case compilation- civ pro

7/25/2019 Case Compilation- Civ Pro

1/72

1. OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HERTZ PHIL.EXCLUSIVE CARS, INC., Responent.

!.R. No. 1"#$#%

&'n('r) *, +$1#

SERENO, C&.

ACTS-

Optima is engaged in the business of leasing and renting out commercial

spaces and buildings to its tenants. It entered into a Contract of Lease with

respondent over a 131-square-meter oce unit and a paring slot in the

Optima !uilding for a period of three "ears commencing on 1 #arch $%%3 and

ending on $& 'ebruar" $%%(. )he parties amended their lease agreement b"

shortening the lease period to two "ears and *ve months. +s a result, ert

alleged that it e/perienced a 0% drop in monthl" sales and a signi*cantdecrease in its personnel2s productivit". It then requested a 0% discount on

its rent for the months of #a", une, ul" and +ugust $%%0. On & 4ecember

$%%0, Optima granted the request of ert. owever, the latter still failed to

pa" its rentals for the months of +ugust to 4ecember of $%%0 and anuar" to

'ebruar" $%%(, or a total of seven months .Optima wrote another letter to

ert, reminding the latter that the Contract of Lease could be renewed onl"

b" a new negotiation between the parties and upon written notice b" the

lessee to the lessor at least 5% da"s prior to the termination of the lease

period. +s no letter was received from ert regarding its intention to see

negotiation and e/tension of the lease contract within the 5%-da" period,

Optima informed it that the lease would e/pire on $& 'ebruar" $%%( and

would not be renewed. On $1 4ecember $%%0, ert wrote a letter belatedl"

advising Optima of the former2s desire to negotiate and e/tend the lease.

owever, as the Contract of Lease provided that the notice to negotiate its

renewal must be given b" the lessee at least 5% da"s prior to the e/piration

of the contract, petitioner no longer entertained respondent2s notice. ert

*led a Complaint for 6peci*c 7erformance, In8unction and 4amages and9or

6um of #one" with pra"er for the issuance of a )emporar" :estraining Order

and ;rit of 7reliminar" In8unction against Optima. +s a result, Optima was

constrained to *le before the #e)C a Complaint for


2/72

acquire 8urisdiction over the person of respondent ert. )he appellate court

thereafter reversed the :)C and remanded the case to the #e)C to ensure

the proper service of summons.

ISSUE- ;hether or not the #e)C properl" acquired 8urisdiction over the

person of respondent ert.

HEL-)he #e)C acquired 8urisdiction over the person of respondent ert. Incivil cases, 8urisdiction over the person of the defendant ma" be acquired

either b" service of summons or b" the defendant2s voluntar" appearance in

court and submission to its authorit". In this case, the #e)C acquired

8urisdiction over the person of respondent ert b" reason of the latter2s

voluntar" appearance in court. 7reliminaril", 8urisdiction over the defendant

in a civil case is acquired either b" the coercive power of legal processes

e/erted over his person, or his voluntar" appearance in court. In this case,

the records show that the following statement appeared in respondent2s

#otion for Leave to 'ile +nswer> In spite of the defective service of summons,the defendant opted to *le the instant +nswer with Counterclaim with Leave

of Court, ert voluntaril" appeared before the court, therefore b" virtue of

the voluntar" appearance of respondent ert before the #e)C, the trial court

acquired 8urisdiction over respondent ert.

#2 Padlan v Dinglasan

G.R. No. 180321 March 20, 2013

Peralta, J.:

Facts:

Elenita Dinglasan was the registered owner o a !arcel o land co"ered #$ %&% No. %'10()02.

*hile on #oard a +ee!ne$, Elenitas -other had a con"ersation with one Mara Passion regarding

the sale o the said !ro!ert$. /elie"ing Mara to #e a real estate agent, Elenitas -other ga"e the

%&% o the said land to Mara, which the latter s#di"ided and sold to dierent indi"idals

throgh dierent Deeds o ale. !ortion o the said land was sold to one orna ng who had a

%&% issed in her na-e. ew -onths later, orna then sold the sa-e land to !etitioner Editha

Padlan or P4,000.

ter learning o the rad, res!ondents Dinglasan de-anded that Padlan srrender the lot,

#t the latter resed. %he$ thereore iled a case #eore the R%& or the cancellation o Padlans

%&%. --ons was ser"ed to the !etitioner throgh her -other nita Padlan.

Dring trial, !etitioner, throgh her consel, iled an !!osition and clai-ed that the cort

did not ac5ire +risdiction o"er her #ecase the s--ons was not "alidl$ ser"ed !on her, #t

was done onl$ #$ s#stitted ser"ice to her -other. he -aintained that she has long #een


3/72

residing in Ja!an ater she -arried a Ja!anese national and that she onl$ retrns #riel$ in the

Phili!!ines e"er$ two $ears.

%he R%& rendered a decision in a"or o the !etitioner. %he &, howe"er, rendered a decision

in a"or o the res!ondents. Petitioner Padlan ths iled or Reconsideration, a"erring that the

lower cort ailed to ac5ire +risdiction o"er #oth her and the s#+ect -atter o the case.

Issues:

*N the cort ac5ired +risdiction o"er the !erson o the !etitioner.

*N the cort ac5ired +risdiction o"er the !erson o the s#+ect -atter.

Held:

NO.%he cort did not ac5ire +risdiction o"er the !etitioner as !rsant to ec 1(, Rle 14o the Rles o &i"il Procedre, when the deendant does not reside in the Phili!!ines and the

s#+ect o the action is !ro!ert$ within the Phili!!ines, ser"ice o s--ons -a$ #e eected

otside o the Phili!!ines #$ !ersonal ser"ice or #$ !#lication in a news!a!er o general

circlation. %hs, the s#stitted ser"ice to the !etitioners -other did not "est +risdiction o the

!etitioners !erson to the cort.

NO. 6t is well'esta#lished that the assessed "ale o the real !ro!ert$ s#+ect o the

co-!laint -st #e alleged in order to deter-ine the +risdiction. 6n the instant case, onl$ the

P4,000 sale !rice o the !ro!ert$ was alleged, -a7ing it the sole #asis or the "ale o the

!ro!ert$. Gi"en the said !rice, it is clear that it is the M%& and not the R%& that has +risdiction

o"er the case. %hs. the trial and the decision o the R%& is nll and "oid or lac7 o +risdiction

and the case was dis-issed withot !re+dice.

3. Macasaet vs. Co (697C!"$7% &.! Nos. '67'9

en)a*in+ ,- Date- 6'3

Facts- &o sed !etitioners or an alleged li#elos article !#lished on #ante %onite.

Regional trial cort sheri Ral Medina tried to eect the s--ons on the !etitioners #t ailed

#ecase the$ were ot o the oice. %he sheri retrned to the oice thrice within the sa-e da$#t the !etitioners ne"er retrned to the oice that da$. e resorted to s#stitted ser"ice o

s--ons and e9!lained that it was #ecase the$ are alwa$s ot and na"aila#le.

Petitioners wa"ed or the dis-issal o the co-!laint or the reason that the s--ons were not

ser"ed !ro!erl$.

%he regional trial cort dis-issed their -otion and the !etitioners iled their -otion or

reconsideration #t was again denied.


4/72

%he !etitioners #roght their case to the cort o a!!eals #t it air-ed the decision o the lower

cort and denied the -otion to dis-iss iled #$ the !etitioners.

Issue-*hether the regional trial cort ac5ired +risdiction o"er the !etitioners.

Held- es, !etitioners insistence on !ersonal ser"ice #$ the ser"ing oicer was de-onstra#l$

s!erlos.

%he allegations o the deendants that the heri i--ediatel$ resorted to s#stitted ser"ice o

s--ons !on the- when he was inor-ed that the$ were not arond to !ersonall$ recei"e the

sa-e is ntena#le. /ecase o that inor-ation and #ecase o the natre o the wor7 o the

deendants that the$ are alwa$s on ield, so the sheri resorted to s#stitted ser"ice o s--ons.

%here was s#stantial co-!liance with the rles, considering the diiclt$ to ser"e the s--ons

!ersonall$ to the- #ecase o the natre o their +o# which co-!els the- to #e alwa$s ot and

na"aila#le. dditionall$, %he$ had actall$ recei"ed the s--ons ser"ed throgh their

s#stittes, as #orne ot #$ their illings o se"eral !leadings in the regional trial cort.

%he sheri cannot #e e9!ected to !ersonall$ eect the s--ons at all ti-es and -a$ resort to

s#stittion.

/. P't0O vs Civi2 Servi3e Co44ission

!.R. No. 1*"5%%, &(ne %, +$1#

Meno6', &.

'acts>

7at-Og, a 7ublic 6chool teacher is a respondent in an administrative case. ewas found guilt" for 6imple #isconduct to which he was meted a penalt" of

6i/-#onths suspension.

7at-Og is now questioning his indictment since under the #agna Carta for

)eachers, he must be tried administrativel" b" a committee to be constituted

pursuant to the said magna Carta.

Issue>

;9? the C6C validl" acquired 8urisdiction over the case of 7at-Og.

:uling>

C6C validl" acquired 8urisdiction over the case of 7at-Og.

C6C practiced concurrent 8urisdiction with the committee provided for under

the #agna Carta for )eachers. #oreover, under +rticle @-! of the Constitution,

the C6C has the 7ower to hear, tr" and decide cases of 7ublic

Ocers9Amplo"ees which includes 7ublic 6chool )eachers.


5/72

%. !.R. No. 15/*$"

&(ne 15, +$1#

ARMA MASLA!,7etitioner,vs.

ELIZA7ETH MONZON, 8ILLIAM !ESTON, 'n RE!ISTRY O EES O7EN!UET,:espondents.

EL CASTILLO, J.:

&URISICTION

'3t('2 Ante3eents-

In 155&, petitioner *led a Complaint for reconve"ance of real propert"with declaration of nullit" of original certi*cate of title BOC) against

respondents Aliabeth #onon B#onon, ;illiam Deston and the:egistr" of 4eeds of La )rinidad, !enguet. )he Complaint was *ledbefore the #unicipal )rial Court B#)C of La )rinidad, !enguet.

+fter trial, the #)C found respondent #onon guilt" of fraud inobtaining an OC) over petitioner2s propert". It ordered her to reconve"the said propert" to petitioner, and to pa" damages and costs of suit.

:espondents appealed to the :egional )rial Court B:)C of La )rinidad,!enguet.

)he :)C of La )rinidad, !enguet, !ranch declared the #)C without

8urisdiction over petitioner2s cause of action. It further held that it willtae cogniance of the case pursuant to 6ection &, :ule =% of the :ulesof Court

On #a" =, $%%=, :)C udge 4ia 4e :ivera issued a:esolution reversing the #)C 4ecision.

