Siy Chung Fu, 2005).

Demurrer to evidence

After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the
ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied he shall
have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he
shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence (S1, R33).

Rule 63. Declaratory Relief


Action for Quieting of Title

To determine which court has jurisdiction over the actions identified in the second paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, said provision must be read together with those of the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980, as amended. Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court does not categorically require that an action
to quiet title be filed before the RTC. It repeatedly uses the word "may" - that an action for quieting of title
"may be brought under [the] Rule" on petitions for declaratory relief, and a person desiring to file a petition
for declaratory relief "may x x x bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court." The use of the word
"may" in a statute denotes that the provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, an
opportunity or an option. In contrast, the mandatory provision of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended, uses the word "shall" and explicitly requires the MTC to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over
all civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000.00 (outside NCR) In this case, MTC has EO jurisdiction (Malana vs. Tappa, G.R. NO. 181303,
September 17, 2009).

“The RTC had jurisdiction over the cause of action for injunction because it was one in which the subject of
the litigation was incapable of pecuniary estimation. But the same was not true in the case of the cause of action
for the quieting of title, which had the nature of a real action — that is, an action that involves the issue of
ownership or possession of real property, or any interest in real property” (Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No.
195834, November 09, 2016, JLPB)

However in Sabitsana vs. Muertegui, G.R. No. 181359, August 05, 2013 (JMCDC), said: “The Regional Trial
Court has jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of title. On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the
Rules that an action for quieting of title may be instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the
real property in dispute. Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to real property or
remove clouds therefrom may be brought in the appropriate RTC. It must be remembered that the suit for
quieting of title was prompted by petitioners’ August 24, 1998 letter-opposition to respondent’s application
for registration. Thus, in order to prevent a cloud from being cast upon his application for a title, respondent
filed Civil Case No. B-1097 to obtain a declaration of his rights. In this sense, the action is one for declaratory
relief, which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Rule 63 of the Rules” (Chairman’s
Ponencia).

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Provisional Dismissal; Time-Bar Rule

The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having
been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional

Page 6 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW
dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been
revived.

Plea Bargaining; Plea of guilty to a lesser offense

At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by
the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After
arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after
withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (S2, R116)

When an offense includes or is included in another

An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients
of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a
part of those constituting the latter (S5 R120).

Demurrer to evidence

After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
(1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his
defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be filed
within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution may oppose
the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from
its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not
be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (S23, R119)

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Probate of Estate

If the issue involves extrinsic validity, it cannot be subject by Compromise agreement by reason of Public Policy.
However, if it involves Intrinsic Validity, Compromise Agreement is allowed because we allowed mediation.

Page 7 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW
EVIDENCE

Formal Offer of Evidence

Courts will only consider evidence that which has been formally offered. (Segiratan v. People G.R. No. 172896,
April 19, 2010) However, Even if an exhibit is not formally offered, the same may still be admitted against
the adverse party if:

1) it has been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and

2) it has itself been incorporated in the records of the case (People v. Baturi, G.R. No. 189812, September
1, 2014).

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)

A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person, institution
or the government has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment or assertion of environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be governed by these
Rules (S1, R6, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases).

SLAPP as a Defense

In a SLAPP filed against a person involved in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment, or assertion of environmental rights, the defendant may file an answer interposing as a defense
that the case is a SLAPP and shall be supported by documents, affidavits, papers and other evidence; and, by
way of counterclaim, pray for damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit (S2, R6, Rules Of Procedure for
Environmental Cases).

Summary Procedure

In ejectment cases where the issue of possession is intimately intertwined with the issue of ownership, MTC
not divested of jurisdiction. Issue of ownership is material only to determine who has better possession.
Consider a complaint as one for unlawful detainer if the following elements are present in the complaint:

Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff.

Eventually, the possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice to the defendant of the termination of the
latter’s right of possession.

Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the latter’s
enjoyment.

Within one year from the making of the last demand on the defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for unlawful detainer.

Even where the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the first level courts have the undoubted
competence to resolve the issue of ownership albeit only to determine the issue of possession (Wilmon Auto
Supply Corp. vs. CA, 1992).

Page 8 of 9
SSCR LAW STAG NOTES 2018
LAST MINUTE TIPS - REMEDIAL LAW
In unlawful detainer, tolerance must be present right from the start of possession sought to be recovered, to
categorize a cause of action as one of unlawful detainer (Monteblanco vs. Hinigaran Sugar Plantation, 1936).

The rule in forcible entry cases, but not in those for unlawful detainer, is that a party who can prove prior
possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Regardless of the actual condition of
the title to the property and whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in his favor priority
in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person
having a better right through an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. Corollarily, if prior possession may be
ascertained in some other way, then the inferior court cannot dwell upon or intrude into the issue of ownership
(German Management & Services vs. CA, 1989).

-[ END ]-

Page 9 of 9

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen