rem digests set1 1.7

8/10/2019 REM Digests set1 1.7

1/46

REMEDIALLAWREVIEWSET1

FILING FEES

1) RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS (RSB) V. FORMARAN,

Doctrin! For "#r"o$$ o% "&'in t corrct &*o#nt o% +oct %$, &c&$ on t &nn#-*nt o% ++ o% $&- ino-in & r&- "ro"rt' i$ & r&-&ction &n+ i$ c&"&/- o% "c#ni&r' $ti*&tion. It$ +oct %$ *#$t / "&i+

in &ccor+&nc to R#- 101, Sc. (&).

F&ct$! RSB obtained a P95M loan in from Romeo Tan and Roberto Obiedo,secured by REM over 5 parcels of land in Naa !ity" RSB failed to pay t#e loandespite bein ranted several e$tensions" %t &as areed t#at RSB s#oulde$ecute deeds of absolute sale over t#e lands in lieu of payment 'i"e" dacion enpao("

Since RSB did not ma)e t#e payment, Tan and Obiedo presented t#e *eeds of+bsolute Sale and t#ey &ere able to secure T!Ts over t#e 5 parcels of land int#eir names"

RSB filed before t#e RT! a !omplaint aainst Tan and Obiedo for declaration ofnullity of deeds of sales and damaes" RSBs causes of actions &ere-

'a( Pactum commissorium. and'b( Bad fait# by Tan and Obediedo"

/pon filin its !omplaint &it# RT!, RSB paid t#e sum of P01,233 for doc)et andot#er leal fees, as assessed by t#e Office of t#e !ler) of !ourt" T#e !ler) of!ourt initially considered t#e case as an action incapable of pecuniaryestimation and computed t#e doc)et and ot#er leal fees due t#ereon accordinto Section 4'b('0(, Rule 030 of t#e Rules of !ourt '+ctions ere t#e value oft#e subect matter cannot be estimated("

Tan filed before t#e RT! an Omnibus Motion in ic# #e contended t#at t#e civilcase involved real properties, and t#e doc)et fees for ic# s#ould be computedin accordance &it# Section 4'a(, not Section 4'b('0(, of Rule 030 of t#e Rules of

!ourt, as amended by +"M" No" 63787637S! ic# too) effect on 02 +uust8663" Since petitioner did not pay t#e appropriate doc)et fees for t#e civil case,RT! did not acuire urisdiction over t#e said case" :ence, Tan as)ed RT! toissue an order reuirin RSB to pay t#e correct and accurate doc)et fees ands#ould RSB fail to do so, to deny and dismiss t#e case"

RT! ordered RSB to pay additional filin fee and Tan &as also ordered to paydoc)et and filin fees on #is counterclaim"

!+ up#eld RT!, sayin t#at t#e obectives of RSB in filin t#e complaint &ere tocancel t#e deeds of sale and ultimately, to recover possession of t#e lands" %t ist#erefore a real action" !onseuently, t#e additional doc)et fees t#at must bepaid cannot be assessed in accordance &it# Section 4'b(" +s a real action,

Section 4'a(0must be applied in t#e assessment and payment of t#e properdoc)et fee"

RT!, instead of dismissin outri#t RSBs !omplaint, ranted RSB time to payt#e additional doc)et fees" *espite t#e seemin munificence of t#e RT!, RSBrefused to pay t#e additional doc)et fees assessed, believin t#at it #ad alreadypaid t#e correct amount before, pursuant to Section 4'b('0(, Rule 030 of t#e

Rules of !ourt, as amended"

I$$#! For t "#r"o$$ o% "&'in t corrct &*o#nt o% +oct %$,2tr or not & c&$ on t &nn#-*nt o% ++ o% $&-, ino-in & r&-"ro"rt', i$ inc&"&/- o% "c#ni&r' $ti*&tion3 NO, THE 4ASE IS A REALA4TION.

H-+! No" Suc# a case is a real action"

+fter Tan and Obiedo #ad t#e *eeds of +bsolute Sale presented to t#e Reisterof *eeds, t#ey &ere already issued T!Ts over t#e real properties in uestion, int#eir o&n names" No matter #o& fastidiously RSB attempts to conceal t#em, t#ealleations and reliefs it sou#t in its !omplaint appears to be ultimately a realaction, involvin t#e recovery by RSM of its title to and possession of t#e 5

1;or filin an action or a permissive OR !OMP/


2/46


parcels of land from Tan and Obiedo"

%ndeed, RSB did not directly see) t#e recovery of title or possession of t#eproperty in uestion, #is action for annulment of sale and #is claim for damaesare closely intert&ined &it# t#e issue of o&ners#ip of t#e buildin ic#, undert#e la&, is considered immovable property, t#e recovery of ic# is RSBFsprimary obective" T#e prevalent doctrine is t#at&n &ction %or t &nn#-*nt

or r$ci$$ion o% & $&- o% r&- "ro"rt' +o$ not o"r&t to %%&c t%#n+&*nt&- &n+ "ri* o/=cti &n+ n&t#r o% t c&$, 2ic i$ torcor $&i+ r&- "ro"rt'. It i$ & r&- &ction"

4on$i+rin t&t t co*"-&int i$ & r&- &ction, t R#- r>#ir$ t&t t&$$$$+ &-# o% t "ro"rt', or i% tr i$ non, t $ti*&t+ &-#tro% $&-- / &--+ /' t c-&i*&nt &n+ $&-- / t /&$i$ inco*"#tin t %$.