7etitioner *led a ?otice of +ppeal from the :)C2s #a" =, $%%=:esolution.

7etitioner assailed the :)C2s #a" =, $%%= :esolution for reversing the#)C2s factual *ndings and pra"ed that the #)C 4ecision be adopted.

)he C+ dismissed petitioner2s appeal. It observed that the :)C2s #a" =,$%%= :esolution Bthe sub8ect matter of the appeal before the C+ setaside an #)C udgmentE hence, the proper remed" is a 7etition for:eview under :ule =$, and not an ordinar" appeal.

7etitioner sought reconsideration. 6he argued, for the *rst time, thatthe :)C rendered its #a" =, $%%= :esolution in its original 8urisdiction.


6/72

6he cited the earlier October $$, $%%3 Order of the :)C declaring the#)C without 8urisdiction over the case.

)he C+ denied petitioner2s #otion for :econsideration in its 6eptember$$, $%%( :esolution.

Iss(es-

4oes the #)C have 8urisdiction over the case involvedF

R(2in-

Ges.


7/72

6. &.!. No. $'$9C"/- C"0H"1 P"CIFIC !/1/ (699 C!" 72'%

C"/ DI&/0-

F"C0

6n March 1;; -ade a tra"el reser"ation with a-!agita%ra"el or his a-il$s tri! to delaide, stralia schedled ro- 12 !ril 1;;< to 4 Ma$ 1;; &atha$ Paciic rond'tri! air!lane tic7ets or Manila'ong@ong'delaide'ong@ong'Manila. %he a-il$ then were a#le to l$ to delaide, stralia withot a hitch. ne

wee7 #eore the$ were schedled to l$ #ac7 ho-e, *ilredo reconir-ed his a-il$s retrn lightwith &atha$ Paciic oice and the$ were ad"ised that the reser"ation was Astill o7a$ as schedled.B6t was then when the a-il$ arri"ed at the air!ort 7new that that their itinerar$ did not inclde

#oo7ing or the retrn lights e9ce!t or i9ta a!C =-other'in'law>. ter a series o negotiationwith &atha$ Paciic !ersonnel, the a-il$ was acco--odated and trans!orted #ac7 to Manilathen e"entall$ led to illing o this !resent case or the !a$-ent o da-ages it cased the-.

I/

1. *hether or not there is a "alid case o action against &atha$ Paciic and a-!agita %ra"el

iled #$ *ilredo Re$es, Janita Re$es, Michael Ro$ Re$es, and i9ta a!C.

!4IN&

Res!ondents case o action against &atha$ Paciic ste--ed ro- a #reach o contract ocarriage wherein said res!ondents entered into a contract o carriage with &atha$ Paciic. %he!assengers were holding "alid and conir-ed air!lane tic7ets. *ilredo was e"en assred #$ asta o &atha$ Paciic that he does not need to reconir- his #oo7ing.

rticle 13


8/72


9/72

6n relation to an action or rescission, it shold #e noted that the re-ed$ o rescission is

s#sidiar$ in natre it cannot #e institted e9ce!t when the !art$ sering da-age has no other

legal -eans to o#tain re!aration or the sa-e.

crsor$ reading o the allegations o /s co-!laint wold show that it ailed to allege the

lti-ate acts constitting its case o action and the !rere5isites that -st #e co-!lied #eore

the sa-e -a$ #e institted. /, withot a"ailing o the irst and second re-edies, that is,e9hasting the !ro!erties o &%, enr$ . Friga$ and Genilda &. Friga$ or their trans-issi#le

rights and actions, si-!l$ ndertoo7 the third -easre and iled an action or annl-ent o the

donation. %his cannot #e done.

%hs, / has no case o action against !s. Friga$ with regard to the rescission o the

donation.

$. 788 C!" 77$

Heis o: 1;on vs. !ica:ote

C"/ OF "C0ION

F"C0-

n Jl$ 2;, 2010, !etitioners, together with so-e o their cosins,=iled a co-!laint or&ancellation o %itle and Recon"e$ance with Da-ages =s#+ect co-!laint> against res!ondentGadioso Ponteras Ricaorte a.7.a. Gadioso E. !on =Gadioso>. 6n their co-!laint, the$alleged that Magdaleno !on =Magdaleno> died intestate and childless on Jne 28, 1;)8, lea"ing

#ehind ot Nos. 2', 2'&, 2'F, and 2'J which were then co"ered #$ %ranser &ertiicates o %itle

=%&%> Nos. %'44 and %' hiscertiicate o i"e /irth =#> two =2> letters ro- Pol$technic chool and =c> a certiied tre co!$ o

his !ass!ort.9Further, by way of affirmative defense, he claimed, among others that: (a)petitioners have no cause of action against him.

I/-


10/72

s stated in the s#+ect co-!laint, !etitioners, who were a-ong the !laintis therein, alleged that

the$ are the lawl heirs o Magdaleno and #ased on the sa-e, !ra$ed that the ida"it o el'

d+dication e9ected #$ Gadioso #e declared nll and "oid and that the transer certiicates o

title issed in the latters a"or #e cancelled. *hile the oregoing allegations, i ad-itted to #e

tre, wold conse5entl$ warrant the relies soght or in the said co-!laint, the rle that the

deter-ination o a decedents lawl heirs shold #e -ade in the corres!onding s!ecial

!roceeding$%!recldes the R%&, in an ordinar$ action or cancellation o title and recon"e$ance,

ro- granting the sa-e.

Jris!rdence dictates that the deter-ination o who are the legal heirs o the deceased -st #e

-ade in the !ro!er s!ecial !roceedings in cort, and not in an ordinar$ sit or reco"er$ o

ownershi! and !ossession o !ro!ert$. %his -st ta7e !recedence o"er the action or reco"er$ o

!ossession and ownershi!.

9. &.!. No. =$89

C"/- IN&4/ v. /0!"D" (69' C!" 2$'%

C"/ DI&/0-

F"C0-

n 14 !ril 1;;3, !etitioner s!oses Jose and Joseina 6ngles o#tained a loan ro- res!ondent

&harles Este#an. s collateral or sch loan, !etitioners -ortgaged their !ro!ert$ in a"or o

&harles.

n 2; Ma$ 1;;3, the loan -atred and !etitioners issed a chec7 nortnatel$, the chec7

#onced. n 30 cto#er 1;;3, Jose died and was sr"i"ed #$ Joseina and their children. n 13

Jl$ 1;;4, &harles sent a letter de-anding or the !a$-ent o the loan $et still Joseina ailed to

!a$. %his cases res!ondent &harles !etition or the e9tra+dicial oreclosre o the said !ro!ert$

which was later ordered #$ the res!ondent +dge directing the cler7 o cort and e9 oicio sheri

to !roceed with the e9tra+dicial oreclosre.

I/-

*hether or not the & erred in dis-issing 6ngleses !etition or nnl-ent o Final rders.

H/4D-

N. %he s#+ect o the 6ngleses !etition or nnl-ent o Final rders are not !ro!er s#+ects o

a !etition or annl-ent #eore the &ort o !!eals. %he assailed orders o E9ecti"e Jdge

Estrada are not the inal orders in Aci"il actionsB o the R%& that -a$ #e s#+ect o annl-ent #$

the & nder Rle 4


11/72

resoltions, are thereore rendered #$ corts in the e9ercise o their +dicial nction. Proceedings

or the e9tra+dicial oreclosre o -ortgages are not ad"ersarial, as the +dge -erel$ !eror-s

therein an ad-inistrati"e nction to ensre that all re5ire-ents or the e9tra+dicial oreclosre

o a -ortage are satisied. %hs, in First Mar#ella &ondo-ini- ssoc., 6nc. H. Gat-a$tan theee

cort rled that the orders o the e9ecti"e +dge in sch !roceedings, whether the$ #e to allow or

disallow the e9tra+dicial orclosre are not issed in the e9ercise o a +dicial nction #t issed

in the e9ercise o ad-inistrati"e nction to s!er"ise the -inisterial dt$ o the &ler7 o &ort as

E9 icio heri.

#8 1u v. Pacle>

&.!. No. 7272+ Fe>ua 2=+ 2889

PNO+ C.,.

Facts:

Res!ondent /altaCar Pacle# and his wie, ngelita &han, are registered owners o a !arcel o landlocated in Das-arinas, &a"ite =angcaan Pro!ert$>. 6n 1;;2, the angcaan Pro!ert$ #eca-e the

s#+ect o 3 doc-ents !r!orting to transer its ownershi!. First was a Deed o #solte ale

#etween !oses Pacle# and ngelita &han and Re#ecca Del Rosario. econd was a Deed o

#solte ale #etween Del Rosario and R!erto Ja"ier. nd third was a &ontract to ell #etween

Ja"ier and !oses . ll the aore-entioned sales were not registered. #se5entl$, s!oses

iled with the R%& a co-!laint or s!eciic !eror-ance and da-ages against Ja"ier to co-!el

hi- to deli"er to the- ownershi! and !ossession, as well as title to the angcaan Pro!ert$. %he$

alleged that ater gi"ing their initial !a$-ent the$ disco"ered that the !ro!ert$ was tenanted #$

Ra-on Pacle#. 6n 1;;4, R%& rendered +dg-ent in a"or o the s!oses. %he decision #eca-e

inal. ater, res!ondent iled a co-!laint or annl-ent o deed o sale !r!ortedl$ e9ected

#etween hi- and his wie and Re#ecca Del Rosario alleging that their signatres thereon were

orgeries. Res!ondent, later, -o"ed to dis-iss the case, which the cort granted. Meanwhile,

s!oses iled an action with the M%& or orci#le entr$ against res!ondent, alleging that the$

had !rior !h$sical !ossession o the angcaan Pro!ert$. M%& rled in a"or o s!oses , which

decision was air-ed #$ the R%&. owe"er, the & set aside the decisions and ond that it was

res!ondent who had !rior !h$sical !ossession o the !ro!ert$. #se5entl$, res!ondent iled the

instant case or re-o"al o clod ro- title with da-ages, which the R%& dis-issed holding that

s!oses are !rchasers in good aith. owe"er, the & set aside said decision and rled that

the 1;;4 decision o the R%& which has #eca-e inal, did not transer ownershi! o the angcaan

Pro!ert$ to the s!oses. MR denied.

