Bar Notes on Civil Procedure (Dean J)

Bar Notes on Civil Procedure (Dean J)

Zyra C.

CIVIL PROCEDURE-JURISDICTION

Substantive laws:

Constitution

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129), JudiciaryReorganization Act of 1948,

and their amendatory laws

Phils has integrated judicial system, with the Supreme Court being the only Constitutional Court.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is given in the Constitution, not in BP 129. Mentioned also in JA 1948

The repealing clause of BP 129 only repealed the provisions of the JA 1948, which are inconsistent with its provisions. No conflict between them coz BP 129 speaks nothing about jurisdiction of the SC.

Jurisdiction in Consti, JA 1948&1980 is classified into original, appellate and concurrent.

One of the purposes why BP 129 was enacted is, to do away with concurrent jurisdiction. But it still applies.

Ex.Under the Consti, SC exercises original jurisdiction over public ministers and consuls. But BP 129 grants the same to RTCs. Since Consti does not use the word exclusive, both courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction.

Vesting of the Consti unto the SC of original jurisdiction over certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases. BP 129 grants to the Court of Appeals original jurisdic tion over the same cases WON in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

So, three courts have original jurisdiction over CPMQH cases, the SC, CA and RTC. They exercise original and concurrent J.

Principle on the Hierarchy of Courts- petitioner should first file with the RTC or CA before resorting to SC although it has original jurisdiction over the same petition, as not to overwhelm it. Appellate jurisdiction of SC. Consti does not mention that this is exclusive, unlike JA 1948. It is simply SCs appellate jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong if CA decides to take cases brought to it on appeal. After all, the decisions of CA can still be reviewed by SC through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. BP 129-original and exclusive, when it comes to the authority of CA to annul judgments of RTC.

But it does not follow that CA can also annul the judgment rendered by MTC. A petition to annul a judgment rendered by trial courts to CA is limited to judgments rendered by the RTC. It does not extend to annulment of judgments rendered by an inferior court,by the MTC.

MTC is not immune from annulment. The annulment of judgment rendered by an inferior court (MTC), is cognizable by RTC.

BP 12 does not expressly say that RTC is a court of general jurisdiction. But it mentions that RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases and issues allocated especially to other courts. This is the justification for considering that RTV is a court of general jurisdiction.

SC cannot be considered as a court of a general jurisdiction, it is rather, a court of limited jurisdiction, like CA, the MTC. Only the RTC is court of general jurisdiction because of the vesting of allocation of authority to it. No similar vested to the latter.

It is jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action that is a matter of substantive law. But when it comes to the jurisdiction. Over the person of the parties, the person of the plaintiff, the person of the defendant, the res, or the issues, these aspects of jurisdiction are no longer substantive in character. They are purely procedural.

Like CA and SC, the RTCalso exercise original and appellate jurisdiction.

There is only on court in our judicial system there which exercises plainly original jurisdiction - that is, the Municipal Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court. There is no lower court than it, so it cannot be allocated appellate jurisdiction power to

review decisions rendered by other courts.

The appellate jurisdiction of CA is generally broader than the SC. Follow first instinct, the proper appellate court is CA.

Regional Trial Court

Its original jurisdiction is divided by BP 129 into two parts: purely original jurisdiction, and the original and exclusive jurisdiction.

When it comes to purely original jurisdiction, is limited to cases of CPMQH and its original jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls.

It is in the exercise of original and exclusive jurisdiction where BP 129 enumerates several instances cognizable by the Regional Trial Court.

RTC: Cases which are incapable of pecuniary estimation:

SC jurisprudence: if the recovery of money is only incidental to the relief that is prayed for in the complaint, that action is not capable of pecuniary estimation.

Ex. A complaint for specific performance plus a prayer for recovery of damages. There is a prayer for recovery of damages, but it is not the principal relief that is sought by the plaintiff.

But there are instances where the recovery of money is the principal relief that is sought in the complaint or the petition, and yet the case is classified as one which is not capable of pecuniary estimation..

Ex. In an expropriation proceedings or eminent domain, payment of just compensation is one of the principal reliefs that will be sought by petitioner.

Foreclosure of real estate mortgage, to recover unpaid loan from a contract upon which mortagage was based. The complaint foreclosure of mortgage will always carry with it a relief for the payment of the loan.

These actions are considered as incapable of pecuniary estimation, BECAUSE, there is another principal issue that is involved. And this other principal issue must first be decided before the recovery of money, which is another principal issue to be resolved by the Court.

In foreclosure of mortgage, the first principal issue that should first be resolved by the Court is WON mortgagee has the right to foreclose.This is not capable of pecuniary estimation.

In expropriation proceedings, ,WON plaintiff has the right to expropriate. IPE.

If an action possesses several characteristics, that, the issue is one that is not capable of pecuniary estimation but it is also simultaneously a real action, it is always cognizable by the RTC. That feature of incapable of pecuniary estimation will always prevail over the other characteristics of the action being a real action. That is the reason why foreclosure of real estate mortgage or expropriation of real property will always be cognizable by the RTC. We do not factor in the assessed value of the property in ascertaining the jurisdiction of courts.

Role of Assessed value of properties in determining jurisdiction

If the real property involved in litigation does not have an assessed value, could that happen? YES! There are several properties in the country which have not been assessed for tax purposes. So, how do we now know / determine the jurisdiction of the court if the property involved has no assessed value? Well, all you have to do is to go to the neighboring lots, until you locate the property that has an assessed value. And that will be the basis in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the court.

Assessed valuation of the property plays an important role in determining the jurisdiction of the court, ONLY if the property isreal property.

But when the property is personal property, jurisdiction is determined by the valuation given by the plaintiff to the car.

So, if the plaintiff in the complaint says that the car is worth P500,000, then the case is cognizable by the RTC.

The jurisdiction of the court when it comes to the recovery of personal property, or for the recovery of money for that matter, will depend on the allegations contained in the complaint. Even if the valuation given is exaggerated or bloated, the jurisdiction of the court will always be ascertained by allegations contained in the complaint.

The truthfulness or falsity of the allegations will be determined later on by the court but that will not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction- once a court acquires jurisdiction over a case based on the allegations contained in the complaint, the court continues to exercise jurisdiction until the case

is finally adjudicated.

Plaintiff seeks to recover P500T. During the trial, the plaintiff is able to o prove that his entitlement is only P150T which is below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC. Can the RTC render validly a judgment for the payment? YES.

Who has jurisdiction over a complaint for the recovery of P1m, RTC or MTC? Under the expanded jurisdiction of inferior courts, there are three items that should be excluded in the determining the courts jurisdiction when it comes to recovery of money, interests, attorneys fees, damages and charges of whatsoever kind should not be included in ascertaining jurisdiction of the court, but they should be included in fixing filing fees. Always factor in the excludeditems in determining the jurisdiction of courts whenever it comes to the recovery of money. So, if the complaint is for the recovery of the plaintiff of P1M, it is not correct to say right away that the case is cognizable by the RTC. That case could be cognizable by the inferior court depending on the details of P1M embodied in the complaint. If the principal sought to be recovered is only P200,000 but the balance of P800,000 covers expenses, attorneys fees, damages and interests, the case is cognizable by an inferior court.

Principle of Ancillary Jurisdiction

Complaint for the recovery of P150T. The case is cognizable by an inferior court. During the trial, the plaintiff presents evidence to show that he is entitled not only to P150,000, but to P700,000. Can the inferior court give an award of P700,000?

NO. Because the inferior court will be violation its limited jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the inferior court is limited toeither P200,000 or P400,000. When the case is before an inferior court and the amount tobe awarded goes beyond the jurisdictional amount given in BP 129, the court cannot give the award, since this decision will be null and void.

One of theoptions given to the plaintiff is just waive his entitlement to the excess of P400,000.