+ real action indisputably involves real property" T#e doc)et fees for a realaction &ould still be determined in accordance &it# t#e value of t#e real propertyinvolved t#erein. t#e only difference is in at constitutes t#e acceptable value"%n computin t#e doc)et fees for cases involvin real properties, t#e courts,instead of relyin on t#e assessed or estimated value, &ould use t#e fair mar)et

value of t#e real properties 'as stated in t#e Ta$ *eclaration or t#e Donal>aluation of t#e Bureau of %nternal Revenue, ic#ever is #i#er( or, in t#eabsence t#ereof, t#e stated value of t#e same"

Petition for Revie& is denied" *ecision of RT! orderin RSB to pay additionaldoc)etCfilin fees is affirmed"

6) DO:ALL METALS INDUSTRIES, IN4. V. SE4URITY BAN?4OR@ORATION

Non-payment ofadditional filing fees due on additional claims do not divest theCourt of the jurisdiction it already had over the case. However, after-judgment

lien for said unpaid filing fees only applies to cases (1) where the filing feeswere incorrectly assessed or paid or () where the court has discretion to fi! theamount of the award. None of these are present in this case and award was infact already specified. "lso, #N$% the &upreme Court can grant e!emptions tothe payment of the fees due the courts. 'arties or even the trial court cannotwaive payment of fees.

F&ct$! Spouses #$tionin &*on

otr tin$ t RT4$ torit' to r&nt +&*&$ con$i+rin DMI$%&i-#r to "&' t %i-in %$ on tir $#""-*nt&- co*"-&int" T#e RT!denied t#e motion" On appeal, !+ ruled in favor of t#e Ban) and denied t#esubseuent MR, #ence t#is petition"

I$$#$!

1. WN t RT4 &c>#ir+ CURISDI4TION on t $#""-*nt&- co*"-&int&&in$t t B&n con$i+rin DMI &n+ Li*$ %&i-#r to "&' t %i-in %$on t &*o#nt$ o% +&*&$ t' c-&i* in it. =ES"

8" @#et#er or not t#e Ban) is liable for t#e intimidation and #arassmentcommitted aainst *M%" =ES"

#i"*nt, &n+otr "ro"rti$ t' &--+-' -o$t &%tr t' 2r /&rr+ %ro* t"ro"rt'. NO.

H-+-

(1) YES. T RT4 &c>#ir+ =#ri$+iction or tir &ction %ro* t *o*ntt' %i-+ t oriin&- co*"-&int &cco*"&ni+ /' t "&'*nt o% t %i-in%$ +# on t $&*. Tir non:"&'*nt o% t &++ition&- %i-in %$ +#on tir &++ition&- c-&i*$ +i+ not +i$t t RT4 o% t =#ri$+iction it&-r&+' &+ or t c&$.

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 6 : BDG ; SY 1


3/46


'8( =ES" T#e Ban) belittles t#e testimonies of t#e *M%s &itnesses for #avinbeen presented e$ parte but t#e e$ parte #earin, #avin been properlyaut#oriHed, cannot be assailed as less credible" %t &as t#e Ban)s fault t#at it&as unable to attend t#e #earin" %t cannot profit from its lac) of dilience"Employees of *M% testified reardin t#e Ban) uards unmitiated use of t#eirsuperior strent# and firepo&er and suc# &ere never refuted" Police testifiedfindin #ir t co#rt to *& $"ci&-&$$$$*nt$ in c&$$ o% $#""-*nt&- co*"-&int$. +lt#ou# t#e Ban)brou#t up t#e uestion of t#eir failure to pay additional filin fees in its motionfor reconsideration, *M% made no effort to ma)e at least a late payment beforedecision" 4on$>#nt-', t tri&- co#rt $o#-+ & tr&t+ tirS#""-*nt&- 4o*"-&int &$ not %i-+.

*M% arues t#at t#e Ban) raised t#e issue of non7payment of additional filinfees only after t#e RT! #ad rendered its decision, t#us &aivin its obection" B#t

it i$ not %or & "&rt' to t c&$ or n %or t tri&- co#rt to 2&i t"&'*nt o% t &++ition&- %i-in %$ +# on t $#""-*nt&- co*"-&int.On-' t S#"r* 4o#rt c&n r&nt *"tion$ to t "&'*nt o% t %$+# t co#rt$ &n+ t$ *"tion$ &r */o+i+ in it$ r#-$.

!ourt reinstated t#e RT! decision and ordered t#e ban) to pay damaes, butdeleted t#e claim for t#e P84M actual damaes in t#e supplemental complaint"


4/46


%n &egovia v. arrios,t#e !ourt ruled t#at ere an appellant in ood fait# paidless t#an t#e correct amount for t#e doc)et fee because t#at &as t#e amount #e&as reuired to pay by t#e cler) of court, and #e promptly paid t#e balance, it iserror to dismiss #is appeal because every citiHen #as t#e ri#t to assume andtrust t#at a public officer )no&s #is duties and performs it &ell"

Tec#nicalities and procedural imperfections s#ould t#us not serve as bases ofdecisions"

0) IN RE! EEM@TION OF N@4 FROM @AYMENT OF FILINGDO4?ET FEES

Doctrin! T#e payment of leal fees is a vital component of t#e rulespromulated by t#is !ourt concernin pleadin, practice and procedure. t#us, itcannot be validly annulled, c#aned or modified by !onress"

F&ct$! %n *ecember 8665, t#e !ourt issued an administrative order declarint#at t#e National Po&er !orporation 'NP!( is e$empt from t#e payment of filinfees, on t#e basis of Section 01 of R"+" No" 2195 or t#e NP! !#arter" :o&ever,in October 8669, t#e !ourt issued anot#er administrative order denyin NP!e$emption pursuant to Section 06 of its !#arter" T#e NP! t#erefore see)s

clarfification as to its e$emption"