6sse:

*N ownershi! o"er the angcaan Pro!ert$ was !ro!erl$ "ested in !etitioner s!oses #$ "irte

o the 1;;4 decision.

eld: No. ch case nder which that decision was rendered is an action or s!eciic !eror-ance

and da-ages iled #$ !etitioner s!oses against Ja"ier to co-!el !eror-ance o the latters


12/72

nderta7ings nder their &ontract to ell. s correctl$ held #$ the &ort o !!eals, its o#+ect is to

co-!el Ja"ier to acce!t the ll !a$-ent o the !rchase !rice, and to e9ecte a deed o a#solte

sale o"er the angcaan Pro!ert$ in their a"or. %he o#ligations o Ja"ier nder the contract to sell

attach to hi- alone, and do not #rden the angcaan Pro!ert$. %he &ort ha"e held in an

n#ro7en string o cases that an action or s!eciic !eror-ance is an action in personam. 6nCa>uti5an v. 4andcente Constuction and Develo;*ent Co;oation , it was rledthat an action or s!eciic !eror-ance !ra$ing or the e9ection o a deed o sale in connection

with an nderta7ing in a contract, sch as the contract to sell, in this instance, is an action in

personam. /eing a +dg-ent in personam, the case is #inding onl$ !on the !arties !ro!erl$

i-!leaded therein and dl$ heard or gi"en an o!!ortnit$ to #e heard. %hereore, it cannot #indres!ondent since he was not a !art$ therein. Neither can res!ondent #e considered as !ri"$

thereto since his signatre and that o his late irst wie, ngelita &han, were orged in the deed o

sale.

. CC vs "l*o)uela&.!. No. 9=36$ ";il 2+ 283!ION+ ,.

F&%:n ad-inistrati"e case was iled against Des7 icerI !er"isor J2 l-o+ela, #ecase adetention !risoner, %on$ ao esca!ed in the Ma7ati &it$ Jail. /JMP 6n"estigation Re!ortcondcted on the incident conclded that J2 l-o+ela and the rest o the +ail oicers on thirdshit cstodial dt$ all collded to acilitate aos getawa$. J2 l-o+ela and J1 o$ola wereond gilt$ o Gra"e Miscondct and were -eted the !enalt$ o dis-issal ro- the ser"ice. J2

l-o+ela and J1 o$ola -o"ed or the reconsideration o Director *alits decision, which thelatter denied or lac7 o -erit in a Joint Resoltion dated Jne 21, 200). J2 l-o+ela thena!!ealed his con"iction #eore the &i"il er"ice &o--ission =&&>, which air-ed Director

*alits decision in its Resoltion No. 080


13/72

E. %he conse5ences o this -iste! are !re+dicial to the !art$ iling the !leading. ection (,Rle 4( o the Rles o &ort !ro"ides that a !etition or re"iew that does not co-!l$ with there5ired certiication against or- sho!!ing is a grond or its dis-issal. %his certiication -st

#e e9ected #$ the !etitioner, not #$ consel. 6t is the !etitioner, and not alwa$s the conselwhose !roessional ser"ices ha"e #een retained onl$ or a !articlar case, who is in the #est!osition to 7now whether he or it actall$ iled or cased the iling o a !etition in that case.ence, a certiication against or- sho!!ing #$ consel is a deecti"e certiication. 6t ise5i"alent to non'co-!liance with the re5ire-ent nder ection 4, Rle 4( and constittes a

"alid case or dis-issal o the !etition. owe"er, there ha"e #een instances when the de-ands os#stantial +stice con"inced s to a!!l$ the Rles li#erall$ #$ wa$ o co-!liance with thecertiication against or- sho!!ing re5ire-ent the rle on certiication against or-sho!!ing, while o#ligator$, is not +risdictional. Jstiia#le cirs-tances -a$ inter"ene and #erecogniCed, leading the &ort to rela9 the a!!lication o this rle

2. !ees vs. N4!C

!.R. No. 1"$%%1

'acts>

!efore this Court is a 6pecial Civil +ction for Certiorari under :ule (0 of the:evised :ules of Court *led b" petitioner Arwin . :e"es seeing to reverseand set aside the :esolutions the Court of +ppeals. the appellate courtdismissed petitioners 7etition for Certiorari therein for failure to give ane/planation wh" cop" of the said 7etition was not personall" served upon thecounsel of the respondents.

)he 7etitioner *le a Complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for moral ande/emplar" damages and attorne"s fees against the respondents Coca Cola!ottlers 7hilippines BCC!7 and :otaida )aguibao B)aguibao before the Labor+rbiter on 14 Jne 2004. In his Complaint, petitioner alleged that he was *rstemplo"ed b" respondent CC!7, through Interserve #anpower +genc"

BInterserve, as a Leadman. 7etitioner was initiall" assigned to the #endiola6ales Oce of respondent CC!7. 7etitioners emplo"ment contract wasrenewed ever" *ve months and he was assigned a diKerent tas ever"time. 6uch an arrangement continued until petitioner was directl" hired b"respondent CC!7 as a :oute 6alesman. A/actl" one "ear from the time ofpetitioners emplo"ment as a :oute 6alesman, respondent CC!7, thru)aguibao, terminated his services where he alread" acquired the status of aregular emplo"ee, petitioner asserted that his dismissal from emplo"mentwithout the bene*t of due process was unlawful. opposing the Complaint,respondent CC!7 refuted petitioners allegation that he was a regularemplo"ee. 7etitioners emplo"ment was for a */ed period of three months,which was subsequentl" e/tendedwith petitioners consent. the Labor +rbiter

promulgated his 4ecision, favoring petitioner, since there was insucientevidence to sustain the averment of respondents CC!7 and )aguibao thatpetitioners emplo"ment was for a */ed period. the respondents reinstatedthe petitioner to his former position. owever, respondents CC!7 and)aguibao, +ppealed before the ?L:C but later on dismissed. ?L:C reducedthe amount of bacwages awarded to petitioner and deleted the order for hisreinstatement. +ll the parties moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing?L:C 4ecision but denied. )he petitioner elevated his case before the Courtof +ppeals b" *ling a 7etition for Certiorari he averred in his 7etition that the


14/72

?L:C abused its discretion in ignoring the established facts and legalprinciples when it modi*ed the award for his bacwages and deleted theorder for his reinstatement.

)he Court of +ppeals dismissed petitioners 7etition for Certiorarifor hisfailure to give an" e/planation wh" a cop" of the said 7etition was not

personall" served upon the counsel of the adverse parties. 6ince petitionerfailed to timel" *le a #otion for :econsideration, the :esolution dated 1%?ovember $%%( of the Court of +ppeals became *nal and e/ecutor", and anAntr" of udgment was made.

On 15 ul" $%%H, petitioners new counsel *led an Antr" of +ppearance

with an


15/72

Relations Commission,[13]this Court provided the following 8usti*cation for itsnon-insistence on a written e/planation as required b" 6ection 11, :ule 13 ofthe :evised :ules of Court>

T9e r(2es o: pro3e(re 're 4ere2) too2s esine to

:'3i2it'te t9e 'tt'in4ent o: ;(sti3e. T9e) otso: te39ni3'2 r(2es, s9orn o: ;(i3i'2 is3retion. In rendering8ustice, courts have alwa"s been, as the" ought to be,conscientiousl" guided b" the norm that on the balance,technicalities tae a bacseat against substantive rights, and notthe other wa" around. )hus, if the application of the :ules wouldtend to frustrate rather than promote 8ustice, it is alwa"s withinour power to suspend the rules, or e/cept a particular case fromits operation.

)he call for a liberal interpretation of the :ules is even more strident in

the instant case which petitioners former counsel was obviousl" negligent inhandling his case before the Court of +ppeals. It was petitioners formercounsel who failed to attach the required e/planation to the 7etition in. 6aidcounsel did not bother to inform petitioner, his client, of the :esolution of theappellate court dismissing the 7etition for lac of the requirede/planation. ;orse, said counsel totall" abandoned petitioners case b"merel" allowing the reglementar" period for *ling a #otion for:econsideration to lapse without taing an" remedial stepsE thus, the 1%?ovember $%%( :esolution became *nal and e/ecutor".

)he basic general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the

client. ence, if counsel commits a mistae in the course of litigation, thereb"resulting in his losing the case, his client must perforce suKer theconsequences of the mistae. )he reason for the rule is to avoid thepossibilit" that ever" losing part" would raise the issue of negligence of his orher counsel to escape an adverse decision of the court, to the detriment ofour 8ustice s"stem, as no part" would ever accept a losing verdict. )hisgeneral rule, however, pertains onl" to simple negligence of thelaw"er. 89ere t9e ne2ien3e o: 3o(nse2 is one t9't is so ross,p'2p'>2e, perv'sive, re3?2ess 'n ine@3(s'>2e, t9en it oes not >int9e 32ient sin3e, in s(39 ' 3'se, t9e 32ient is e=e3tive2) eprive o:9is or 9er ') in 3o(rt.1/B

)he circumstances of this case qualif" it under the e/ception, rather

than the general rule. )he negligence of petitioners former counsel ma" beconsidered gross since it invariabl" resulted to the foreclosure of remediesotherwise readil" available to the petitioner. ?ot onl" was petitioner deprivedof the opportunit" to bring his case before the Court of +ppeals with theoutright dismissal of his 7etition on a technicalit", but he was also robbed ofthe chance to see reconsideration of the dismissal of his 7etition. ;hatfurther impel this Court to heed the call for substantial 8ustice are thepressing merits of this case which, if left overshadowed b" technicalities,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/180551.htm#_ftn14


16/72


17/72

alleges that so-eti-e in the second wee7 o Ma$ 2000, the !etitioner #$ -eans o orce,inti-idation, strateg$ and threats destro$ed the !eri-eter ence o the !ro!ert$ #ilt #$ theres!ondent. n Ma$ 30, 2000, the res!ondent iled a co-!laint or orci#le entr$ with !ra$er ora %e-!orar$ Restraining rder andIor Preli-inar$ in+ction against !etitioner de Grano. %heres!ondent rther clai-s that he has #een in !h$sical !ossession o the two !arcels o land or-ore than 30 $ears and has #een !a$ing the real !ro!ert$ ta9es or the two !ro!erties. %he!etitioner in his answer a"erred that the real owners and !ossessors o the !ro!ert$ were thea-il$ o Ernesto Mala#anan as e"idenced #$ %&% No. %'31;2; o the Register o Deeds o%anaan, /atangas. ther doc-ents !ro"ing the sa-e were also s#-itted. %he Mnici!al&ircit %rial &ort dis-issed the co-!laint or lac7 o case o action on gst 11, 2000. R%&air-ed the decision o M&%& on No"e-#er 13, 2000 ro- which the res!ondent iled a -otionor reconsideration. R%& denied the -otion or reconsideration in an order dated March 28,2001. co!$ o the resoltion was recei"ed #$ res!ondents consel on !ril 18, 2001. ncto#er 23, 2001, the !etitioner -aniested that it was not he who iled the -otion orreconsideration and hence, the R%& -odiied its March 28, 2001 changing AdeendantB toA!lainti. %he res!ondent then iled a -otion or e9tension o ti-e to ile a !etition or re"iew

with the & on No"e-#er 2


18/72

sch case, the !eriod o iling the a!!eal shold #e conted ro- the recei!t o the original+dg-ent.

ince no -aterial alteration was !resent in the +dg-ent, or the a-end-ent onl$ consists o thechanging o the word AdeendantB with A!laintiB in the dis!ositi"e !ortion, the !rescri!ti"e!eriod -st #e conted ro- date o the recei!t o the original order which was !ril 18, 2001.%he res!ondent had ntil Ma$ 3, 2001 to ile a !etition or re"iew howe"er he iled a -otion ore9tension onl$ on No"e-#er 2io

!.R. No. 1%#5"" Nove4>er +5, +$$*

7rion, &.