Jurisdiction of inferior courts

Practically all cases that are triable by the RTC could not be tried by an inferior court, depending on the amount involved. Does it not make these courts, courts of general jurisdiction? NO. Even if we take into account the expanded jurisdiction of inferior courts, they are still courts of limited jurisdiction. It is only the CFI that is vested with authority to try and decide cases of any kind, which are not allocated to other courts. This provision is not contained in the allocation of cases given to inferior courts by BP 129 and the amendatory statutes.

The totality test

Memorize section 33, BP 129.

The totality of all the claims embodied in once complaint shall be the basis in determining jurisdiction, WON these claims arise out of the same or different transaction, or whether they belong to the same or different persons. (Not the same as in Rules of Court)

Is it proper for BP 129 to provide the totality test in determining jurisdiction? YES, because jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of the action is really substantive law. That is a prerogative given exclusively to the legislature.

Delegated jurisdiction of inferior courts

To try land registration and cadastral cases, regardless of the value, if thecase is uncontested. The delegation should be limited to properties the values of which do not exceed P100,000.

The appeal from these cases should not be to the RTC. The cadastral and land registration cases are tried by an inferior court. The inferior court acts as if it were a RTC. So, if there is an appeal from these cases, it should be brought to the CA.

Generally, decisions rendered by an inferior court are appealable to the RTC but this is the lone instance where appeal from a decision rendered by an inferior court is taken directly to the CA.

Interlocutory or Special Jurisdiction of Inferior Courts

To habeas corpus cases when judges of the RTCs in that region are absent. This is an exercise of special jurisdiction by inferior courts.

Primary jurisdiction- refers to situations where the case is cognizable both by the court of justice and a quasi-judicial or administrative agency. When that case needs for its resolution special skills and expertise of an A or QJ body (not possessed by courts), then jurisdiction should be given initially to it. The jurisdiction of the court can only come later after the A or QJ body has decided the case.

Residual jurisdiction of the trial courts

Residual jurisdiction is one that is left to be exercised by the trial court after thecase has been appealed to the higher court.

Generally, when a case has been appealed, the jurisdiction over the appealed case is now vested with the appellate court. BUT! there are certain incidents that could still be decided by the trial court, notwithstanding the perfection of the appeal.

Classification of Jurisdiction:

1. General- excercised over all kinds of cases, except those witheld from the plenary powers of court.

2. Limited- extends only to particular cases

3. Original- excercised by courts in the first instance

4. Appellate- excercised by a superior court to review and decide cases previously decided by a lower court now elevated for judicial review.

5. Exclusive- confined to a particular court to the exclusion of others.

6. Concurrent- pertaining to different courts over the same subject matter at the same time and place. The first court which validly acquired jurisdiction takes it to the exclusion of others.

Remember that the SC is not a trier of facts, which means that passing upon a factual issue is not within its province. Also, it is not its function to determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision. However, factual issues may be delved into and resolved where the findings and conclusions of the trial court or the quasi-judicial bodies are frontally inconsistent with the findings of the CA.

JURISDICTION of the SUPREME COURT

According to Sec. 5 Article 8 of 1987 Consti

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions forcertiorari, prohibition,mandamus, quo warranto, andhabeas corpus.(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal orcertiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed isreclusion perpetuaor higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of SC:

In petitions for C, P and M against CA, COMELEC, COA, CTA and the Sandiganbayan

Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of SC w/:

(subject to the principle of Hierarchy of Courts, meanung a higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts)

1. CA in petitions for C, P and M against the RTC, Civil Service Comm, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, NLRC, Quasi-judicial agencies

2. CA & RTC in petitions for C, P, M, Q and H against lower courts and bodies

3. RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls

Appellate Jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari (see Consti)

What is the jurisdiction of the SC as provided in BP 129?

-None coz the jurisdiction of the SC is provided in the Consti, not BP 129.

-Jurisdiction of SC is also provided for in JA of 1948

-This was not repealed coz its provisions are not inconsistent with Consti, thus its provisions are still in effect

JURISDICTION of the RTC

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20T or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds P50T except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MTCs;

(accion reinvidicatoria)

(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds P300T or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds P400T;

(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300T or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds P400T;

(5) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(this is the general jurisdiction of RTC)

(6) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and

(7) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds P300T or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds P400T.

(8) In all cases enumerated under Sec. 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code (intra-corporate controversies)

Original Jurisdiction

Those 2 mentioned after, only that, RTC may issue petitions of injunctions, but in issuing CPMHQI, which can be enforced in any part of their respective regions

Concurrent & Original Jurisdiction w/

1. SC in actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls

2. SC & CA in petitions for CPMQH against lower courts, not including injunctions because these are issued by the RTC excercising its territorial jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction

Over cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Not ALL inferior courts, but only those which fall under its own territorial jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION of the FAMILY COURT

(1) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;

(2) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

(3) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife;

(4) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;

(5) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the Family Code;

(6) Petitions for declaration of status of children, petitions for commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority

JURISDICTION of the COURT OF APPEALS

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of RTC; and

3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of RTCs, quasi-judicial bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC in accordance with the Consti, the Labor Codeand the Judiciary Act of 1948.

CA shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.

What are the exceptions to CAs appellate jurisdiction:

COMELEC, COA

JURISDICTION of INFERIOR COURTS

1. Actions involving PERSONAL property, whose value does NOT exceed P300T or in MM, the value does not exceed P400T.

2. Demand for money NOT exceeding...

3. Probate proceedings where the gross value does NOT...

4. Actions involving title to or possession of REAL property, or interest therein where the assessed value or interest does NOT exceed P20T or in MM, does not exceed P50T.

5. Inclusion or exclusion of voters

6. Admiralty and maritime cases where demand or claim does NOT exceed...

7. Those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, like Forcible Entry, and Unlawful Detainer and other civil cases except probate proceedings not exceeding P100T and in MM, those not exceeding P200T

In excercising jurisdiction over matters involving forcible entry and unlawful detainer, only the issue of possession may be raised.

In MTC cases, some items are excluded in order to ascertain jurisdiction, like interest, damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs

The law does not expressly provide but provisional remedies may be granted or denied by inferior courts. The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction to grant or deny such in cases where the principal action is within its jurisdiction.

If a plaintiff failed to allege the amount of the property in question, the case will be dismissed due to to a failure to state a cause of action, since the amount of the property cannot be determined, the jurisdiction cannot be ascertained, hence a lack of jurisdiction, a ground for dismissal.

RULE 1- GENERAL PROVISIONS

Rules of Court, Sec. 6 Constructions

Should be liberally construed not in favor of the plaintiff nor the defendant, nor anubody but for the sole purpose of providing for a speedy and inexpensive disposition of the case. Exceptions: some provisions which public policy requires to be applied and interpreted strictly, like the procedure on appeal of cases (dates provided to perfect an appeal) Can the Courts disregard the application of the RuC if they feel that its application will lead to injustice? No. Only the SC can waive them as a privilege. Limitations concerning the prerogative of the SC to promulgate rules in pleadings, practice and procedure

1. The rule should be uniform in all courts of the same grade, so that they should have one set of rules applicable to all courts.

There are certain instances when special rules can be promulgated by the SC in the adjudication of cases. The rule on summary procedure. That applies principally to cases that are triable by inferior courts.

2. The rules should not modify, limit or increase substantive rights given by substantive law.

The rules on civil actions that took effect on 1 July 1997. Before 1997, we had the RC which took effect on 1 January 1964. Before 1 January 1964, we had the RC which took effect on 1 July 1940. So between 1940 and 1964, we had the same set of procedural rules.

With regard to the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, do they cover all civil actions filed after 1997 effectivity? Yes, because there was prospective application.