I$$#! @CN NP! is e$empt from payment of filin fees" 'NO(

H-+! Section 88 of Rule 030 reads-

Sec" 88" ?overnment e$empt" I T#e Republic of t#e P#ilippines, itsaencies and instrumentalities are e$empt from payin t#e leal feesprovided in t#is rule"


5/46


e$ception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims alt#ou#specified are left for determination of t#e court is limited to any damaes t#atmay arise after t#e f ilin of t#e complaint or similar pleadin for t#en it &ill not bepossible for t#e claimant to specify nor speculate as to t#e amount t#ereof"

9) REUEST OF NATIONAL 4OMMITTEE ON LEGAL AID TO EEM@T

LEGAL AID 4LIENTS FROM @AYING FILING AND DO4?ET FEES

'super s#ort facts lan un diest" 96K t#e diest is a copy of t#e +M #a#a(

Doctrin! T 4on$tit#tion #&r&nt$ t rit$ o% t "oor to %r &cc$$to t co#rt$ &n+ to &+>#&t -&- &$$i$t&nc. T -&- &i+ $ricrn+r+ /' t N4LA &n+ -&- &i+ o%%ic$ o% IB@ c&"tr$ n&tion2i+&++r$$$ on-' t rit to &+>#&t -&- &$$i$t&nc. Rci"int$ o% t$ric o% t N4LA &n+ -&- &i+ o%%ic$ o% IB@ c&"tr$ *&' n=o' %r&cc$$ to co#rt$ /' *"tin t* %ro* t "&'*nt o% %$ &$$$$+ inconnction 2it t %i-in o% & co*"-&int or &ction in co#rt. Wit t$ t2ininiti&ti$, t #&r&nt o% Sction 11, Artic- III o% 4on$tit#tion i$&+&nc+ &n+ &cc$$ to =#$tic i$ incr&$+ /' /ri+in & $ini%ic&nt &"&n+ r*oin & *&=or ro&+/-oc.

F&ct$! On September 81, 866 t#e Misamis Oriental !#apter of t#e %BPpromulated Resolution No" 83, series of 866" T#e resolution reuested t#e%BPs National !ommittee on


6/46


"&'*nt o% -&- %$ t&t *&' / r&nt+ to c-int$ o% t N4LA &n+ t-&- &i+ o%%ic$ o% t &rio#$ IB@ c&"tr$ 2i-- r&--' %#rtr t rit o%&cc$$ to =#$tic /' t "oor. T#is &ill uarantee t#at t#e e$emption &illneit#er be abused nor trivialiHed" To&ards t#is end, t#e follo&in s#all beobserved by t#e N!


7/46


representation because of a falsity in t#e application or in any of t#eaffidavits supportin t#e said application"

Sction


8/46


t#ereof. 'rovided, #o&ever, t#at in urent matters reuirin prompt or immediateaction, t#e c#apters e$ecutive director of leal aid or oever performs #isfunctions may provisionally act on t#e application, subect to revie& by t#ec#apter leal aid committee and, t#ereafter, by t#e c#apter board of officers"T#e action of t#e c#apter board of officers on t#e application s#all be final"

'd( Cases which may *e provisionally accepted" I %n t#e follo&in cases, t#eN!


9/46


t#e leal aid" ;or t#is purpose, t#e c#apter board of officers s#all aut#oriHe t#e#andlin la&yer to file t#e proper manifestation of &it#dra&al of appearance oft#e c#apter leal aid office in t#e case &it# a motion for t#e dismissal of t#ecomplaint or action of t#e errin client" T#e court, after #earin, s#all approvet#e &it#dra&al of appearance and rant t#e motion, &it#out preudice toatever criminal liability may #ave been incurred"

>iolation of t#is policy s#all disualify t#e errin client from availin of t#ebenefits of t#is Rule in t#e future"'f( Statement in t#e initiatory pleadin I To avail of t#e benefits of t#e Rule, t#einitiatory pleadin s#all state as an essential preliminary alleation t#at 'i( t#eparty initiatin t#e action is a client of t#e N!, nor o&n any realproperty &it# t#e fair mar)et value mentioned in t#e same Section.

'c( @#en it is s#o&n or found t#at t#e client committed a falsity in t#eapplication or in t#e affidavits submitted to support t#e application.

'd( @#en t#e client subseuently enaes a de partecounsel or is provided&it# a de oficiocounsel.

'e( @#en, despite proper advice from t#e #andlin la&yer, t#e client cannot berefrained from doin t#ins ic# t#e la&yer #imself ou#t not do under t#eet#ics of t#e leal profession, particularly &it# reference to t#eir conductto&ards courts, udicial officers, &itnesses and litiants, or t#e client insists

Att'. T. S&-&+or : : BDG ; SY 1


10/46


on #avin control of t#e trial, t#eory of t#e case, or stratey in procedureic# &ould tend to result in incalculable #arm to t#e interests of t#e client.