'3ts-aren Do *led two complaints to the :)C for replevin and sum of mone" with

damages against ?avarro in order to recover two vehicles in the latter2s

posession. owever, ?avarro, in his answer raised the defense that aren Do

has no cause of action and alleged that Do is not a real part"-in-interest

because she was not a signator" to the agreement between Dlenn Do

Busband of aren Do and ?avarro with regard to the vehicles.

Initiall", :)C dismissed the case but later, reversed it self on the ground that,

Dlenn Do2s car leasing business is a con8ugal propert". )hus, the court

ordered aren Do to *le a motion to include Dlenn Do as a co-plaintiK to thecase.

?avarro then *led a 7etition for Certiorari before the C+. +ccording to

?avarro, a complaint which failed to state a cause of action could not be

converted into one with a cause of action b" mere amendment or

supplemental pleading. C+ denied petition.

Iss(e-

;hether or ?ot aren Do is a real part" in interest F

R(2in-

Ges, because aren Do is the registered owner of argo Anterprises.

Dlenn and aren Do are eKectivel" co-owners of argo Anterprises and the

properties registered under this nameE hence, both have an equal right to

see possession of these properties. )herefore, onl" one of the co-owners,

namel" the co-owner who *led the suit for the recover" of the co-owned


19/72

propert", is an indispensable part" thereto. )he other co-owners are not

indispensable parties. )he" are not even necessar" parties, for a complete

relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation, since the

suit is presumed to have been *led for the bene*t of all co-owners.

#oreover, 6ection = of :ule 3 states that, Pusband and ;ife shall sue or besued 8ointl", e/cept as provided b" lawQ

)hus, aren Do is a real part" in interest.

1. RE7ECCA PACADA0CONTRERAS 'n ROSALIEPACADA, Petitioners, vs. ROVILA 8ATER SUPPLY, INC., EARL UOSEN!, LILIA TORRES, ALLA P. ROMANILLOS 'n MARISSA!A7UYA, Responents.!.R. No. 1"*5*e3e4>er +, +$1#7RION, J

'acts>)he petitioners claimed that their famil" has long been nown in the

communit" to be engaged in the water suppl" businessE the" operated theJ:ovila ;ater 6uppl"J. )he petitioners alleged that Lilia was a former trustedemplo"ee in the famil" business who hid business records and burned andransaced the famil" *les.

6he then claimed ownership over the famil" business through acorporation named J:ovila ;ater 6uppl", Inc.J B:ovila Inc.


20/72

complaint the sworn declaration with 67+, but the caption of the amendedcomplaint remained the same.

Issue>;hether or not the petitioners are the real parties in interestF

:uling>

Ges. )he heirs of the spouses Luciano and Lourdes 7acaRa, e/ceptherein petitioner and Lagrimas 7acaRa-Donale, are O:4A:A4 I#7LA+4A4as parties plaintiKs and the :)C is directed tp proceed with the trial of thecase with 4I67+)C.

It should be emphasied that insofar as the petitioners are concerned,the respondents have waived the dismissal of the complaint based on theground of failure to state a cause of action because the petitioners are notthe real parties in interest. +t this 8uncture, a distinction between a real part"in interest and an indispensable part" is in order. In Carandang v. eirs of de

Duman, et al.,0H the Court clari*ed these two concepts and held that JaMreal part" in interest is the part" who stands to be bene*ted or in8ured b" the8udgment of the suit, or the part" entitled to the avails of the suit. On theother hand, an indispensable part" is a part" in interest without whom no*nal determination can be had of an action, in contrast to a necessar" part",which is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be 8oined as a part" ifcomplete relief is to be accorded as to those alread" parties, or for acomplete determination or settlement of the claim sub8ect of the action. ///If a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real part" in interest, amotion to dismiss ma" be *led on the ground that the complaint states nocause of action. owever, the dismissal on this ground entails an e/aminationof whether the parties presentl" pleaded are interested in the outcome of thelitigation, and not whether all persons interested in such outcome are actuall"pleaded. )he latter quer" is relevant in discussions concerning indispensableand necessar" parties, but not in discussions concerning real parties ininterest. !oth indispensable and necessar" parties are considered as realparties in interest, since both classes of parties stand to be bene*ted orin8ured b" the 8udgment of the suit.J

+t the inception of the present case, both the spouses 7acaRa were notimpleaded as parties-plaintiKs. )he Court notes, however, that the" areindispensable parties to the case as the alleged owners of :ovila ;ater6uppl". ;ithout their inclusion as parties, there can be no *nal determinationof the present case. )he" possess such an interest in the controvers" that a*nal decree would necessaril" aKect their rights, so that the courts cannotproceed without their presence. )heir interest in the sub8ect matter of the suitand in the relief sought is ine/tricabl" intertwined with that of the otherparties.

7. OCO . 4IM"!IN&

&.!. No. 629$ ,anua 3+ 2886


21/72

P"N&"NI"N+ C,

F"C0-

a#as i-#aring s#di"ided his ot 232('D into two lots. e e9ected Deeds o ale in a"or o

Jennier i-#aring and arah Jane i-#aring. ter said transaction, Percita co, a daghter o

a#as i-#aring, went to Ca-is &it$ #ecase she sensed so-e irreglarities in said transaction.

co then iled a case or !er+r$ and alsiication o doc-ents against res!ondent , who is the

ather o Jennier and arah Jane.

E"entall$, it was decided that s#+ect s#di"ided lots #e recon"e$ed to co. 6n retrn, oco shall

!a$ res!ondent all the e9!enses a-onting to PhP 2(,000 that had #een incrred dring the

transer o the title. ter the recon"e$ance, co let Ca-is &it$ withot !a$ing the agreed

a-ont to res!ondent.

Res!ondent then iled a co-!laint against s!oses co or the recission o the sales contracts,

with reco"er$ o !ossession and ownershi! o the two !arcels o land. 6n their deense, s!oses

co clai-ed that res!ondent was not a real !art$ in interest gi"en that he was not the one who-the$ entered the contracts with and !ra$ed or the Dis-issal o the &o-!laint. owe"er,

res!ondent insisted that he was the actal #$er o the lots, and contended that he was a trstor,

whose !ro!ert$ was #eing held in trst #$ his daghters.

%he &o-!laint was dis-issed #$ the Regional %rial &ort on the grond that res!ondent was not

a real !art$ in interest. %his Decision was re"ersed #$ the &ort o !!eals. %he &ort o !!eals

held that a trst relationshi! was created when res!ondent !rchased the lots in a"or o his

daghters. %hereore, he is a real !art$ in interest.

I/-

*hether or not res!ondent is a real !art$ in interest.

H/4D-

6t was held #$ the !re-e &ort that res!ondent is not a real !art$ in interest and dis-issed the

case. /ased on Rle 3 o the Rles o &ort, a real !art$ in interest is the !art$ who stands to #e

#eneited or in+red #$ the +dg-ent o the sit. s a!!lied in this case, res!ondent is not a !art$

to the contract and he also ailed to show that he has a real interest which will #e aected #$ its

!eror-ance or annl-ent. e also ailed to !ro"e that a trst was created #etween hi- and his

daghters. %he legal !res-!tion is that it was a git eected in their a"or, #ased on rticle 1448

o the &i"il &ode.

$. /4PIDIO . 1+ doing >usiness unde t5e na*e and stle /DIOND//4OPM/N0 CON0!C0ION . CO!0 OF "PP/"4 "ND 0H/H/!I0"&/ P"!? M"N"&/M/N0 CO!PO!"0ION (HPMC%+

&.!. NO.'786'+ ,41 +2886

IMIN&+ ,

F&%:


22/72

%he P#lic Estates thorit$ =PE>and the petitioner e/ecuted a Landscaping andConstruction +greement whereb" the petitioner undertoo to do all thelandscaping, including the construction of a terrasoleum of the eritage7ar. +lleging dela" in the construction of the pro8ects and huge discrepanc"between the +ccomplishment :eport and the actual ph"sical accomplishmentof petitioners construction *rm, the eritage 7ar A/ecutive Committee

terminated the construction contracts. 7ursuant to the terms of the 7')+,7#C assumed all the functions, duties and responsibilities of the 7A+,including those under an assailed contract. 7etitioner *led a complaintagainst the 7A+ before the Construction Industr" +rbitration CommissionBCI+C where it sought to recover pa"ment for its progress billings on the saidpro8ects. )he CI+C rendered decision in favor of the petitioner. Pri"ate res!ondentPM& then iled a !etition or 6n+nctionIProhi#ition #eore the & on the grond that &6& hadno +risdiction o"er the s#+ect -atter since PM& was not i-!leaded as a !art$ there#$de!ri"ing it o its right to #e heard. %he a!!ellate cort rled in a"or o res!ondent.

6sse:

;hether or not 7#C is a real part"-in-interest or an indispensable part"F

eld:

GA6. +n indispensable part" is one whose interest will be aKected b" thecourts action in the litigation, and without whom no *nal determination of thecase can be had. )he part"2s interest in the sub8ect matter of the suit and inthe relief sought are so ine/tricabl" intertwined with the other parties that hislegal presence as a part" to the proceeding is an absolute necessit".

In the case at bar, 7A+ assigned its interests in all the e/isting contracts itentered into as the 7ro8ect #anager for eritage 7arto 7#C.7A+ ociall"turned over to 7#C all the documents and equipment in its possession

related to the eritage 7ar 7ro8ect.7etitioner was dul" informed of theseincidents through a letter. +pparentl", as of the date of the *ling of the CI+CCase, 7A+ is no longer a part"-in-interest.Instead, it is now privaterespondent 7#C, as the assignee, who stands to be bene*ted or in8ured b"the 8udgment in the suit.In its absence, there cannot be a resolution of thedispute of the parties before the court which is eKective, complete orequitable. ence, 7#C is an indispensable part".

9PuoE agong ilang vs 1ui;co

&! No. 3'892 Ma =+ 2886

Calle)o+ .+ ,.-

F"C0-

%he @ai-os and their si#lings are co'owners o a three !arcels o land. owe"er, a#ot

400 !ersons constrcted their hose and other i-!ro"e-ents in the !ro!ert$. %he occ!ants

then or-ed an association 7nown as Pro7 /agong ilang ssociation, 6nc. =P/6>.