Classification of Actions (Cases governed) Rule 1, Sec. 3

Criminal actions, civil actions, and special proceedings. Civil action-one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong

Special civil actions-those not governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions

Special proceedings-a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact

How many parts are there in the RC? 5- Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Special Proceedings, Evidence, Legal Ethics Real action and personal action (for purposes of venue) R4

An action in rem and an action in personam R 39, sec. 47

Sub-classifications

An action quasi-in rem- to distinguish it from an action which is pure in re, and an action which is purely in personam. Mixed actions- when an action vests the char

acteristics of personal and real actions Is it important for a litigant to know the classification of his action? Yes. If the action under real or personal, diff rules on venue should have to be applied. If the action is in rem or in personam, the effect of the judgment will be diff. Can an action be in rem and a personal action at the same time? Yes. Real and personal action are based on their privity to the kind of property involved. When it comes to in rem or in personam, the basis of classifying these actions is the binding effect of the judgment. If the judgment will bind anybody who has an interest in the case, then the action is one that is in rem. If it is purely in personal, the binding effect of the judgment is limited only to the parties involved or the successors in interest.

How do we classify an action for the recovery of real property (that is accion reinvidicatoria)? It is a real action because it involves title to or possession of real property. Accion reinvidicatoria, although it is a real action, is an action in personam. When the action involves real property, title to or possession of real property, it is always a real action. But it does not mean to say that it is an action in rem, because the judgment in an accion reinvidicatoria will bind only the plaintiff and the defendant and their successors in interest. Accion reinvidicatoria is filed by A against B, for the recovery of title to a piece of land. Judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff as the owner of the land. Judgment is now final and executory. So A is now the owner of the land. Later on, can X, a third party, file a complaint against A for the recovery of the ownership of that same land? YES, because X is not bound by the judgment in the first case between A and B. Not all actions involving title to or possession of real property are actions in rem. Only land registration or cadastral proceeding.

If an action or a proceeding involves personal property; Could it also be an action in rem? Yes.

The intestate proceeding or the settlement of the estate of a deceased personm because the Civil Code says that an action for the probate of a will binds anybody that has an interest in the estate of the decedent. But if the estate of the decedent consists only of personal property, that action in rem should be classified as a personal action because it does not involve title to or possession of real property. Even if an action has been classified as in rem or in personam, they could still be further classified as real or personal action depending on the nature of the property.

Actions in rem and in personam

Important in ascertaining WON jurisdiction could be obtained by the court after publication of summons If an action starts as an action in personam, will it remain to be in personam throughout the life of the case? No, depending on the conduct of the plaintiff How could we convert this action in personam into an action in rem or quasi-in rem? Preliminary attachment could be issued in cases where the defendant could not be served with summons that is by personal or substituted service. Attach the properties of the defendant so that the court will acquire jurisdiction (after publication) to try the case at least over the attached properties.

Could it be further re-converted into an action in personam? YES. If the defendant answers the complaint after the publication of the summons, the case is re-converted into in personam. But if the defendant files a responsive pleading and the court does acquire jurisdiction over his person, then the case remains to be classified as an action quasi-in rem or in rem.Actions in rem/quasi-in rem converted to action in personam

Will it make a difference if this action is classified as in rem or quasi-in rem or it is now classified again as an action in personam? YES, If the defendant answers and therefore the case are converted from quasiin rem to in personam, the court can render a judgment that will direct the defendant to pay the obligation as proven by the plaintiff. When the action remains to be quasi-in rem, the jurisdiction of the court is limited only to the property that has been attached, so the jurisdiction of the court is limited to awarding to theplaintiff the value of the attached properties. But if the defendant appears or files an answer, the jurisdiction of the court will extend to the person of the defendant and, therefore, the court can render a judgment directing the defendant to pay the entirety of the claim.

Commencement of Action, Rule 1, Sec. 5

The rule is very clear, that an action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint. If the complaint is later on amended under Rule 10, commencement is always reckoned from the filing of the original complaint.When an additional defendant is impleaded

Same; Rules on prescription in so far as the additional defendant is concerned, counted from the time that the amended complaint is filed by the plaintiff.Payment of Docket Fees

Even if a complaint has been filed a court will not be able to acquire jurisdiction over the case if the docket fees have not been paid. But in subsequent rulings, if there is failure to pay the correct docket fees, as long as the plaintiff pays the correct docket fees within the prescriptive period, the court will acquire jurisdiction.RULE 2- CAUSE OF ACTION &

RULE 3- PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION

Basis of Ordinary Civil Action- Rule 2, Section 1

Before a plaintiff files a case in court, the natural assumption is that the plaintiff has a grievance against the defendant. A person will not go to court and sue somebody else unless this person feels that his right has been violated by this other person, and this situation gives rise to the concept of a causeof action.

There is a classification of civil actions into ordinary and special civil actions. For every ordinary civil action there must be a cause of action. Does it mean to say that when the action is a special civil action there is no longer a need for a cause of action? No. There are certain special civil actions, which can be filed in court even without a cause of action.Special civil actions that do not require a cause of action

There are at least two special civil actions, which can be filed properly even if there is no cause of action, plaintiff does not allege that he has a right which has been violated:

1. Complaint for interpleader2. Declaratory relief

Do we apply the same principle to the other special civil actions? NO. Another special civil action is forcible entry and unlawful detainer, where the plaintiff cannot file a complaint unless he alleges the plaintiff alleges that he has a rightto possess the property and that this right has been violated by the defendant.

So in the existence of a cause of action, if the civil action is an ordinary civil action there must always be a cause of action, otherwise the complaint is going to be dismissed under Rule 16. Failure to allege a cause of action is one of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil case. But when the civil action is a special civil action there may or may not be a need for the existence of a cause of action.

Cause of Action defined- Rule 2, Sec. 2

Is it necessary that the plaintiff wait for the actual violation of his right before he can file a complaint in court? NO. Relate the definition of a cause of action to that in Rules 1&2. In Rule 1 an action is defined as one filed in court for the protection or enforcement of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong. So even before a wrong is committed, as long as there is a threat to violate the right of the plaintiff, the plaintiff can now go ahead and file a complaint in court. One of the purposes of a civil action is to prevent the commission of a wrong that will violate the right of the plaintiff. A complaint for injunction. The plaintiff will allege that the defendant is threatening to violate his right.

The cause of action consist really of two essentials: (1) the existence of a right, (2) the violation or a threat to violate the right. Is it necessary or is it essential for the plaintiff also to allege that as a result of the violation of his right, that he has suffered damages? NO. The Rules only require that there is a right and that this right has been violated.

In the Civil Code, for breach of contract the remedy suggested is specific performance or rescission of contract with damages in either case. It does not say that he must always accompany his claim for the payment of damages that is left entirely to the discretion of the right holder. If these two essentials are present in the complaint, is it possible that this complaint does not adequately allege cause of action? YES. Because under our present Rules there are several conditions precedent required by these Rules before a cause of action could accrue.

Prior barangay conciliation, Arbitration clause in contracts, Certificate of non-forum shopping, and requirement in the Civil Code that if the litigation is between members of the same family, earnest efforts towards a compromise must have been made before going to the court. Prior Barangay Conciliation

If a case is covered by prior barangay conciliation and there is no allegation that this condition precedent has been satisfied, the absence of the allegation does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court still has jurisdiction over the case. The ground for dismissal will be founded on failure to state a cause of action.

One wrongful act give rise to more than one cause of action

Does the rule tell us that one wrongful act will give rise to only one cause of action? No. One wrongful act could give rise to two or more causes of action, depending on the number of rights that are violated by this wrongful act, as long as these rights belong to different persons. The rule is that for every cause of action, one complaint can be filed.