'f( @#en, despite notice from t#e #andlin la&yer, t#e client does notcooperate or coordinate &it# t#e #andlin la&yer to t#e preudice of t#eproper and effective rendition of leal aid suc# as en t#e client fails toprovide documents necessary to support #is case or unreasonably fails toattend #earins en #is presence t#ereat is reuired. and

'( @#en it becomes apparent t#at t#e representation of t#e clients cause &illresult in a representation of conflictin interests, as ere t#e adverse party#ad previously enaed t#e services of t#e N! #ereof s#all becredited for purposes of compliance &it# t#eRule on Mandatory #&t -&- &$$i$t&nc. T -&- &i+ $ric rn+r+ /'t N4LA &n+ -&- &i+ o%%ic$ o% IB@ c&"tr$ n&tion2i+ &++r$$$ on-'t rit to &+>#&t -&- &$$i$t&nc. Rci"int$ o% t $ric o% t

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 15 : BDG ; SY 1


11/46


N4LA &n+ -&- &i+ o%%ic$ o% IB@ c&"tr$ *&' n=o' %r &cc$$ toco#rt$ /' *"tin t* %ro* t "&'*nt o% %$ &$$$$+ inconnction 2it t %i-in o% & co*"-&int or &ction in co#rt. Wit t$ t2ininiti&ti$, t #&r&nt o% Sction 11, Artic- III o% 4on$tit#tion i$&+&nc+ &n+ &cc$$ to =#$tic i$ incr&$+ /' /ri+in & $ini%ic&nt &"&n+ r*oin & *&=or ro&+/-oc.T#e Misamis Oriental !#apter of t#e %nterated Bar of t#e P#ilippines iscomended for #elpin increase t#e access to ustice by t#e poor" T#e reuest oft#e Misamis Oriental !#apter for t#e e$emption from t#e payment of filin,doc)et and ot#er fees of t#e clients of t#e leal aid offices of t#e various %BPc#apters is ranted" T#e Rule on t#e E$emption ;rom t#e Payment of


12/46


CURISDI4TION

1) THORNTON V. THORNTON (IN THE MATTER OF A@@LI4ATION FOR THEISSUAN4E OF A WRIT OF HABEAS 4OR@US (6550)

Doctrin! T#e provisions of R+ 129 reveal no manifest intent to revo)e t#eurisdiction of t#e !ourt of +ppeals and Supreme !ourt to issue &rits of #abeascorpus relatin to t#e custody of minors" ;urt#er, it cannot be said t#at t#eprovisions of R+ 129, R+ 4698 and BP 089 are absolutely incompatible sinceR+ 129 does not pro#ibit t#e !ourt of +ppeals and t#e Supreme !ourt fromissuin &rits of #abeas corpus in cases involvin t#e custody of minors" T#us,t#e provisions of R+ 129 must be read in #armony &it# R+ 4689 and BP 089 t#at family courts #ave concurrent urisdiction &it# t#e !ourt of +ppeals andt#e Supreme !ourt in petitions for #abeas corpus ere t#e custody of minors isat issue"

F&ct$! Petitioner #usband is an +merican o is married to t#e ;ilipinorespondent" +fter some time, t#eir marriae started #avin problems" @ifeapparently &anted to return to #er former ob as a Luest relations officer in ani#tclub but en #usband obected s#e started actin neliently 'e$" ?oinout en #usband is not at #ome and ust livin t#eir c#ild &it# t#eir nei#bors("

;inally, in 8660, &ife left t#eir conual #ome &it# t#eir c#ild and reportedly ento Puro) Mari)it in Basilan"

:usband filed a Petition for :abeas !orpus in t#e desinated ;amily !ourt inMa)ati but t#is &as dismissed on t#e round t#at it #as no urisdiction since t#ec#ild &as in Basilan" :usband t#en &ent to Basilan to find t#em but &ife andc#ild &ere not t#ere" :usband eventually ave up #is searc# en #e ot #oldof &ifes p#one bills s#o&in calls from different parts of t#e P#ilippines"

:usband t#en filed anot#er petition for #abeas corpus &it# t#e !+, ic# couldissue a &rit of #abeas corpus enforceable in t#e entire country" T#is &as alsodismissed by t#e !+ on t#e follo&in round- t#e !+ did not #ave urisdictionover t#e case" R+ 129 or t#e ;amily !ourts +ct of 0994 ave family courts

exclusive oriinal urisdiction over petitions for #abeas corpus" %t #eld t#at t#eused of t#e &ord exclusive #as only one plain meanin and t#at if t#e !+ isalso iven t#e same urisdiction as t#at ic# is iven to family courts t#en it&ould not be e$clusive but concurrent"

On t#e ot#er #and t#e #usband uestions t#is and allees t#at t#e intention oft#e la& must prevail over t#e literal meanin of &ords employed" :e aruedt#at unless t#e !+ assumes urisdiction, t#e best interest of t#e c#ild &ill not beserved as &ife can easily evade t#e service of t#e &rit by ust movin out of t#ereion over &it# t#e RT! family court &rit #as territorial urisdiction"

I$$#! @#et#er t#e !+ #as urisdiction to issue &rits of #abeas corpus in casesinvolvin custody of minors in t#e li#t of t#e provision in R+ 129 ivin familycourts e$clusive oriinal urisdiction over suc# petitions" '=ES(

H-+! !+ s#ould ta)e reconiHance of t#e case since t#ere is not#in in R+129 t#at revo)ed t#e urisdiction to issue &rits of #abeas corpus involvin t#ecustody of minors"

Note2 he Court in the end agreed with the &olicitor 3eneral that the issue isalready moot since the Rule on !ustody of Minors and @rits of :abeas !orpusin Relation to !ustody of Minors '+"M" No" 617637637S!( already stated that C"has jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the discussions on the issue is still relevant forpurposes of class discussion.