23/72

%he @ai-os then iled a co-!laint or the reco"er$ o !ossession o real !ro!ert$,

da-ages and attorne$s ees against )4 occ!ants. %he case was doc7eted as &i"il &ase No. 3203.

%he occ!ants arged that the land in 5estion is classiied as ti-#erland, and as sch,

!art o the !#lic do-ain ths, !laintis has no case o action against the-. e"en other

deendants declared that the$ sto!!ed !a$ing rents ater 7nowing that the land in classiied as

ti-#erland. %he trial cort held in a"or o the deendants, no a!!eal was -ade #$ the occ!antsths, the decision #eca-e inal and e9ector$. owe"er, the occ!ants resed to re-o"e their

hoses and i-!ro"e-ents on the !ro!ert$ and to "acate the sa-e des!ite de-ands.

trial cort issed a writ o de-olition and co!ies was ser"ed #$ the sheri. owe"er, the

sheri ser"ed co!ies not onl$ to the !etitioners #t also on 30; other indi"idals who are not a

!art$ to &i"il &ase No. 3203. %his !ro-!ted the eight indi"idals to ile a !etition or certiorari to

the & which in trn issed a te-!orar$ restraining order en+oining the enorce-ent o the writ

o de-olition. %he sheri tried to i-!le-ent the writ o de-olition in two occasions #t ailed

de to #loc7age -ade #$ the residents and throgh a te-!orar$ restraining order shown to hi-.

ence, this !etition clai-ing that res!ondent +dge acted with gra"e a#se o discretion

a-onting to lac7 or e9cess o +risdiction. %he !etitioners rther allege that not #eing a !art$ tothe &i"il &ase No. 3203, it cannot a!!eal ro- the said 5estioned order and that it had no !lain,

s!eed$ and ade5ate re-ed$ therero- in the ordinar$ corse o law e9ce!t throgh the iling o

the !etition.

I/-

*N the !etitioner is the real !art$'in'interest in this case.

*N the !etition iled in the & is a!!ro!riate

H/4D-

6. es, !etitioner is the real !art$'in'interest in this case.

%he rle is that all actions -st #e !rosected and deended #$ the real !arties'in'

interest and in the na-e o the real !art$'in'interest. %he !art$ whose legal right has #een

in"aded or inringed or who sstained an in+r$ is the onl$ one who can -aintain the action or

the !art$ who stands to #e #eneited or in+red #$ the +dg-ent in the sit. e -st a!!ear to #e

the !resent owner o the right soght to #e enorced.

n association has standing to ile sit or its -e-#ers des!ite its lac7 o direct interest i

its -e-#ers are aected #$ the action si-ilarl$, an organiCation has standing to assert the

concern o its constitents.

66. No, the !etition iled in the & is not a!!ro!riate.

6ssance o an e9traordinar$ writ is also within the co-!etence o the & or the R%&, it is

in either o these corts that the s!eciic action or the issance o sch writ -st #e !roscri#ed

nless s!ecial and i-!ortant laws are clearl$ and s!eciicall$ set orth in the !etition.

%he case shall all on the grond that !etitioner i--ediatel$ soght relie ro- this &ort

or a writ o !rohi#ition.


24/72

+$. Ar3'io 'n M'ri' L(is' C'r'n'n vs. Heirs o: F(irino e!(64'n

!.R. No. 1$#/5 Nove4>er +*, +$$

C9i3o0N'6'rio, &

Suirino de DumanM and the 6pouses CarandangM are stocholders as

well as corporate ocers of #abuha" !roadcasting 6"stem B#!6 for

brevit", with equities at *ft" four percent B0= and fort" si/ percent

B=( respectivel".

On ?ovember $(, 15&3, the capital stoc of #!6 was increased, from

70%%,%%% to 71.0 million and 73=0,%%% of this increase was subscribed

b" the spouses CarandangM. )hereafter, on#arch 3, 15&5, #!6 againincreased its capital stoc, from 71.0 million to 73 million, the spouses

CarandangM "et again subscribed to the increase. )he" subscribed to

753,H0% worth of newl" issued capital stoc.

4e DumanM claims that, part of the pa"ment for these subscriptions

were paid b" him, 7$53,$0% for the ?ovember $(, 15&3 capital stoc

increase and 7=3,1$0 for the #arch 3, 15&5 Capital 6toc increase or a

total of 733(,3H0. )hus, on #arch 31, 155$, de DumanM sent a

demand letter to the spouses CarandangM for the pa"ment of said total

amount.

)he spouses CarandangM refused to pa" the amount, contending that a

pre-incorporation agreement was e/ecuted between +rcadio

CarandangM and de DumanM, whereb" the latter promised to pa" for

the stoc subscriptions of the former without cost, in consideration for

+rcadio CarandangsM technical e/pertise, his newl" purchased

equipment, and his sill in repairing and upgrading

radio9communication equipment therefore, there is no indebtedness on

their part sicM.

4e Duman *led their complaint for the collection of the debts

allegedl" incurred b" the Carandangs. 'or their part, the Carandangs

claim that the case should be dismissed for an absence of a cause of

action since #ilagros de Duman, to whom which the checs were

issued b" the Carandangs were named, was not included as a plaintiK

in the case since she is an indispensable part".

Iss(e-


25/72

;hether or ?ot the case can be dismissed due to the non-inclusion of

#ilagros de Duman.

R(2in-

?o. )hough the spouses Carandang were correct in invoing the

aforementioned doctrine, the ground set forth entails an e/amination of

Pwhether the parties presentl" pleaded are interested in the outcome

of the litigation, and not whether all persons interested in suchoutcome are actuall" pleaded.Q )he *rst quer" sees to answer the

question of whether #ilagros is a real part" in interest, while the latter

quer" is asing if she is an indispensable part". 6ince the issue of this

case calls for the de*nition of an indispensable part", invoing the

abovementioned doctrine is irrelevant to the case because the doctrine

tals about a Treal part" in interest2 and not an Tindispensable part"2.

+lthough it is important to tae note that an indispensable part" is also

a real part" in interest.

#oreover, under the Civil Code, since #ilagros and Suirino de Duman are

spouses thus, the credit in question is a con8ugal propert". )herefore, an

action instituted b" the husband is sucient.

+1. ALLIANCE OR RURAL AN A!RARIAN RECONSTRUCTION, INC v.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

ACTS-7etitioner, +:+:O was a dul" accredited part"-list garnered a total of 1=H,$%=

votes in the #a" 1%, $%1% elections and raned 0%th. )he CO#ALAC An !ancsitting as the ?ational !oard of Canvassers initiall" proclaimed twent"-eightB$& part"-list organiations as winners involving a total of thirt"-*ve B30seats guaranteed and additional seats. )he petitioner questioned the formulaused b" the CO#ALAC and *led the present 7etition for :eview on Certiorariwith 7ra"er for 7reliminar" In8unction and )emporar" :estraining Order)he petitioner suggests that the formula used b" the Commission onAlections is Nawed because votes that were spoiled or that were not made foran" part"-lists were not counted. +ccording to the petitioner, around sevenmillion BH,%%%,%%% votes were disregarded as a result of the Commission onAlections2 erroneous interpretation. 5,11+,5*+GTot'2 n(4>er o:

isre're votes '33orin to petitioner ARARO

On the other hand, the formula used b" the Commission on Alections EnBancsitting as the ?ational !oard of Canvassers is the following>?umber of seats available to legislative districtsU/ .$% V?umber of seatsavailable to part"-list representatives .&%)hus, the total number of part"-list seats available for the #a" $%1% electionsis 0H as shown below>


26/72

$$5UU/ .$% V0H .&%)he ?ational !oard of Canvassers2 :esolution ?o. 1%-%%5 applies the formulaused in !aranga" +ssociation for ?ational +dvancement and )ransparenc"B!+?+) v. CO#ALAC1& to arrive at the winning part"-list groups and theirguaranteed seats, where>

?umber of votes of part"-listUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUV7roportion or 7ercentage of votes garnered b" part"-list)otal number of votes for part"-list candidates

the Commission on Alections through the Oce of the 6olicitor Deneral toothe position that invalid or stra" votes should not be counted in determiningthe divisor. )he Commission on Alections argues that this willcontradict Citiens! Battle "gainst Corru#tion $C%B"C& v.C'(ELEC$$and Baranga) "ssociation *or National "+vancement an+rans#arenc) $B"N"& v. C'(ELEC.$3It asserts that>

?either can the phrase be construed to include the number of voters who didnot even vote for an" quali*ed part"-list candidate, as these voters cannot beconsidered to have cast an" vote Jfor the part"-list s"stem.

Issue-

;hether petitioners have legal standing

He2-

J+ real part" in interest is the part" who stands to be bene*ted or in8ured b"the 8udgement in the suit, or the part" entitled to the avails of the suit.J )hepart"Ws interest must be direct, substantial, and material.

owever despite an" new computation, +:+:Os proposed divisor of totalvotes cast for the part"-list s"stem whether valid or invalid still fails to secureone seat for +:+:O. 7etitioner does not suKer a direct, substantial or materialin8ur" from the application of the formula interpreted and used in !+?+) inproclaiming the winning part"-lists in the assailed ?ational !oard ofCanvassers :esolution. )he computation proposed b" petitioner +:+:O evenlowers its chances to meet the $ threshold required b" law for a guaranteedseat. Its arguments will neither bene*t nor in8ure the part". )hus, it has nolegal standing to raise the argument in this Court.

22. &/N/I IN/0M/N0+ INC. s H/I! o: C/F/!INO /"!"""4

&.!. No. $622+ Nove*>e 28+ 283

F"C0-

Plaintis are sr"i"ing descendants either as grandchildren or great grandchildren and heirs and sccessors'in'interest o deceased Ro-an E#arsa#al, who died on 0< e!te-#er
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_192803_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_192803_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_192803_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_192803_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_192803_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_192803_2013.html#fnt23


27/72

1;(2. Dring the lieti-e o Ro-an E#arsa#al, he ac5ired a !arcel o land sitated in /asda7,aa"edra, Moal#oal, &e#.

?!on the death o said Ro-an E#arsa#al, his eight =8> children na-el$ Gil, &eerino,Floro, eona, Pedro, 6sidoro, Jlian and /enito, all srna-ed E#arsa#al. #eca-e co'owners o!ro!ert$ #$ hereditar$ sccession all o the- li7ewise died, lea"ing, howe"er, their res!ecti"e

children and descendants andIor sr"i"ing heirs and sccessors'in'interest, and who are now the!laintis

on 28th Janar$ 1;;


28/72

were inclded in the sale, si-!l$ #eco-es a necessar$ conse5ence i the a#o"e deed is nlliied.

ence, since the !rinci!al action soght in res!ondents &o-!laint is so-ething other than the

reco"er$ o a s- o -one$, the action is inca!a#le o !ecniar$ esti-ation and, ths, cogniCa#le

#$ the R%&. *ell entrenched is the rle that +risdiction o"er the s#+ect -atter o a case is

conerred #$ law and is deter-ined #$ the allegations in the co-!laint and the character o the

relie soght, irres!ecti"e o whether the !art$ is entitled to all or so-e o the clai-s asserted.