Supposing that there is just one contract between A and B but the contract require the performance of an obligation in separate installments. B, the debtor borrows money from A, the creditor, P1M. The obligation is payable on four equal installments of P250,000 each. The first installment will be defaulted. Will the default in the payment of the first installment give rise to one cause of action? YES. Only for the amount that has already matured and is unpaid by the debtor. Not the 1M, creditor has no right to enforce the collection of the balance After default of 1st installment, one can file a case for the recovery whole amount. YES, provided that in the contract there is what we cal in Civil Law as an acceleration clause. The default in one installment will cause the entirety of theobligation to become due. In the absence of an acceleration clause, a complaint could be filed for the recovery of the defaulted installment. If the 2nd installment is also defaulted, then another complaint can be filed by the creditor because each installment due and unpaid will give rise to one cause of action. But the limitation to this rule is that if at time of the filing of the complaint all the installments have become due and are defaulted, only one complaint can be filed by the creditor. Or else he will be violating the rule on splitting a cause of action and it is possible that all the complaints will be dismissed by the court.Rule on anticipatory breach of contract

May there be a situation where the creditor can file a complaint for the recovery of the whole obli even before maturity of the 1st installment or of the entire loan?

The general rule is that a creditor cannot compel the debtor to perform his obligation before maturity. But if the debtor tells the creditor before maturity that he has no intention at all of paying his obligation, then civil law considers that as a breach of contract. The debtor loses the benefit of the period, obligation becomes due immediately. Splitting a cause of action This is the act of dividing one cause of action into several parts and making each part a basis for a separate complaint. From the point of view of recovery by the creditor, there will be no justification for disallowing splitting a cause of action, because even if in all the cases the plaintiff eventually wins, he will recover from the defendant only the amount which really belongs to him.

The REASON why the Rules prohibit splitting a cause of action is, there is a great possibility that the diff courts trying these diff cases found on the same cause might render conflicting decisions. Remedies of defendant where plaintiff splits cause of action

If the creditor splits his cause of action in violation of the Rules, what is the remedy of the defendant? He can file a motion to dismiss since splitting a cause of action could lead eitherto litis pendencia or res judicata. Supposing the defendant does not invoke litis pendencia, he does not file a motion to dismiss, can the court, on its own, dismiss anyone of the cases based on litis pendencia? Yes, Rule 9, which enumerates the grounds for dismissal and which are not waivable. Even if a defendant does not avail or does not invoke such, the court on its own, if it discovers the existence of litis pendencia, can order the dismissal of one of the cases. In litis pendencia, although the court can on its own order the dismissal of a case, the Rules do not authorize the court to dismiss all the cases. There should be a case retained between the plaintiff and the defendant, this relies solely on the discretion of the defending party and & the court. Splitting of a cause of action in relation to forum shopping

If there is litis pendencia, there is also violation of forum shopping, elements are the same If a complaint or other initiatory pleading is filed without the correlat ive certificate on non-forum shopping, this complaint or initiatory pleading will be dismissed. Will the ground for dismissal be absence of jurisdiction? NO. The absence of certificate on non-forum shopping has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court. The ground for the dismissal of the complaint or other initiatory pleading does not provide for a certificate of non-forum shopping is failure to state a cause of action.

Will it give any advantage to the defending party if he invokes forum shopping as a ground for dismissal? YES. If there is forum shopping, all the cases will be dismissed; unlike in l pendencia, where one of the cases will be retained. So that he is left with no case to defend at all. If the defending party can demonstrate to the court that forum shopping was deliberately resorted to by the plaintiff, the dismissal of all the cases is with prejudice, where the plaintiff can no longer file a complaint for the recovery of the same claim contained in the various cases. Forum shopping could be violated outright, that is upon the filing of two or more complaints simultaneously or successively against the same party and founded on the same cause. Or it could be violated if the case is already on appeal. Concept of forum shopping could apply at the outset, upon the filing simultaneously or successively of two or more complaints founded on the same cause of action and against the same party, or even if a case has been decided by the trial court, if two or more appeals arebrought by the losing party before the same or different appellate court. If the defending party fails to invoke litis pendencia, the court can still dismiss some of the cases by virtue of the provisions of Rule 9. Litis pendencia is one of the non-waivable defenses. Could we apply this to forum shopping? NO because forum shopping is not a non-waivable ground for dismissal of a case. Vioiolation of the rule on forum shopping will only affect the existence or non-existence of a cause of action, and this ground is a waivable ground under Rule 16. Failure to state a cause of action is really a ground for a motion to dismiss but if it is not so invoked, then the defending party is deemed to have waived this as a ground for dismissal of the case.

Joinder of causes of action

The opposite of splitting a cause of action is joinder of causes of action. While splitting is prohibited by the Rules, joinder of causes is encouraged by the Rules. The totality rule in BP 129 is quite clear when it says that in ascertaining the jurisdiction of a court when causes of action are joined in one complaint is the totality of all his claims even if these claims arise out of the same or different transactions and even if these claims pertain to the same or different parties. These qualifications are not contained in the totality test embodied in the RC. There is no limitation as to the number of causes that could be joined in one complaint by a plaintiff against the same defendant, except those expressly mentioned now in sec 5.

Why does the Rule allow joinder of causes even if they arise out of the same or different transactions? It is for the economy of time. In one complaint a court can decide as many disputes as there presented by the parties in the same action.Joinder of Causes (sec. 5) vs Joinder of Parties (sec. 6)

There could be joinder of causes of action even without joinder of parties. So if there is just one plaintiff filing a complaint against one defendant, the plaintiff can allege in one complaint causes of action without limit as to the number of causes that he will be alleging in that complaint. If there is just one plaintiff and one defendant then this limitation cannot conceivably arise.

Several causes of action in one complaint, where one cause is not within the jurisdiction of the court Can the plaintiff in one complaint allege as his 1st cause of action a recovery of money in the sum of P500T and then as a 2nd cause accion reinvindicatoria recovery of a piece of land where the assessed value is Php100T, the complaint to be filed with a RTC even if the recovery of title of property is totally unrelated to the recovery of sum of money? YES. the Rules allow the plaintiff to allege as many causes of action as he may have against the same defendant. But if he files a complaint involving the same causes of action and one of the causes is not within the jurisdiction of the court, he can still allege the two causes if the complaint is filed before a RTC. But this same complaint cannot be filed before an inferior court if one of the causes is beyond its jurisdiction. The inferior court will not dismiss the complaint , it will only drop the cause of action which is beyond its jurisdiction. Misjoinder of causes of action- Rule 2, Sec. 6 Supposing that all the causes of action are within the jurisdiction of an inferior court, is it possible that there is misjoinder of causes of action?

YES. There could also be a misjoinder of causes even if all the causes are cognizable by an inferior court: if some of the causes follow a special procedure or some of the causes are a part of the enumeration of special civil actions. The penalty for misjoinder of causes is not a dismissal of the whole complaint. It is just that the misjoined causes will have to be separated. The Court will continue hearing the cause of action which falls within its jurisdiction and which follows ordinary procedure. In joinder of causes which involves joinder of parties, the limitation is that the joinder of parties should arise from a situation where the transactions arise out of the same contract or series of contracts.

In joinder of parties, the parties involved here are NOT necessarily indispensableparties. The are several causes of action and, therefore, if there are several causes of action there is plurality of parties involved, but the causes of actionarise out of the same transaction or a series of transactions.

Flores vs. Mallari-Philipps. There was a dealer of tires. In one transaction, he sold different tires to A and then in a separate transaction he sold another set of tires to B. Both A and B failed to pay their respective obligations. What the dealer did was to file one complaint against A and B for the recovery of their respective obligations. Was there proper joinder of parties? NO, because even if the contracts entered into were contracts of sale, the contracts were totally unrelated to one another.

The parties misjoined will have to be separated by the court in trying the case.

No such thing as non-joinder of causes

There is misjoinder of causes but there is no such thing as non-joinder of causes

Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties- Rule 3, Sec. 7 There is no non-joinder of causes of action? Well, the reason is that joinder of causes of action is purely permissive on the part of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff does not want to join his causes of action, nobody can forcehim to. He can file one complaint for every cause of action that he may have. But there could be misjoinder of parties, there could be non-joinder of parties because of another procedural principle that is compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.