@e disaree &it# t#e !+s reasonin because it &ill result in an iniuitoussituation, leavin individuals li)e petitioner &it#out leal recourse in obtainincustody of t#eir c#ildren" %ndividuals o do not )no& t#e ereabouts ofminors t#ey are loo)in for &ould be #elpless since t#ey cannot see) redressfrom family courts ose &rits are enforceable only in t#eir respective territorialurisdictions" T#us, if a minor is bein transferred from one place to anot#er,ic# seems to be t#e case #ere, t#e petitioner in a #abeas corpus case &ill beleft &it#out leal remedy" T#is lac) of recourse could not #ave been t#e intentionof t#e la&ma)ers en t#ey passed t#e ;amily !ourts +ct of 0994" T#eprimordial consideration is t#e &elfare and best interests of t#e c#ild" @e rule

t#erefore t#at R+ 129 did not divest t#e !ourt of +ppeals and t#e Supreme!ourt of t#eir urisdiction over #abeas corpus cases involvin t#e custody ofminors"

T#is is not t#e first time t#at t#is !ourt construed t#e &ord e$clusiveas not foreclosin resort to anot#er urisdiction" +s correctly cited by t#e Solicitor?eneral, in +loresca vs. 'hile! 4ining Corporation, t#e #eirs of miners )illed in a&or)7related accident &ere allo&ed to file suit in t#e reular courts even if, undert#e @or)mens !ompensation +ct, t#e @or)mens !ompensation!ommissioner #ad e$clusive urisdiction over suc# cases"

@e aree &it# t#e observations of t#e Solicitor ?eneral t#at-

@#ile +lorescainvolved a cause of action different from t#e case atbar" it supports petitioners submission t#at t#e &ord e$clusive in t#e;amily !ourts +ct of 0994 may not connote automatic foreclosure oft#e urisdiction of ot#er courts over #abeas corpus cases involvinminors" %n t#e same manner t#at t#e remedies in t#e ;loresca case&ere selective, t#e urisdiction of t#e !ourt of +ppeals and ;amily!ourt in t#e case at bar is concurrent" T#e ;amily !ourt can issue &ritsof #abeas corpus enforceable only &it#in its territorial urisdiction" Ont#e ot#er #and, in cases ere t#e territorial urisdiction for t#eenforcement of t#e &rit cannot be determined &it# certainty, t#e !ourtof +ppeals can issue t#e same &rit enforceable t#rou#out t#eP#ilippines, as provided in Sec" 8, Rule 068 of t#e Revised Rules of!ourt"

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 16 : BDG ; SY 1


13/46


%n rulin t#at t#e !ommissioners e$clusive urisdiction did not foreclose resortto t#e reular courts for damaes, t#is !ourt, in t#e same +lorescacase, saidt#at it &as merely applyin and ivin effect to t#e constitutional uarantees ofsocial ustice in t#e 0915 and 0941 !onstitutions and implemented by t#e !ivil!ode" %t also applied t#e &ell7establis#ed rule t#at at is controllin is t#e spiritand intent, not t#e letter, of t#e la&-

%dolatrous reverence for t#e la& sacrifices t#e #uman bein" T#e spiritof t#e la& insures mans survival and ennobles #im" %n t#e &ords ofS#a)espeare, t#e letter of t#e la& )illet#. its spirit ivet# life"

$$$ $$$ $$$

%t is t#erefore patent t#at ivin effect to t#e social ustice uarantees oft#e !onstitution, as implemented by t#e provisions of t#e Ne& !ivil!ode, is not an e$ercise of t#e po&er of la&7ma)in, but is renderinobedience to t#e mandates of t#e fundamental la& and t#eimplementin leislation aforementioned"

Ot#er reason provided- Statutory construction rule t#at implied repeals are notfavored"

6) Brn&/ N&i+&, t &-. . Hon. To+oro Dion, Cr.

*octrine- urisdiction of cases in ic# damaes of atever )inde$ceeds 066) 'or 866)( in M"Manila is &it# t#e RT!" %n cases ere t#eclaim for damaes is t#e main cause of action, t#e amount of suc# claims#all be considered in determinin t#e urisdiction of t#e court"

;acts- %n 0991, t#ere &ere a number of personal inury suits filed inTe$as by citiHens of 08 forein countries, includin t#e P#ilippines" T#eysou#t damaes for inuries from e$posure to *B!P, a c#emical used to

)ill &orms, ile &or)in on farms in forein countries" T#e defendantsin t#e consolidated cases prayed for t#e dismissal 'forum nonconveniens(" T#e ;ederal *istrict !ourt conditionally ranted t#e MT*"

T#e 112 plaintiffs 'Navida et al( t#en from ?enSan filed a oint!omplaint in ?enSan RT! in 0995, aainst S#ell, *o&, Occidental,*ole, *el Monte etc" Navida prayed for payment of damaes due to t#eillnesses and inuries to t#e reproductive systems" T#ey claimed t#att#ey &ere e$posed to t#at c#emical, and it &as due to t#efaultCnelience of t#e defendant companies" T#e defendant companiesfiled for Motions for bill of Particulars"

T#e RT!, &it#out resolvin t#e motions, issued an Order dismissin t#ecomplaint, sayin it didnt #ave urisdiction" Second, it said t#at t#e tortalleed by Navida is not reconiHed by P: la&s 'product liability tort(and t#ird, t#e filin of t#e cases &as said to be coerced and anomalous"%t also said t#at te defendants submission to urisdiction is conditional"

+lso, Navida, et al, violated rules on forum s#oppin and litis pendencia'because of t#e Te$as court("

%n 0992, anot#er case &as filed in *avao !ity, by 055 plaintiffs 'aainstS#ell, *O@, *el Monte, Occidental, etc"( T#ey alleed t#e same t#insas Navida, et al" T#e RT! un)ed t#e case, sayin t#at it didnt #ave

urisdiction over t#e subect matter since +rticle 8042, and 804 of t#e!! are broad enou# to cover suc#"

%ssue- @CN t#e RT! of ?enSan and *avao !ity erred in dismissin t#ecases for lac) of urisdiction

:eld- =ES" T#ey #ave urisdiction"

Note- +ll parties contend t#at t#e RT!s #ave urisdiction, specifically forappro$imately 8"4M for eac# of t#e claimants" Plaintiffs &anted to drop*O@, Occidental, and S#ell, but *O


14/46


FA4TS!