6t is !ro"ided nder ection ( =c>, Rle 2 o the Rles o &ort that where the cases o

action are #etween the sa-e !arties #t !ertain to dierent "enes or +risdictions, the +oinder

-a$ #e allowed in the R%& !ro"ided one o the cases o action alls within the +risdiction o said

cort and the "ene lies therein. %hs, as shown a#o"e, res!ondents co-!laint clearl$ alls within

the +risdiction o the R%&.

c air-ed the decision o the &.

23. nica;ital Inc.+ nica;ital !ealt+ Inc.+ and ,ai*e Matie vs. !a:ael Consing+,. and t5e Pesiding ,udge o: t5e !egional 0ial Cout o: Pasig Cit+ anc5 6$

&.!. Nos. 7'277 7'2$' e;te*>e + 283

Pelas@ena>e+ ,.-

F"C0-

Raael &onsing, Jr., an in"est-ent #ro7er, and his -other &ecilia o#tained a loan oP18,000,000.00 ro- ?nica!ital, 6nc. =?nica!ital>. %he loan was secred #$ !ro-issor$ notesand a real estate -ortgage. Prior to these transactions, Pls /ilders 6nc. =P/6> entered into a

+oint "entre agree-ent with ?nica!ital throgh its real estate de"elo!-ent ar-, ?nited &a!italRealt$, 6nc. =?R6>.

%he loan was later on -odiied into an o!tion to #$ real !ro!ert$. &ecilia sold the !ro!ert$to ?nica!ital and P/6. /eore the titles were transerred to ?nica!ital and P/6, Janito %eng and

Po inor-ed ?nica!ital that the$ were the lawl owners o the !ro!ert$ and &ecilias title wasa -ere orger$. De-and letters were sent to &ecilia and &onsing Jr. or the retrn o the !rchase!rice o the !ro!ert$.

&onsing Jr. iled a co-!laint #eore the Regional %rial &ort =R%&> o Pasig against?nica!ital, ?R6 and P/6. e clai- that the de-ands -ade #$ ?nica!ital and P/6 constittedharass-ent and o!!ression which se"erel$ aected his !ersonal and !roessional lie. %he latteriled se!arate -otions to dis-iss. %hese were denied #$ the R%&. %he$ then ele"ated the denial otheir -otions to dis-iss to the &ort o !!eals =&> which air-ed the R%&s decision.

I/-

*hether or not there is a -is+oinder o cases o action

H/4D-

%he cases o action were not -is+oined e"en i in the co-!laint iled #$ &onsing, Jr., hea"erred that ?nica!ital and P/6 et. al. "iolated certain !ro"isions o the &or!oration aw and theRe"ised ecrities ct.

%he rle is that a !art$s ailre to o#ser"e the conditions nder ection (, Rle 2 o theRles reslts in a -is+oinder o cases o action. carel !ersal o his co-!laint discloses that&onsing, Jr. did not see7 to hold ?nica!ital and P/6, et al. lia#le or an$ s!eciic "iolation o the


29/72

&or!oration &ode or the Re"ised ecrities ct. Rather, he -erel$ soght da-ages or ?nica!italand P/6, et al.s alleged acts o -a7ing hi- sign n-eros doc-ents and their se o the sa-eagainst hi-. 6n this res!ect, &onsing, Jr. actall$ ad"ances an in+nction and da-ages case which!ro!erl$ alls nder the +risdiction o the R%&'Pasig &it$. %hereore, there was no "iolation oection (, Rle 2 o the Rles, !articlarl$, !aragra!h =c> thereo.

+/. 7oston E(it) vers(s Co(rt o: Appe'2s

!.R. No. 15#*/ &(ne 1*, +$1#

Pere6, &.

'3ts-

On $= 4ecember 155H, petitioner *led a complaint for sum of mone" with a

pra"er for the issuance of a writ of preliminar" attachment against the

spouses #anuel and Lolita )oledo. erein respondent *led an +nswer dated

15 #arch 155& but on H #a" 155&, she *led a #otion for Leave to +dmit+mended +nswer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and

co-defendant, #anuel )oledo B#anuel, is alread" dead.

7etitioner then *led a motion, to require respondent to disclose the heirs of

#anuel. In compliance with the verbal order of the court during the 11

October 1555 hearing of the case, respondent submitted the required names

and addresses of the heirs. 6ubsequentl", 7etitioner *led a #otion for

6ubstitution pra"ing that #anuel be substituted b" his children as part"-

defendants which was granted b" the court.

On $( #a" $%%=, the reception of evidence for herein respondent wascancelled upon agreement of the parties. On $= 6eptember $%%=, counsel for

herein respondent was given a period of *fteen da"s within which to *le a

demurrer to evidence. owever, on H October $%%=, respondent instead *led

a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that> B1 that the complaint

failed to implead an indispensable part" or a real part" in interestE hence, the

case must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of actionE B$ that the trial

court did not acquire 8urisdiction over the person of #anuel pursuant to

6ection 0, :ule &( of the :evised :ules of CourtE ///. )he motion was

dismissed b" the trial court for being *led out of time.

Iss(e-

;hether or not the inclusion of #anuel as part" defendant is a mis8oinder of

part".

R(2in-


30/72

?o, the inclusion of #anuel in the complaint cannot be considered a

mis8oinder.

!ased on the last sentence of 6ection 11, :ule 3, a mis8oined part" must have

the capacit" to sue or be sued in the event that the claim b" or against the

mis8oined part" is pursued in a separate case. In this case, therefore, theinclusion of #anuel in the complaint cannot be considered a mis8oinder, as in

fact, the action would have proceeded against him had he been alive at the

time the collection case was *led b" petitioner. )his being the case, the

remed" provided b" 6ection 11 of :ule 3 does not obtain here. )he name of

#anuel as part"-defendant cannot simpl" be dropped from the case. Instead,

the case should be dismissed since there was no valid service of summons or

voluntar" submission on the part of #anuel. owever, said dismissal is

without pre8udice to the *ling of the action against the estate of #anuel.

+%. !.R. No. 15#*/

&(ne 1*, +$1#

7OSTON EFUITY RESOURCES, INC.,7etitioner,vs.COURT O APPEALS AN LOLITA !. TOLEO

PEREZ, J.:

&OINER O CAUSES O ACTION

'actual antecedents>

On $= 4ecember 155H, petitioner *led a complaint for sum of mone"with a pra"er for the issuance of a writ of preliminar" attachmentagainst the spouses #anuel and Lolita )oledo.

:espondent *led an +nswer dated 15 #arch 155& but on H #a" 155&,she *led a #otion for Leave to +dmit +mended +nswer Hin which shealleged, among others, that her husband and co-defendant, #anuel)oledo B#anuel, is alread" dead.

7etitioner *led a motion, dated 0 +ugust 1555, to require respondent todisclose the heirs of #anuel. In compliance with the verbal order of the

court during the 11 October 1555 hearing of the case, respondentsubmitted the required names and addresses of the heirs.

7etitioner then *led a #otion for 6ubstitution, dated 1& anuar" $%%%,pra"ing that #anuel be substituted b" his children as part"-defendantswhich was granted b" the trial court.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt7


31/72

On $( #a" $%%=, the reception of evidence for herein respondent wascancelled upon agreement of the parties. On $= 6eptember $%%=,counsel for herein respondent was given a period of *fteen da"s withinwhich to *le a demurrer to evidence.

owever, on H October $%%=, respondent instead *led a motion todismiss the complaint, citing the following as grounds> B1 that thecomplaint failed to implead an indispensable part" or a real part" ininterestE hence, the case must be dismissed for failure to state a causeof actionE B$ that the trial court did not acquire 8urisdiction over theperson of #anuel pursuant to 6ection 0, :ule &( of the :evised :ules ofCourtE B3 that the trial court erred in ordering the substitution of thedeceased #anuel b" his heirsE and B= that the court must also dismissthe case against Lolita )oledo in accordance with 6ection (, :ule &( ofthe :ules of Court

Issue> ;hether or not the inclusion of #anuel as part" defendant is a

mis8oinder of part"

eld>

6ection 11 of :ule 3 of the :ules of Court states that Jneither mis8oinder nornon-8oinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. 7arties ma" bedropped or added b" order of the court on motion of an" part" or on its owninitiative at an" stage of the action and on such terms as are 8ust. +n" claimagainst a mis8oined part" ma" be severed and proceeded withseparatel".J!ased on the last sentence of the afore-quoted provision of law, amis8oined part" must have the capacit" to sue or be sued in the event thatthe claim b" or against the mis8oined part" is pursued in a separate case. In

this case, therefore, the inclusion of #anuel in the complaint cannot beconsidered a mis8oinder, as in fact, the action would have proceeded againsthim had he been alive at the time the collection case was *led b" petitioner.

)his being the case, the remed" provided b" 6ection 11 of :ule 3 does notobtain here. )he name of #anuel as part"-defendant cannot simpl" bedropped from the case. )he onorable Court has not acquired 8urisdictionover the person of #anuel since there was indeed no valid service ofsummons insofar as #anuel is concerned. e died before the summons,together with a cop" of the complaint and its anne/es could be served uponhim. As ' res(2t, t9e 3'se, 's ''inst M'n(e2, 4(st >e is4isse.

In addition, the dismissal of the case against #anuel is further warranted b"6ection 1 of :ule 3 of the :ules of Court, which states that> onl" natural or8uridical persons, or entities authoried b" law ma" be parties in a civilaction.J Considering that capacit" to be sued is a correlative of the capacit"to sue, to the same e/tent, a decedent does not have the capacit" to be suedand ma" not be named a part" defendant in a court action. ;here thedefendant is neither a natural nor a 8uridical person or an entit" authoried b"law, the complaint ma" be dismissed on the ground that the pleading


32/72

asserting the claim states no cause of action or for failure to state a cause ofaction pursuant to 6ection 1Bg of :ule 1( of the :ules of Court, because acomplaint cannot possibl" state a cause of action against one who cannot bea part" to a civil action.

6ince the proper course of action against the wrongful inclusion of #anuel aspart"-defendant is the dismissal of the case as against him, thus did the trialcourt err when it ordered the substitution of #anuel b" his heirs. 6ubstitutionis proper onl" where the part" to be substituted died during the pendenc" ofthe case

6ince #anuel was alread" dead at the time of the *ling of the complaint, thecourt never acquired 8urisdiction over his person and, in eKect, there was nopart" to be substituted.