If a litigant is guilty of violating this rule on non-joinder of indispensable parties, the sanction that could be imposed by the court is dismissal of the complaint. The reason for the dismissal is not violation of compulsory joinder of parties but failure to state a cause of action.Necessary Party-Rule 3, Sec. 8 Where there is a plurality of plaintiffs and defendants, the idea of indispensable parties and necessary parties will come in.

In a contract of sale, if there is just one lender and there is just one borrower, they are both indispensable parties. It is impossible for the lender to file a complaint for recovery of the loan without impleading the borrower. But if there is one lender and there are two borrowers, then , there is a possibility to apply the concept of necessary/proper parties.

Indispensable party

Under the Rules, a party is indispensable if his absence will not justify the court from trying and adjudicating the case. If a complaint is filed with a n indispensable party, as we said, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Supposing the court does not dismiss the case for failure to state a cause of action because the defending party does not file the correlative motion, can the court go ahead to try and decide the case? YES. But the decision will never become final and executory. Lender is an indispensable party: He is the only one who could file the complaint for the recovery of the loan; under the Civil Code, they are joint debtors.

How many causes of actiondoes the creditor/plaintiff have if his debtors are joint debtors? He has two. There is an application of the principle of joinder of causes of action; at the same time, an application of the rule on joinder of parties. If the creditor files one complaint against debtor #1 for the recovery of P500T, will he be precluded later on from filing another complaint for the recovery of the other P500T from d#2? NO, because he has two causes of action. His cause of action against d#1 is entirely different from his cause of action to recover the claim against d#2. So, in this situation, both debtors #1 and #2 are indispensable parties, of course, together with the creditor/plaintiff.

Solidary debtors under the Civil Code in relation to indispensable parties

In a solidary relationship in the Civil Code, the law says that anyone of the debtors can be compelled to pay the whole bligation. So the plaintiff can file conceivably a complaint against debtor #1 to recover P1M. Under this concept, the creditor remains to be an indispensable party. One of the two solidary debtors will also be an indispensable party because the case cannot be decided unless one of the solidary debtors is impleaded as a defendant. Could we consider debtor #2, who has been left out, as an indispensable party? NO. Even if only one solidary debtor has been impleaded in the complaint, the Civil Code allows recovery of the entirety of the claim against this solidary debtor. Will that make the other solidary debtor that is d#2, as aproper or necessary party? He is neither since the recovery of the whole P1M could be have in the same complaint filed against d#1.

Parties in interest- Rule 3, Sec.2

Representatives as Parties-Rule 3, Sec.3

There are other parties mentioned in Rule 3, like representative parties and pro forma or quasi-parties.

Who are the representative parties? 1. Trustee of an express trust

2. Guardian of a ward3. Executor or administrator of estate of a deceased Before 1997, it was enough for the plaintiff to implead only the representative party. But under the present rules, it is mandatory for the plaintiff to implead the representative party together with the real party in interest.

If there is violation of this rule, the court can compel the plaintiff to amend his complaint so that the identification of the real party in interest could be obtained. If the plaintiff ignores this order, the court could dismiss the complaint. BUT this will be founded on Rule 17 that is dismissal for failure of a party to obey an order of the court or RC- it is a dismissal with prejudice. It will amount to res judicata.

Agent, WON a real party-in-interest

Both under the Civil Code and the Rules of Court, if the a gent has acted for a principal who is disclosed, the agent is not a real party in interest. But if the agent has acted in his own name and his principal is undisclosed, he is a real party in interest.

Supposing the plaintiff files a case against the agent without including the principal, is the complaint defective? YES, because it has not been filed against the real party in interest, there is no cause of action. If the decision becomes final and executory, can the principal be compelled later on to pay the purchase price? NO, because the principal has been impleaded in the complaint. The party who has been impleaded in the complaint is only the agent and the agent is not the real party in interest, the judgment cannot be imposed Can not the court motu propio dismiss a complaint if the court discovers that a real party in interest or an indispensable party has not been impleaded? No. There is always a need for the defending party to invoke a dismissal of a case for failure to state a cause of action.

Failure to state a cause of action-ground for dismissal where an action has been filed, against a person in violation of RULE 3

The term real party in interest is a generic term.

An indispensable party and a necessary party is always the real party in interest. BUT a real party in interest is not necessarily an indispensable party, nor a necessary party.

Is there a conflict between Sections 7 and 11 of Rule 3?

In section 7 of Rule 3, there is a requirement for the compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. The rule uses the word compulsory, meaning to say that if an indispensable party is not impleaded in the civil case that complaint isdefective.

Section 11 of Rule 3, provides that non-joinder of parties or misjoinder of parties is not a ground for the dismissal of the case.

One section says that indispensable parties must be joined while the other section provides that non-joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal.

Unwilling co-plaintiff The general assumption is that in a civil case, the plaintiff is the right holder and the defendant is the person who has violated the right of the plaintiff. It is possible that the defending party has an interest that is consistent with the interest of the plaintiff-this is is a case where the plaintiff impleads as a defendant an unwilling co-plaintiff.

An unwilling co-plaintiff, which means to say that he has done nothing wrong in so far as the plaintiff is concerned. He is impleaded because cannot be compelled to act as a plaintiff, only to bring him under the jurisdiction of the court All defendants are unwilling so theres no such thing as an unwilling co-defendant. An unwilling co-plaintiff does not have to file a responsive pleading, if he chooses to file an answer he can also file a counterclaim against the plaintiff. There is no preclusion, there is no prohibition from this unwilling co-plaintiff playing the role of a defendant and setting up his own defenses, setting up his claims againstthe plaintiff to the case.

Amendment of the pleadings to include an indispensable party

If an indispensable party is not impleaded, the defendant can ask for the dismissal of the complaint founded on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The court can properly deny a motion to dismiss even if it is convinced that an indispensable party has not been impleaded. Under Rule 16 when a motion to dismiss is submitted to the court for resolution, there are three options given to the court: 1. grant the motion

2. deny the notion3. or require an amendment to the pleading

So in this situation the court can adopt the third option, deny the motion but require the amendment to the pleading, so that the indispensable party would be impleaded.Rule 17 as another ground for dismissal vs. Rule 16 Failure to state a cause of action

If the court requires that the indispensable party be impleaded but still the plaintiff ignores the order of the court, what can the adverse party do? The adverse party can now resort to Rule 17 that is file once more a motion to dismiss this time not founded on Rule 16 but founded on Rule 17 that is section 3. This time, the dismissal wis prejudice, it is an adjudication upon the merits A dismissal under Rule 16, failure of the complaint to state a cause of action will be a dismissal without prejudice; it will not preclude the plaintiff from filing a similar complaint against the same defendant founded on the same cause.

Complaint cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties

Compulsory joinder is limited to indispensable parties. The rule does not tell us that when it comes to a necessary party the joinder is compulsory. So even if a necessary party is not impleaded the complaint cannot be dismissed. The reason is section 11, non-joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal. But there is a special requirement when it comes to the non-inclusion of a necessary party. The rule says that if a complaint is filed without impleading a necessary party, the pleader must state in the complaint who the necessary party is and why he has not been impleaded. It isnow up to the court to determine WON to order the inclusion of that necessary party. If the court so orders the inclusion of the necessary party, but the plaintiff disobeys the order of the court, can the defendant now resort to Rule 17,that is ask for the dismissal of the complaint because of the failure of the plaintiff to obey the order of the court? NO. In Rule 3 itself, there is already a sanction provided for disobedience to an order of the court for the inclusion of a necessary party, which is that the claim against the necessary party is deemed waived. There is just a waiver of a claim against the necessary party. But the complaint itself will not be dismissed. The complaint itself will be tried and decided by the court.

Minor or incompetent persons- Rule 3, Sec.5

If a minor is impleaded is a real party in interest, the complaint should be accompanied by a prayeror a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

A guardian ad litem, which is an incident or collateral to the main action itself is something that even inferior courts possess the authority to do so.