15/46


compensation in t#at provinceo 5epu*lic v. C"2 Special +rarian !ourts #ave oriinal and

e$clusive urisdiction over t&o cateories of cases- '0( allpetitions for t#e determination of ust compensation tolando&ners, and '8( t#e prosecution of all criminal offensesunder R"+" 2254"

By Lspecial urisdiction

o

Special +rarian !ourts e$ercise po&er in addition to or overand above t#e ordinary urisdiction of t#e RT!, suc# asta)in coniHance of suits involvin aricultural lands locatedoutside t#eir reular territorial urisdiction, so lon as t#ey are&it#in t#e province ere t#ey sit as Special +rarian !ourts

o R"+" 2254 reuires t#e desination by t#e S! before an RT!

Branc# can function as a Special +rarian !ourt :ere, S! #as not desinated t#e sinle salacourts

of RT!, Branc# 23 of ?ui#ulnan !ity and RT!,Branc# 21 of Baya&an !ity as Special +rarian!ourts conseuence- t#ey cannot #ear ust

compensation cases ust because t#e lands subectof suc# cases #appen to be &it#in t#eir territorial

urisdiction Since RT!, Branc# 18 of *umauete !ity is t#e

desinated Special +rarian !ourt for t#e provinceof Neros Oriental, it #as urisdiction over all casesfor determination of ust compensation involvinaricultural lands &it#in t#at province, reardless ofet#er or not t#ose properties are outside itsreular territorial urisdiction"

*%SPOS%T%>E- ?R+NTS t#e petitions, SETS +S%*E t#e RT! orders dismissint#e cases for lac) of urisdiction and *%RE!TS RT! Branc# 18 of *umauete!ity to immediately #ear and decide t#e t&o cases unless a compromiseareement #as in t#e meantime been approved in t#e latter case

0) VDA. DE HERRERA . BERNARDO

Doctrin$! 0( %ssue of lac) of urisdiction can be raised any time, even onappeal" + party is barred by lac#es and cannot invo)e t#e issue of lac) ofurisdiction ONillaran, and petitioner in#erited t#e land from #is fat#er"

!OS


16/46


e$plosive in nature nor involve a lare number of parties, nor is t#ere t#epresence or emerence of social tension or unrest"

T#e alleations of t#e Bernardos pertains to t#eir claim of o&ners#ip over t#eland, ic# is an action involvin title to or possession of real property or anyinterest t#erein, t#e urisdiction of ic# is vested &it# t#e RT!s or MT!sdependin on t#e value of t#e real property"

Since !OS


17/46


parental custody, robs t#e parents of custodial options, or #iac)sdecision7ma)in bet&een t#e separated parents" :o&ever, t#ese areobections ic# uestion t#e la&s &isdom not its validity or uniformenforceability" T#e forum to air and remedy t#ese rievances is t#eleislature, not t#is !ourt"

%nstead of orderin t#e dismissal t#e suit, t#e loical end to its lac) of

cause of action, &e remand t#e case for t#e trial court to settle t#euestion of Step#anies custody" Step#anie is no& nearly 05 yrs" old,t#us removin t#e case outside of t#e ambit of t#e mandatory maternalcustody reime and brinin it &it#in coverae of t#e default standardon c#ild custody proceedins I t#e best interest of t#e c#ild"

9) 4IVIL SERVI4E 4OMMISSION V. 4OURT OF A@@EALS

F&ct$! ?uevarra and !eHar are t#e president and >P of Polytec#nic /niversityof t#e P#ilippines'P/P(" %n applyin for a bond bot# of t#em certified t#at t#ey#ad no criminal or administrative cases aainst t#em even t#ou# t#ey #ad 04cases pendin before t#e Sandianbayan" T#eir arument &as t#at t#eybelieved in ood fait# t#at t#e reuirement referred to final conviction only, ofic# t#ere &as none" T#is &as t#e source of a case aainst t#em by !ueva,P/Ps !#ief


18/46


#ave appellate urisdiction over t#ose" Suc# a plain readin of t#e subectprovision of E"O" 868 &ould effectively divest !S! of its oriinal urisdiction,albeit s#ared, provided by la&" Moreover, it is clearly unreasonable as it &ouldbe tantamount to disenfranc#isin overnment employees by removin fromt#em an alternative course of action aainst errin public officials"

T#ere is no coent reason to differentiate bet&een a complaint filed by a privatecitiHen and one filed by a member of t#e civil service, especially in li#t ofSection 08'00(, !#apter 1, Subtitle +, Title %, Boo) > of t#e same E"O" No" 898ic# confers upon t#e !S! t#e po&er to L#ear and decide administrative casesinstituted by or brou#t before it directly or on appeal &it#out any ualification"urisprudence is cited to support t#is"