26. !O4"NDO D. 4"1& vs COMMIION ON /4/C0ION

&.!. No. 929$=

P/!4"@/!N"/+ ,.-

F"C0- Petitioner Rolando a$g, iled !ro se a Petition to dis5ali$ /ha$ Part$'ist ro-

!artici!ating in the Ma$ 10, 2010 elections and /rother Mi7e ro- #eing its no-inee. e arged

that /ha$ Part$'ist is a -ere e9tension o the El haddai, which is a religios sect and neither

does /rother Mi7e, 5ali$ as one who #elongs to the -arginaliCed and nderre!resented sector

as re5ired o !art$'list no-inees &MEE& Resoltion No. 880


33/72

doo-ed to ail. is resal to recti$ the error des!ite 7nowledge thereo i-!els the cort to

conclde the a$g deli#eratel$ stated an ine9istent address with the end in "iew o dela$ing the

!roceedings !on the !lea o lac7 o de !rocess.

27. &.!. No. 739$7 Fe>ua 2'+ 282

P"DI44" M/!C"DO+ 4/0" M/!C"DO+ ONIF"CI" M/!C"DO+ D"MI"NM/!C"DO and /MM"N/4 M/!C"DO "C&+Petitioners,

"s.PO/ "&/DO /PIN" and 4O!D/ /PIN"+Res!ondents.

F&%:

Petitioners iled with the Regional %rial &ort =R%&> o Maasin, othern e$te, a &o-!laint or

Reco"er$ o Pro!ert$ and Declaration o Nllit$ o Deed o ale, &ertiicate o %itle and Da-ages.

%he case was doc7eted as &i"il &ase No. R'314, in the Pro"ince o othern e$te that

ater the death o antiago and oronia, the$ inherited the dis!ted lot, !ossessing the sa-e as

owners so-eti-e in 1;;), herein res!ondents clai-ed ownershi! o"er the s#+ect !arcel o land,

alleging that the$ #oght the sa-e ro- one Josea Mercado Es!ina =Josea> who, allegedl$

e-!lo$ed radlent -achinations to o#tain a title =riginal &ertiicate o %itle No. 3(> o"er the

s#+ect !ro!ert$ in her na-e.

Res!ondents iled a Motion to Dis-iss on gronds that the R%& has no +risdiction o"er the case

de to the ailre o the co-!lainant to state the assessed "ale o the !ro!ert$, that !etitionersK

case o action is #arred #$ !rescri!tion, laches and indeeasi#ilit$ o title, and that the co-!laint

does not state sicient case o action against res!ondents who are #$ers in good aith.

%he R%& denied the Motion to Dis-iss and the s#se5ent -otion or reconsideration #$

res!ondents. %he latter iled a s!ecial ci"il action or certiorariwith the & which was li7ewise

denied.

Meanwhile, !etitioners, #$ lea"e o cort, iled an -ended &o-!laint to inclde the assessed

"ale o the s#+ect !ro!ert$. Res!ondents iled a Motion to Dis-iss -ended &o-!laint on

gronds o !rescri!tion, laches, indeeasi#ilit$ o title and lac7 o case o action.

%he R%& denied res!ondentsK Motion to Dis-iss -ended &o-!laint and their s#se5ent

-otion or reconsideration. Res!ondents iled a s!ecial ci"il action or certiorari with the &,

which was granted, rling that the &o-!laint in &i"il &ase No. R'314< is D6M6ED. %he &held that the -ended &o-!laint ailed to state a case o action. ence, this !etition or re"iew

on certiorari nder Rle 4( o the Rles o &ort assailing the & Decision.

6?E:

*N the & erred in granting res!ondents Motion to Dis-iss -ended &o-!laint.

ED:


34/72

No. %he !re-e &ort held that the & is correct in inding that the -ended &o-!laint indeed

ailed to state a case o action.

%he &ort e9!lained that nder ection 8, Rle 10 o the Rles o &ort, an a-ended co-!laint

s!ersedes an original one. s a conse5ence, the original co-!laint is dee-ed withdrawn and

no longer considered !art o the record. %he -ended &o-!laint is, ths, treated as an entirel$

new co-!laint. s sch, res!ondents had e"er$ right to -o"e or the dis-issal o the said-ended &o-!laint. nd so, ailre to state a case o action is a !ro!er grond o the dis-issal

o the -ended &o-!laint.

Failre to state a case o action reers to the insicienc$ o the !leading, and is a grond ordis-issal nder Rle 1) o the Rles o &ort.

co-!laint states a case o action i it a"ers the e9istence o the three essential ele-ents o acase o action, na-el$:

=a> %he legal right o the !lainti

=#> %he correlati"e o#ligation o the deendant and

=c> %he act or o-ission o the deendant in "iolation o said legal right.

6 the allegations in the co-!laint do not a"er the concrrence o these ele-ents, the co-!laint#eco-es "lnera#le to a -otion to dis-iss on the grond o ailre to state a case o action. !ersal o the -ended &o-!laint in the !resent case wold show that there is, indeed, noallegation o an$ act or o-ission on the !art o res!ondents which s!!osedl$ "iolated the legalrights o !etitioners. %hs, the & is correct in dis-issing the co-!laint on the grond o ailreto state a case o action.

ence, !etition was denied.

+". T'p') vs. 7'n3o2o G*/ SCRA 1

FACTS:

Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, both employees of the Sugar Regulatory

Administration received an Order from the Office of the Ombudsman!isayas re"uiring

them to file a counteraffidavit to a complaint for usurpation of authority, falsification of

public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them by #ehimias$ivinagracia, %r&, a coemployee& The Complaint 'as allegedly signed on behalf of

$ivinagracia by Atty& Charlie (& )ancolo& *hen Atty& )ancolo and Rustia accidentally

chanced upon each other, the latter informed Atty& )ancolo of the case filed against

them& Atty& )ancolo denied that he represented $ivinagracia since he had yet to meet$ivinagracia and declared that the signature in the Complaint 'as not his& Thus, Atty&

)ancolo signed an affidavit denying the said signature& This affidavit 'as used by Tapay and Rustia in

filing a counteraffidavit accusing $ivinagracia of falsifying the signature of Atty& )ancolo& $ivinagracia,

denying the same, presented as evidence an affidavit by Richard A& Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty&)ancolo, that the %arder )ancolo (a' Office accepted $ivinagracia+s case and that the Complaint filed

'ith the Office of the Ombudsman 'as signed by the office secretary per Atty& )ancolo+s instructions& The

case 'as then dismissed&

Tapay and Rustia then later filed 'ith the ntegrated )ar of the -hilippines a complaint

to disbar Atty& )ancolo and Atty& %arder, Atty& )ancolo+s la' partner& The complainants


35/72

alleged that not only 'ere respondents engaging in unprofessional and unethical

practices, they 'ere also involved in falsification of documents used to harass and

persecute innocent people& n their Ans'er, respondents admitted that due to some

minor lapses, Atty& )ancolo permitted that the pleadings be signed in his name by thesecretary of the la' office& After investigation, Atty& (olita A& .uisumbing, the

nvestigating Commissioner of the Commission on )ar $iscipline of the )-, submitted

her Report& Atty& .uisumbing found that Atty& )ancolo violated Rule /&01 of Canon / of

the Code of -rofessional Responsibility 'hile Atty& %arder violated Rule 1&01 of Canon 1of the same Code, and recommended that Atty& )ancolo be suspended for t'o years

from the practice of la' and Atty& %arder be admonished for his failure to e2ercise

certain responsibilities in their la' firm

ssue: *hether or not a pleading signed by a nonla'yer is considered valid

Ruling: the Supreme Court emphasi3ed that that the preparation and signing of a pleading constitutes legal

'or involving the practice of la' 'hich is reserved e2clusively for members of the legal profession&*hile the signing of a pleading may be delegated to other la'yers, it cannot be delegated to nonla'yers

because under the Rule 5, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, counsel+s signature serves as a certification that

718 he has read the pleading9 78 to the best of his no'ledge, information and belief there is good ground

to support it9 and 768 it is not interposed for delay& )y affi2ing one+s signature to a pleading, it is counsel

alone 'ho has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document&

29. 4"ND"N? C"0!O

& No. $92' "ugust 2$+ 283

PON/N0/- ,ustice Pee

F&%:

/ien"enido &astro is the owner o an nregistered !ro!ert$ in located in rigao Del r. e

"olntaril$ oered to sell the !ro!ert$ or the total !rice o Ph! ()0,340.00 to the De!art-ent o

grarian Reor- =DR> nder R ))(< or the &o-!rehensi"e grarian Reor- aw. DR,

and#an7 condcted an oclar ins!ection which assessed the "ale o the !ro!ert$ or the total

a-ont o Ph! 144, 20(. ;0 which &astro re+ected the oer. DR/ then condcted a s--ar$

!roceeding to i9 the +st co-!ensation o the !ro!ert$ which reached the sa-e "alation. 2 $ears

later, &astro iled a !etition to i9 the assessed "ale #eore the R%&, sitting as & which was

granted. %he cort set the case or !re'trial and the !arties s#-itted their !re'trial #ries.

and#an7 iled a Motion or Reconsideration alleging that &astro had alread$ acce!ted the assed

"ale as shown in the doc-ents that &astro had signed which was denied. %rial cort rled that

the deense or o#+ection is not one o recogniCed e9ce!tions to the rle on wai"er o deenses not

!leaded in the answer. and#an7 then iled an a!!eal with & which was denied. & rled that

the ailre o and#an7 to raise the deense is a !rocedral inir-it$ which cannot #e cred on

a!!eal.

6?E: *hether or not the "alation o the corts o the !ro!ert$ o &astro which he oered

nder &ontract to ell is #inding !on the !arties.

R?6NG: es.

ince the state-ent in the !leading is conclsi"e to the !leader, it is naected #$ an$

contrar$ !roo s#-itted #$ the !leader, whether or not o#+ection is inter!osed #$ an$ !art$. 6n


36/72

the case o antiago "s Delos antos, e"en i there had #een a ll hearing on the case thereore,

the reslt wold not ha"e #een an$ dierent. %here was no choice then or the lower cort e9ce!t

to dis-iss the co-!laint.

6n the case at #ar, the !a$-ent #$ and#an7 or the !ro!ert$ and its transer to the Re!#lic

was ll$ discssed and s#-itted #eore the trial cort throgh /Ps -otion or

reconsideration. %he trial cort and a!!ellate cort incorrectl$ "iewed the -otion as !rocedrall$nacce!ta#le. Rather it shold #e, a re-inder that it is alread$ conclsi"e on &astro as a !leader,

o transer o ownershi! to the Re!#lic.