Class suit-Rule 3, Sec. 12 vs. Sec.6

A situation in Rule 3 that has some similarity to joinder of parties thatis permissive joinder of parties in Rule 6 is a provision on a class suit. In permissive joinder of parties we are assuming that there are two or more causes of action that are joined in one complaint and there are plural parties who could claim or defend these various causes of action. In a class suit we also have plural parties. In fact the law requires that the parties are so numerous that it is not practicable to bring them all before the court. But in a class suit there is just one cause of action. There is community of interest among several persons who are so numerous that it is not practicable to bring them all before the court. The owner of a piece of land visited his property one morning only to discover that his property has been possessed by almost one thousand families. There are squatters. Can the owner file a class suit for unlawful detainer or forcible entry or accion publiciana against a number of the squatter families? If he files one complaint against only a number of the squatter families that is he will sue the squatter families by way of a class suit, he will not be impleading all the squatter families, because in a class suit only a number ofthe class can be sued or can sue. He may (1) file one thousand complaints against each individual family or (2) he can file one complaint against one thousand defendants that is permissive joinder parties.

Community of interests-first essential requirement in a class suit

According to SC the situation does not meet the first essential requirement. There is no community interest among the several defendants because each squatter family is interested only in protecting the area that he actually occupies. So the interest of squatter number one is different from the interest of squatter number two because each of these families are occupying their own individualportions of that property, so there is no community interest in this situation. To SC, this could be a proper instance where joint permissive joinder of parties could be held because although the interests of the squatters differ from one another there is acommon question of law or fact that will be presented in the case.

Supposing the lawyer of the plaintiff suggests that the plaintiff should file one thousand complaints that is one complaint for each squatter family, is that also feasible? YES. Will he be required to be attending one thousand trials at any given time? NO. The lawyer can easily avail of the rule on consolidation of cases. Case in point: Oposa vs. Factoran

A community filed a class suit for the protection of their environment. Atty. Oposa cited as members of the class, minors and even as those who were yet unborn. SC allowed this class suit to be instituted, saying that it is only essential that there must be community of interests among the members of a class.

Derivative suit; intervention is a matter of right in a class suit;

Alternative Defendants-Rule 3, Sec.13

A derivative suit-this is one instance where intervention is a matter of right. Intervention in R 19 is a matter of discretion on the part of the court. The court may or may not allow a petition for intervention, but when it comes to a class suit any member of the class has the right to intervene in other words the court, the trial court is not given the discretion whether or not to admit an intervention that is submitted by a member of a class when the action is considered as a class suit. In Rule 3 also, we meet the terms alternative defendants. The situation is simply on e where the plaintiff has a right that has been violated but at the time of the filing of the complaint he is not sure as to who, between two or more persons has violated the right and who should be held liable for the violation.

Could a decision of a court be in the alternative?

Since Rule 3 allows defendants to be sued in the alternative, can the plaintiff also file a complaint with causes of action in the alternative? YES. Rule 2, which is section 5 it is clearly provided that in one complaint several causes of action may joined in the alternative or otherwise. If there could be alternative causes of action, could there be alternative defenses? YES. This is expressly allowed in Rule 8, there could be alternative causes and defenses.

Could a decision of the court be in the alternative? YES. The last section of Rule 60 allows a court to render a judgment in the alternative, that is the award is in the alternative either deliver the property or to pay the value of the property.

Can there be plaintiffs in the alternative?

There is nothing in the rules so far which expressly or by implication allows the filing of the complaint in the alternative. That is a situation where a right has been violated but we cannot be sure at the time of the filing of the complaint who owns that right and therefore who can file the complaint. Given the principle that procedural laws should be liberally construed, it seems that we can also allow alternative plaintiffs although this is really debatable.

Unknown identity or name of defendant- Rule 3, Sec. 14

Can an association that has no personality, it is not incorporated, it is not a corporation, it is not a partnership, can it file a complaint in court? NO.

Can it be sued? Yes. So they can be impleaded as defendants but they cannot be named as plaintiffs in a case.

The Rules also allow a defendant to be sued even if his identity is not known. So a defendant could be sued as an unknown owner. This usually applies to a case of replevin, thats recovery of a possession of personal property. There is a chance that when the sheriff goes to this defendant, the defendant is no longer in possession of the property, so property can no longer be confiscated. To avoid this situation where the sheriff will not be able to confiscate the property from the known, defendant, the plaintiff will usually implead at least two defendants: the first possessor of the property or the second possessor if known to the plaintiff and then a third defendant called John Doe; whoever is in possession Any plaintiff who goes to court should be able to identify himself. Death of a party; duty of counsel-Rule 3, Sec. 16

Incompetency or Incapacity

In the case of the death of a plaintiff and in a case of death of a defendant, it is the duty of their counsel to notify thecourt about these developments. Extinguishment of agency.

If the court is so informed about the death of a litigant, can the court nonetheless proceed with the trial? NO. if a court receives information that any one of the litigants has died, the court should require that any one of the heirs of the deceased litigant must be substituted, must act as a substitute litigant, that is the heirs should be made as substitute defendant. The person so directed to appear as a substitute litigant has the prerogative to accept or not to accept the role as a substitute litigant. If none of the heirs of the deceased litigant accepts the role as such, what can the court do? This time the court can require the adverse party to secure the appointment of an executor or administrator that is in the appropriate settlement proceedings. Can the court issue an order requiring the executor or administrator to act as a substitute litigant? YES. He cannot refuse to accept the designation because that is one of the duties of an executor or administrator. He must represent the estate of the deceased person. The general rule when it comes to civil cases where it is the defendant who dies is that the case is not affected at all. The case will not be dismissed. It will continue to be tried and decided by the court. In fact if there is a decision rendered by the trial court and there is an appeal, the appeal will alsocontinue that is until the entry of judgment. The only exception recognized in Rule 3 is when the action is purely personal in character in which case the death of the defendant will render a complaint moot and academic. Action on contractual money claims

in relation to Rules 39, 86 and 88-Rule 3, Sec. 20

If the plaintiff eventually prevails that is the decision is rendered in favor ofthe plaintiff, and the decision becomes final and executory, can the plaintiffcreditor avail of Rule 39? Can the creditor compel the estate of the deceased defendant through the executor or administrator to pay the obligation, or if thereis no payment, can the plaintiff-creditor levy on properties of the deceased person? NO. The claim of the creditor supported by a final and executory judgment will simply be submitted to the settlement court. But it cannot be executed, meaning to say that the creditor cannot levy on properties of the deceased judgment debtor for the purpose of satisfying his claim. The only instance where there could be a sale at public auction of properties of the deceased judgment obligor is when the death of the defendant comes after a levy has been made. If a levy has been made, that is, the assumption is of course the judgment has become final andexecutory. But if no levy has been carried out before the death then the claim of the creditor even if it is supported by a final and executory judgment will not be paid. But if the judgment is for the recovery of property real or personal, the judgment will still be executed notwithstanding the death of the defendant. The earlier applies only when the judgment is for the payment of money arising from a contract.

Indigent party-Rule 3, Sec. 21

An indigent litigant gives us the first situation where an ex parte motionis expressly recognized by the rules, as an exception to the rule on motions that is Rule 15. The general rule on motions is that a motion should not be heard ex parte. When it comes to an indigent litigant, the rule expressly allows that a motion presented by a litigant to be allowed to try the case as an indigent could be submitted to the court through an ex parte motion. At present, even if a person is a salaried employee he could still be considered as an indigent litigant. The only qualification that is now contained in the rule is that the litigant can prove that he cannot support himself and his family.

It is no longer required that a person should submit affidavits just like in the past, showing he does not own properties, that he has no means of income. But the declaration by a court that a litigant may be considered as an indigent litigant is purely interlocutory. It could be assailed later on in the course of the trial by an adverse party.RULE 4- VENUE

No difference between venue and jurisdiction in criminal case, only civil. Venue is procedural whereas jurisdiction is substantive law. Since venue is purely procedural it can be waived by the parties unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which generally is not waivable.