T#e /niform Rules e$plicitly allo&s concurrent oriinal urisdiction over bet&eent#e disciplinary aut#ority and t#e !S!" T#e !ourt said t#at t#ese rules do notcontradict t#e administrative code but provide a reasonable interpretation of t#esame" But on t#e issue of certain provisions limitin urisdiction to t#ose ic#-'0( are brou#t aainst personnel of t#e !S! central office, '8( are aainst t#irdlevel officials o are not presidential appointees, '1( are aainst officials andemployees, but are not acted upon by t#e aencies t#emselves, or '3( ot#er&isereuire direct or immediate action in t#e interest of ustice" T#e !ourt said t#at

t#e rules do not supplant t#e la& in rantin urisdiction and cited urisprudenceto t#at effect" T#e rules are merely directory in t#is matter"

+lso special la&s providin for t#e creation of disciplinary bodies or passae ofspecial la&s allo&in t#e same does not divest t#e !S! of urisdiction, event#ose in t#e academe" @#ere t#ey are filed directly to t#e !S! by a fello&employee t#e !S! may ta)e urisdiction"

+lso t#ere is estoppel as t#e urisdiction of t#e !S! &as uestioned only aftert#e MR &as denied" R+ 898 and E"O" 898 do not conflict" T#e employees citedt#e portion of R+ 898 pertainin to t#e po&ers of t#e Board Lto remove t#emfor cause in accordance &it# t#e reuirements of due process of la&" Simplybecause a later statute relates to a similar subect matter as t#at of an earlierstatute does not result in an implied repeal of t#e latter" T#ere are still no &ordsremovin t#em from t#e !S!s coverae" T#ere are no &ords rantine$clusivity"

%t is t#erefore apparent t#at despite t#e enactment of R"+" No" 898 ivin t#eboard of reents or board oftrustees of a state sc#ool t#e aut#ority to discipline its employees, t#e !S! stillretains urisdiction over t#e sc#ool and its employees and #as concurrentoriinal urisdiction, toet#er &it# t#e board of reents of a state university, overadministrative cases aainst state university officials and employees"

;inally, &it# reard to t#e concern t#at t#e !S! maybe overelmed by t#eincrease in number of cases filed before it ic# &ould result from our rulin, itbe#ooves us to allay suc# &orries by #i#li#tin t&o important

facts" ;irstly, it s#ould be emp#asiHed t#at t#e !S! #as oriinal concurrenturisdiction s#ared &it# t#e overnin body in uestion, in t#is case, t#e Board ofReents of P/P" T#is means t#at if t#e Board of Reents first ta)es coniHanceof t#e complaint, t#en it s#all e$ercise urisdiction to t#e e$clusion of t#e !S!"T#us, not all administrative cases &ill fall directly under t#e !S!" Secondly,Section 34, !#apter 4, Subtitle +, Title %, Boo) > of t#e +dministrative !odeaffords t#e !S! t#e option of et#er to decide t#e case or to deputiHe someot#er department, aency or official to conduct an investiation into t#e matter,t#ereby considerably easin t#e burden placed upon t#e csc"

) MALANA . TA@@A

Doctrin! T#e nature of an action and t#e urisdiction of a tribunal aredetermined by t#e material alleations of t#e complaint and t#e la& at t#e timet#e action &as commenced" urisdiction of t#e tribunal over t#e subect matteror nature of an action is conferred only by la& and not by t#e consent or &aiverupon a court ic#, ot#er&ise, &ould #ave no urisdiction over t#e subectmatter or nature of an action"


19/46


property and presented documents ostensibly supportin t#eir claim ofo&ners#ip"

+ccordin to petitioners, respondents documents &ere #i#ly dubious, falsified,and incapable of provin t#e latters claim of o&ners#ip over t#e subectproperty. nevert#eless, t#ey created a cloud upon petitioners title to t#eproperty" T#us, petitioners &ere compelled to file before t#e RT! a !omplaint toremove suc# cloud from t#eir title"

Before respondents could file t#eir ans&er, t#e RT! issued an Order dismissinpetitioners !omplaint on t#e round of lac) of urisdiction" T#e RT! referred toRepublic +ct No" 4290, amendin Batas Pambansa Bl" 089, ot#er&ise )no&nas t#e udiciary ReoraniHation +ct of 096, ic# vests t#e RT! &it#urisdiction over real actions, ere t#e assessed value of t#e property involvede$ceeds P86,666"66" %t found t#at t#e subect property #ad a value of less t#anP86,666"66. #ence, petitioners action to recover t#e same &as outside t#eurisdiction of t#e RT!" T#e RT! li)e&ise denied t#e petitioners Motion forReconsideration"I$$#! @#et#er t#e RT! committed rave abuse of discretion in dismissinpetitioners !omplaint for lac) of urisdiction" 'NO(

H-+! +n action for declaratory relief s#ould be filed by a person interestedunder a deed, a &ill, a contract or ot#er &ritten instrument, and ose ri#ts areaffected by a statute, an e$ecutive order, a reulation or an ordinance" T#e reliefsou#t under t#is remedy includes t#e interpretation and determination of t#evalidity of t#e &ritten instrument and t#e udicial declaration of t#e parties ri#tsor duties t#ereunder"Petitions for declaratory relief are overned by Rule 21 of t#e Rules of !ourt"T#e RT! correctly made a distinction bet&een t#e first and t#e secondpararap#s of Section 0, Rule 21 of t#e Rules of !ourt"T#e first pararap# of Section 0, Rule 21 of t#e Rules of !ourt, describes t#eeneral circumstances in ic# a person may file a petition for declaratory relief"+ petition for declaratory relief under t#e first pararap# of Section 0, Rule 21may be brou#t before t#e appropriate RT!"