38. CONO4ID"0/D IND0!I"4 &"/+ INC.+ Petitione+ v. "4""N& M/DIC"4C/N0/!+ !es;ondent.&.!. No. $9$3Nove*>e 3+ 283!/1/+ ,

F"C0-

Petitioner &onsolidated 6ndstrial Gases, 6nc. =&6G6> is a do-estic cor!oration engaged

in the #siness o selling indstrial gases and installing centraliCed -edical and "ac- !i!elines$ste-. Res!ondent la#ang Medical &enter, on the other hand, is a do-estic cor!oration

o!erating a hos!ital #siness. &6G6, as contractor and M&, as owner, entered into a contract

where#$ the or-er #ond itsel to !ro"ide la#or and -aterials or the installation o a -edical

gas !i!eline s$ste- or the irst, second and third loors o the hos!ital or the contract !rice o

P;,8(), which M& dl$ !aid in ll. %he legal contro"ers$ arose ater the !arties entered

into another agree-ent on cto#er 3, 1;;) or the contination o the centraliCed -edical o9$gen

and "ac- !i!eline s$ste- in the hos!itals orth ith loors at the cost P2,2)


37/72

e9a-ined its earlier decision and issed an -ended Decision dated March 4, 2008. 6t too7 into

consideration M&s -aniestation that it is willing to !a$ the #alance o P1,2)


38/72

said !etition or the ailre o the !etitioner to !lead the latters ca!acit$ to se and to state the

athorit$ o %iarra /eleno who had e9ected the Heriication and &ertiication o Non'For-

ho!!ing. n a!!eal, the &% air-ed the R%&s dis-issal on the sa-e grond. %he &% En

/an7 li7ewise denied the Petition or Re"iew, stating that it was not shown that Ms. /eleno, the

co-!an$s Finance Manager, was gi"en athorit$ to act in #ehal o the cor!oration at the ti-e

the initiator$ !leading was iled in the R%&.

%he !etitioner arged, howe"er, that Ms. /eleno was acting within her athorit$ in

institting the Petition #eore the R%& notwithstanding that it was not acco-!anied #$ a

ecretar$s &ertiicate. er athorit$ was ratiied #$ the /oard in its Resoltion ado!ted on Ma$

1;, 2004. %hs, e"en i she was not athoriCed to e9ecte the Heriication and &ertiication at the

ti-e o the iling o the Petition, the ratiication #$ the /oard o Directors retroacti"el$ a!!lied to

the date o her signing.

Issue:

*N the case shold #e dis-issed or the lac7 o athorit$ o Ms. /eleno in institting theinitiator$ !leading in the R%&.

Held:

NO. 6t is tre that a "eriication signed withot athorit$ ro- the #oard o directors is

deecti"e. owe"er, the re5ire-ent o "eriication is si-!l$ a condition aecting the or- o the

!leading and non'co-!liance does not necessaril$ render the !leading atall$ deecti"e. %he cort

-a$ in act order the correction o the !leading i "eriication is lac7ing or it -a$ act on the

!leading althogh it -a$ not ha"e #een "eriied, where it is e"ident that strict co-!liance with the

rles -a$ #e dis!ensed with so that the ends o +stice -a$ #e ser"ed.

32. Pasos vs. P5ili;;ine National Constuction Co;oation (illaa*a+ ,!.+,.%

&.! Nos- 9239=

Date- 733

Facts- Pasos was e-!lo$ed to the res!ondent and was on an e9tended e-!lo$-ent. ter the

ter-ination o his contract, he was as7ed to re!ort to wor7 the ne9t da$ ollowed #$ a -edical

e9a-ination.

is -edical e9a-s diagnosed hi- with a disease and was as7ed to #e on lea"e. Petitioner still

ser"ed a )0'da$ sic7 lea"e and nderwent another -edical e9a-ination on Fe#rar$ 1), 2001. e

was then gi"en a clean #ill o health and was gi"en a -edical clearance #$ Dr. #ena that he was

it to wor7. e was told that he was alread$ ter-inated and re!laced.

Res!ondent !etitioner was hired as a !ro+ect e-!lo$ee in se"eral !ro+ects with s!eciic dates o

engage-ent and ter-ination and had ll 7nowledge and consent that his a!!oint-ent was onl$

or the dration o each !ro+ect. 6t rther contended that it had sicientl$ co-!lied with the

re!ortorial re5ire-ents to the De!art-ent o a#or and E-!lo$-ent =DE>.


39/72

%he a#or r#iter decided that !etitioner had o#tained reglar e-!lo$-ent ater re!eated hiring

and rehiring o his ser"ies.

Issue-whether the cor!orate oicer -a$ "alidl$ isse a certiication.

Held- es. E"en withot a #oard resoltion, a cor!orate oicer -a$ isse a "eriication and

certiication on non'or- sho!!ing. lso, it was held #$ the cort that in la#or cases, !rocedralrle -st #e rela9ed.

6t has #een held that the ollowing oicials or e-!lo$ees o the co-!an$ can sign the "eriication

and certiication withot need o a #oard resoltion: =1> the &hair!erson o the /oard o Directors,

=2> the President o a cor!oration, =3> the General Manager or cting General Manager, =4>

Personnel icer, and =(> an E-!lo$-ent !ecialist in a la#or case.

*hile the a#o"e cases do not !ro"ide a co-!lete listing o athoriCed signatories to the

"eriication and certiication re5ired #$ the rles, the deter-ination o the sicienc$ o the

athorit$ was done on a case to case #asis. %he rationale a!!lied in the oregoing cases is to +sti$

the athorit$ o cor!orate oicers or re!resentati"es o the cor!oration to sign the "eriication or

certiicate against or- sho!!ing, #eing in a !osition to "eri$ the trthlness and correctnesso the allegations in the !etition.

##. Pi3'('2'n v. Se3(rit) 'n Creit Investi'tion, In3.

D.:. ?o. 1H3(=& , anuar" 1(, $%1$

4el Castillo, .

'acts>

Cano" and 7igcaulan were both emplo"ed b" 6CII as securit" guards and

were assigned to 6CII2s diKerent clients. 6ubsequentl", however, Cano" and

7igcaulan *led with the Labor +rbiter separate complaintsHfor underpa"ment

of salaries and non-pa"ment of overtime, holida", rest da", service incentive

leave and 13th month pa"s. )hese complaints were later on consolidated as

the" involved the same causes of action.


40/72

Ges, the C+ 4ecision is binding on Cano".

It appears from the heading of P7artiesQ that onl" 7igcaulan is mentioned as

petitioner and consistent with this, the bod" of the petition refers onl" to a

JpetitionerJ and never in its plural form JpetitionersJ. +side from the fact that

the Xeri*cation and Certi*cation of ?on-'orum 6hopping attached to thepetition was e/ecuted b" 7igcaulan alone, it was plainl" and particularl"

indicated under the name of the law"er who prepared the same, +tt". osefel

7. Drageda, that he is the -Counsel *or etitioner "+bul/uahi+ igcaulan-onl".

In view of these, there is therefore, no doubt, that the petition was brought

onl" on behalf of 7igcaulan. 6ince no appeal from the C+ 4ecision was

brought b" Cano", same has alread" become *nal and e/ecutor" as to him.

#/. !.R. No. 15/$"+

&'n('r) 1, +$1+

!EOR!IA T. ESTEL,7etitioner,vs.RECAREO P. IE!O, SR. 'n RECAREO R. IE!O, &R.,:espondents.

PERALTA, J.

CERTIICATION A!AINST ORUM SHOPPIN!

'3t('2 'nte3eents-

)he present petition originated from a Complaint for 'orcible Antr",

4amages and In8unction with +pplication for )emporar" :estraining

Order *led b" herein respondents with the #unicipal )rial Court in

Cities B#)CC of #isamis Oriental.

:espondents alleged that on +pril 1(, 1551, the" entered into a

contract of sale of a parcel of land with petitionerE after receiving the

amount of 71H,%%%.%% as downpa"ment, petitioner voluntaril"

delivered the ph"sical and material possession of the sub8ect propert"

to respondentsE :espondents had been in actual, adverse and uninterrupted possession

of the sub8ect lot since then and that petitioner never disturbed,

molested, anno"ed nor ve/ed respondents with respect to their

possession of the said propert"E


41/72

+round &>3% in the morning of ul" $%, 1550, petitioner, together with

her two grown-up sons and *ve other persons, uprooted the fence

surrounding the disputed lot, after which the" entered its premises and

then cut and destro"ed the trees and plants found thereinE respondent

:ecaredo :. 4iego, r. witnessed the incident but found himself helpless

at that time.

On ul" $(, 1550, the #)CC issued a )emporar" :estraining

Order against petitioner and an" person acting in her behalf.

On 'ebruar" 1(, $%%$, the #)CC rendered a 4ecision in favor of the

plaintiKs.

+ggrieved, petitioner appealed to the :)C of Dingoog Cit".

On October H, $%%$, the :)C rendered its 4ecision arming the

assailed 4ecision of the #)CC. 7etitioner then *led a petition for review with the C+.

On 6eptember 3%, $%%0, the C+ promulgated its 4ecision which

armed the 4ecision of the :)C.

7etitioner *led a #otion for :econsideration, but the C+ denied it in its

:esolution dated +ugust 1%, $%%(.

7etitioner also avers that the complaint states no cause of action

because the veri*cation and certi*cate of non-forum shopping

accompan"ing the complaint are defective and, as such, the complaint

should be treated as an unsigned pleading.

;ith respect to the certi*cate of non-forum shopping, petitioner claims

that its defect consists in respondentsW failure to mae an undertaing

therein that if the" should learn that a similar action or proceeding has

been *led or is pending before the 6upreme Court, the Court of

+ppeals or an" other tribunal or agenc", the" shall report that fact

within *ve B0 da"s therefrom to the court or agenc" wherein the

original pleading and sworn certi*cation have been *led.

Iss(e-

Is there a defect with respect to the certi*cate of non-forum shopping that

shall order the dismissal of the caseF

R(2in-


42/72

?one. +s to respondentsW certi*cation on non-forum shopping, a reading of

respondents2 Xeri*cation9Certi*cation reveals that the", in fact, certi*ed

therein that the" have not commenced an" similar action before an" other

court or tribunal and to the best of their nowledge no such other action is

pending therein. )he onl" missing statement is respondentsW undertaing that

if the" should thereafter learn that the same or similar action has been *led

or is pending, the" shall report such fact to the court. )his, notwithstanding,

the Court *nds that there has been substantial compliance on the part of

respondents.

It is settled that with respect to the contents of the certi*cation against forum

shopping, the rule of substantial compliance ma" be availed of. )his is

because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding

the certi*cation of non-forum shopping merel" underscores its mandator"

nature in that the certi*cation cannot be

case compilation- civ pro

Documents