Since jurisdiction is part of substantive law it is governed or covered by BP 129 and the amendatory statutes.

When Rule is NOT APPLICABLE :Rule 4, Sec.4(b)

Since, venue is a primarily contractual matter, when asked to determine the proper venue of a case, do not immediately go to Rule 4. Take note of the presence or absence of an agreement between the parties which fixes the venue of conflict between the contracting parties.

BUT not all agreements concerning venue will automatically govern the relationship between the parties.

There are essential elements for the validity and enforceability of an agreement on venue. If not complied, such agreement may be disregarded by plaintiff

1. The agreement must be in writing and entered into before the case is filed

2. It must have a character of exclusivity.

The word exclusive need not be used exactly. Such an agreement, having the said elements is entered into after the case is filed...is it void? NO. The parties, even after the commencement of the case or during the pendency of the case, can still enter validly into an agreement concerning venue.

There is no provision in Rule 4 prohobiting it. It only tells us is that an agreement concerning venue in writing before the commencement of action and has the feature of exclusivity will govern the relationship of the parties

BUT the court cannot be forced to enforce this agreement. Once a case is filed in court, the court will continue to have authority to try and decide the case notwithstanding any agreement on exclusive venue that the parties will enter into later on. SO, the agreement may or may not be followed by the court. IF it is followed by the court and the agreement is to the effect that the locality fixed in the agreement is not the place where the courts holds trial, the only alternative on the part of the court is to dismiss the complaint.

If the agreement does not have the feature of exclusivity, which means to say that the plaintiff can ignore the agreement and apply the provisions of Rule 4...Venue will be determined on WON action is a real action or a personal action.

Venue of Real Actions; Venue vs. Jurisdiction (Rule 4, Sec.1)

When it comes to the distinction between venue and jurisdiction, careful in answering questions as to WON the defect is jurisdictional or only one of improper venue. A case of unlawful detainer involving a piece of land located in Manila is filed before the inferior court of Tarlac. Does the court have jurisdiction? YES. Since this involves a question of jurisdiction, forget about Rule 4. Resort to BP 129, where a case of unlawful detainer or forcible entry is exclusively cognizable by an inferior court.

It does not say a MTC of certain locality has exclusive jurisdiction over actions of unlawful detainer where the property is located in that locality. It simply says a case of unlawful detainer is cognizable by an inferior court. Of course, assuming that there is no written agreement on the exclusive venue. A case of unlawful detainer involving a piece of land located in Manila. The complaint is filed here in Manila but the complaint is submitted to the RTC of Manila. Is venue properly laid? YES, because the land is in Manila and the court sits in Manila. Does it have jurisdiction? NO, because under BP 129, inferior courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over unlawful detainer.

If it is filed before RTC if QC, is venue properly laid? NO. Venue is not properly laid because the land is in Manila but the court before which the case has been filed is not situated in Manila. So, venue does not refer to a court, but to a locality, a place where the action should be filed.No Rule on venue in the SC & CA

There is nothing mentioned in Rule 4 about venue with respect to the other courts. Venue is limited to real and personal actions that are filed before trial courts. There is nothing mentioned about venue concerning the SC and the CA they are also courts of original jurisdiction.

There is no rule on venue with regards to them, although they are courts of original jurisdiction because, there is only one SC and one CA, which are both based in manila. So, the features of trial courts in diff regions do not apply when it comes to them.

Agreement on Venue, When Void

Venue of Personal Actions- Rule 4, Sec.2

Sweet Lines vs. Teves. There was an agreement concerning venue but the SC set it aside because if enforced, it will cause inconvenience to the plaintiffs and will deprive them of the right to enforce their claim against the shipping company.1. When it comes to real actions, the law is quite clear in saying that for purposes of venue, the action should be filed in the locality where the property is situated or a portion thereof is situated. If the realty is situated in two places, plaintiff is given a choice.

Rule does not require that a greater portion should be located in the place where the complaint is filed. The venue in real actions is the locality or any portion thereof is situated, however small that portion is.

2. When it comes to personal actions, it is the plaintiff who is given the choice. It is either his place of residence or that of the residence of the defendant. If there are several plaintiffs or defendants, the place of residence of the principal plaintiff or defendantVenue of actions in case of Non-Resident DEFENDANTS-Rule 4, Sec.3

Two elements must concur:

1. The defendant does not reside in the Philippines, 2. And he is not found in the Philippines.

It is possible that he is staying temporarily in the Philippines in which case in this sector, will not apply.

The court will not be able to acquire jurisdiction over his person.There are only two (2) instances where such case can be filed 1. When the civil action pertains to the civil status of the plaintiff2. When it involves a property of the non-resident defendant in the Philippines. Where PLAINTIFF is a non-resident and cannot be found in Phils

There will be no problem on venue or jurisdiction at all.

He voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, if he files a complaint. Also, when it comes to venue, all that needs to be determined is WON the action is real or personal.Rules on Venue vis-a-vis Actions In Rem and In Personam

Still Rule 4. All that needs to be done is ascertain further if they are Real or Personal.

The only reason why Rule 4 does not mention in rem or in personam as the basis for fixing venue is that the classification of action into such is not founded on their privity to real property or contract. The classification is founded on another basis that is the binding effect of the judgment.

RULE 5- UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

Barangay Courts

They are not courts of justice. It is not really a part of the judicial system. It is part of the executive department. There is only one instance where a barangay court can possess an adjudicatory power: that is when the parties agree to submit their dispute to it for arbitration. Barangay courts are allowed to compel the plaintiff to pay a filing fee, just like any other court.

Lawyers are precluded from appearing before barangay court. Generally, all cases triable by a RTC and an inferior court, as long as the parties are natural persons and the parties are residents of the same city or municipality should first undergo prior barangay conciliation, before a complaint could be properly filed in court. OTHERWISE, it may be dismissed, because of failure to state a cause of action. Failure to satisfy prior barangay conciliation has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court. It is only a condition precedent to the accrual of a cause of action.

Is the requirement on prior barangay conciliation a condition precedent to cases that are cognizable only by an inferior court or is this condition precedent applicable to cases cognizable by the RTC? YES. The Local Government Code does not make a distinction.

How about cases that is cognizable by the CA and SC? There is nothing mentioned in the Local Government Code about it. And caes cognizable by them fall within the expected instances. Habeas corpus is exempted from the coverage of prior barangay conciliation. A petition for certiorari or prohibition or mandamus will always involve a govt. official or office who has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and that is one of the expected instances. Remedy to avoid appearing before a barangay court is for the plaintiff to incorporate in his complaint a motion or a petition asking for a provisional remedy (prayer for preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction, support pendente lite/replevin)

Rules on venue when it comes to barangay courts

When it comes to venue in barangay courts, the venue is the place where the respondent or defendant resides. Rule 4 is not followed, where plaintiff is given the choice.

Also take into account for purposes of venue the location of the property that is involved in the dispute. Since the barangay court is not an adjudicatory body, it does not have authority to compel the parties to agree to a settlement. If the parties cannot settle their differences amicably there is really nothing which the barangay court can do. All that the barangay court will do is to issue a certification that the dispute has undergone conciliation but the parties could not arrive at a settlement. These parties could also submit a compromise before the barangay court and such compromise agreement will be the law between the contestants unless this is repudiated within the period fixed by the rules, by the Local Government Code. Compromise Agreement must be in writing

If there is repudiation, barangay court will simply submit a certification that plaintiff is now free to file a complaint in court.

Authority of the Barangay Court to Dismiss a Complaint Res Judicata

Peculiar provision: If a plaintiff files a complaint before a barangay court, but later on he does not appear during the conciliation proceeding, the barangay court has the authority to dismiss the complaint and the dismissal by the barangay court operates as a res judicata that is, the complaint can no longer be filed in the court by the plaintiff. If there is a compromise agreement, there is no more need for the parties to go to court to enforce it. Within a period of six months the barangay court has a right to execute the judgment. And in doing so, it can make use of the provisions of Rule 39. If in the compromise agreement, the respondent admits owing plaintiff P100T payable on installment and then R defaults in complying with his obl, P can ask the barangay court to execute the judgment or the compromise agreement. That is as long as six-month period has not yet expired. In executing the judgment, the barangay captain, is given the authority to levy on PERSONAL properties of the defendant, pursuant to Rule 39.

Barangay court does not have power to levy on real properties.

Execution of the Compromise Agreement beyond the 6th mo. Period: Adjucatory Powers of Barangay Court

Supposing that there is no execution within six-month period, can the compromise agreement be still enforced? YES, BUT this time its enforcement cannot be held before the barangay court, and should now be given to the inferior court of that municipality, the local court.

Can anyone of the parties back out of that written agreement to constitute the barangay court as an adjudicatory body? YES. All that anyoneof the contestant needs to do is to repudiate that agreement. If there is repudiation, the barangay court ceases to possess adjudicatory powers. If there is no repudiation, then it can determine the rights and obligations of the parties in that dispute. The decision, if not repudiated will becomes a final and executory judgment. But for the purpose of enforcing this, SC ruled that there must be a petition for the enforcement of a decision to be filed before a local court.

So, even if the amount involved in the dispute is one (1) million pesos, for the purpose of enforcing the judgment, the petition must be filed before inferior court..

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SP) Although there is now uniformity in procedure before RTC and inferior courts, there is a difference when it comes to cases that are governed by SP. In November 2002, the Rules on SP were amended by the SC in the sense that a civil action which involves not more than P100T outside Metro Manila, and in Metro Manila P200,000 will be covered by SP. Unlawful Detainer and Forcible entry are still covered by SP.Family Courts & RTCs also try certain cases ff SP

Not only Inferior Courts follow SP. But also cases triable in RTC or by a Family Court which under the Family Code.

Prohibited Pleadings: Trial Court may Still Dismiss the case under the grounds enumerated in Rule 16

Since a motion to dismiss, generally, is a prohibited motion in cases governed by SP, does it mean to say that Rule 16 is not applicable generally to a case that is governed by SP? No. Even if the filing of a motion to dismiss is prohibited under SP, this will not deter the inferior court from applying the provisions of rule 16. If cases are governed by SP, the court can dismiss the case outright for any of the grounds in Rule 16.

Difference in the Application of R16 to

Ordinary Procedure & Summary Procedure

Only diff between the applications of R16 to a case governed by SP is that when the case is governed by ordinary procedure, generally a motion to dismiss is required. In a case governed by SP, the court can motu propio dismiss the complaint as long as any of the grounds for dismissal of a case under R16 is apparent from the allegations contained in the pleading. If the court neglects to dismiss the case, the defendant can still avail of the grounds for dismissal under R16, even if these grounds do not involve absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with prior barangay conciliation.

What SP prohibits is the filing of a motion to dismiss. The defendant can set up any of the grounds for a motion to dismiss by filing an answer with an affirmative defense, which is not prohibited in SP. Ant of the grounds for a motion to dismiss in R16 is available to a defending party as an affirmative defense.Summons issued in OP vs. In SP

It is up to the trial court to determine initially whether a particular action is governed by SP. If yes, same process in ordinary civil cases is followed. The court will issuea summons that will be served upon the defendant.

Diff bet summons issued in SP and in regular procedure:1. Summons in SP

- requires the defendant to file an answer within a non-extendible period of 10 days; - there is no threat that is given to the defendant that if he does not answer, he will be declared in default and judgment by default will be taken against him-number of pleadings that may be filed; only the complaint, the answer, a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim are allowed2. Summons in RP

-require the defendant to file an answer within 15 days- does not use the phrase non-extendible period, the period to answer in regular procedure could be extended by the court.-there is always a threat contained in the summons. The threat being that if the defendant does not answer within the reglementary period, he could be declared in default and that a judgment by default could be rendered against him by the court.-All the pleadings enumerated in Rule 6 could be availed of Why does not the summons in SP contain a threat? Well, in the enumeration of the prohibited pleadings and motions in SP, a motion todeclare the defendant in default is prohibited.

(Memorize Prohibited Pleadings and Motions in SP)

SP in Civil Cases vs. SP in Criminal Cases

SP covers both civil and criminal cases. 1. SP applicable to criminal cases

- Principal distinction: there is a right to cross-examine the witnesses. - The testimony of the witnesses are contained in an affidavit, but the affidavits will take the place of their testimony on direct examination, and then the court will require these witnesses to attend a trial for the purpose of cross-examination of these witnesses

2. SP applicable to civil cases

The parties, and even the court, are not given the privilege to cross-examine the witnesses. All that the parties need to do is to submit the affidavits of witnesses and the respective position papers. And thereafter, the case is submitted for decision.Similarities:

They have a preliminary conference, which is akin to the pre-trial in ordinary procedure. It is also mandatory.

But the SC has ruled that if the trial court fails to conduct a preliminary conference, the proceedings taken thereafter are not necessarily void.

A party may be considered to have waived this mandatory preliminary conference if he fails to object to its absence, or he fails to object to its absence OR he fails to object to failure of the trial court to conduct a preliminary conference.

RULE 6- KINDS OF PLEADINGS

Availability of Pleadings under Rule 6

GRule: The pleadings enumerated in Rule 6 are available in all ordinary c.actions and also special ca, which are governed by OP.

Not all these pleadings are available in an SP, some of them are expressly prohibited by it.

May there be civil actions or special actions where the availability of the pleadings mentioned in Rule 6, is not given to the parties?

Exception to General Rule: Rule 67, that is, in a petition or complaint for expropriation proceedings, where a counter-claim, a cross-claim, and a third party complaint are expressly prohibited.

Pleadings defined, Rule 8, Sec. 1: In general

Pleadings- a written statement or allegations of the cause or defenses submitted to the court for judgment.

The pleadings must contain allegations presented in methodical and logical form. That is, in concise and direct language, stating the cause of action or defenses.

Pleader should not relate a story to the court. He should divide the pleadings into paragraphs, to make it short and simple.

The pleading must be dated.

The pleading must also be signed either by the lawyer, or by his client, or both of them.

When it is the lawyer who signs the pleading, he submits a certification that he has read the pleading, there are enough grounds to support it, and that it is not intended to delay the adjudication of the dispute.

When it is a client who signs the pleading, the client does not make this certification.

Verification- Section 4

General Rule: Pleadings do not have to be verified.

Verification is required only if the rules or the law requires it,

Substantial defect, not Formal (will not affect jurisdiction of the court)- If the law requires a pleading to be verified, but there is no verification made by the client

Also, an unsigned pleadingproduces no legal effect whatsoever.

Certification against non-forum shopping, Rule 7, Sec. 6

SC: Who may sign the certification on non-forum shopping?

A counsel may if he is provided with a special authority to do so by the client.

Rules concerning this certification on non-forumshopping are strictly applied. Any defect regarding this cannot be amended.

Complaint Rule 6, Sec. 3

Conditions precedent, Rule 8, Sec. 4

1st Pleading: The complaint.

Contains the cause of action, excluding evidentiary matters.

Ultimate facts that should be alleged in the complaint?

1. The names of the parties

2. Their respective residence

3. The right of the plaintif

4. The violation by the defendant

5. An allegation concerning the compliance with all conditions precedent.

It is NOT enough that the plaintiff in his complaint will simply allege that all conditions precedent have been satisfied? He should enumerate what these conditions precedent are.

Capacity, Rule 8, Sec. 4

The capacity to sue also of the plaintiff must be averred with particularity.

Artificial persons like a corporation, or a partnership: There must be an allegation that they possess personality to do business in the Philippines.

Without these particulars in the complaint, the allegation concerning the capacity to sue is not satisfied, the party may be required to amend the pleading, or the court may even dismiss the complaint f