T#e second pararap# of Section 0, Rule 21 of t#e Rules of !ourt specificallyrefers to '0( an action for t#e reformation of an instrument, reconiHed under+rticles 0159 to 0129 of t#e !ivil !ode. '8( an action to uiet title, aut#oriHed by+rticles 342 to 30 of t#e !ivil !ode. and '1( an action to consolidate o&ners#ipreuired by +rticle 0264 of t#e !ivil !ode in a sale &it# a ri#t to repurc#ase"T#ese t#ree remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief because t#eyalso result in t#e adudication of t#e leal ri#ts of t#e litiants, often &it#out t#eneed of e$ecution to carry t#e udment into effect"

To determine ic# court #as urisdiction over t#e actions identified in t#esecond pararap# of Section 0, Rule 21 of t#e Rules of !ourt, said provisionmust be read toet#er &it# t#ose of t#e udiciary ReoraniHation +ct of 096, asamended"

%t is important to note t#at Section 0, Rule 21 of t#e Rules of !ourt does notcateorically reuire t#at an action to uiet title be filed before t#e RT!" %trepeatedly uses t#e &ord Lmay" T#e use of t#e &ord Lmay in a statute denotest#at t#e provision is merely permissive and indicates a mere possibility, anopportunity or an option"%n contrast, t#e mandatory provision of t#e udiciary ReoraniHation +ct of 096,as amended, uses t#e &ord Ls#all and e$plicitly reuires t#e MT! to e$ercisee$clusive oriinal urisdiction over all civil actions ic# involve title to orpossession of real property ere t#e assessed value does not e$ceedP86,666"66"

+s found by t#e RT!, t#e assessed value of t#e subect property as stated inTa$ *eclaration No" 687312 is only P306"66. t#erefore, petitioners !omplaintinvolvin title to and possession of t#e said property is &it#in t#e e$clusiveoriinal urisdiction of t#e MT!, not t#e RT!"

;urt#ermore, an action for declaratory relief presupposes t#at t#ere #as been noactual breac# of t#e instruments involved or of ri#ts arisin t#ereunder"

@#ere t#e la& or contract #as already been contravened prior to t#e filin of anaction for declaratory relief, t#e courts can no loner assume urisdiction overt#e action" %n ot#er &ords, a court #as no more urisdiction over an action fordeclaratory relief if its subect #as already been infrined or transressed beforet#e institution of t#e action"

Since petitioners averred in t#e !omplaint t#at t#ey #ad already been deprivedof t#e possession of t#eir property, t#e proper remedy for t#em is t#e filin of anaccion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not a case for declaratory relief"+n accion publiciana is a suit for t#e recovery of possession, filed one year aftert#e occurrence of t#e cause of action or from t#e unla&ful &it##oldin ofpossession of t#e realty" +n accion reivindicatoria is a suit t#at #as for its obectones recovery of possession over t#e real property as o&ner"Petitioners !omplaint contained sufficient alleations for an accionreivindicatoria" urisdiction over suc# an action &ould depend on t#e value oft#e property involved" ?iven t#at t#e subect property #erein is valued only atP306"66, t#en t#e MT!, not t#e RT!, #as urisdiction over an action to recovert#e same" T#e RT!, t#erefore, did not commit rave abuse of discretion indismissin, &it#out preudice, petitioners !omplaint in !ivil !ase No" 22 forlac) of urisdiction"

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 1 : BDG ; SY 1


20/46


+s for t#e RT! dismissin petitioners !omplaint motu proprio, t#e follo&inpronouncements of t#e !ourt in $aresma v. "*ellanaproves instructive-

%t is a$iomatic t#at t#e nature of an action and t#e urisdiction of atribunal are determined by t#e material alleations of t#ecomplaint and t#e la& at t#e t ime t#e action &ascommenced" urisdiction of t#e tribunal over t#e subect matter ornature of an action is conferred only by la& and not by t#econsent or &aiver upon a court ic#, ot#er&ise, &ould #ave nourisdiction over t#e subect matter or nature of an action"


21/46


computin t#e proper filin fees" %t necessarily follo&s t#at t#e fees paid

are deficient" T#e trial court, t#erefore, did not acuire urisdiction over

t#e case"

S#ember et" al", on t#e ot#er #and, averred t#at a perusal of t#e

complaint s#o&s t#at t#e suit primarily involves cancellation of

mortaes, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation" !onseuently,t#e ban)s contention t#at t#ere is a deficiency in t#e payment of doc)et

fees is &it#out merit"

I$$#- @#et#er or not t#e trial court #as urisdiction over t#e caseJ

4oro--&r' i$$#- @#et#er or not an action for cancellation of mortae

incapable of pecuniary estimationJ

H-+!+ court acuires urisdiction over a case only upon t#e payment of

t#e prescribed fees"T#e importance of filin fees cannot be ainsaid for

t#ese are intended to ta)e care of court e$penses in t#e #andlin ofcases in terms of costs of supplies, use of euipment, salaries and

frine benefits of personnel, and ot#ers, computed as to man7#ours

used in t#e #andlin of eac# case" :ence, t#e non7payment or

insufficient payment of doc)et fees can entail tremendous losses to t#e

overnment in eneral and to t#e udiciary in particular"

I$ &n &ction %or c&nc--&tion o% *ort& inc&"&/- o% "c#ni&r'

$ti*&tion3

/nder Section 09 '0( of BP 06, as amended by R+ 4290, Reional

Trial !ourts #ave sole, e$clusive, and oriinal urisdiction to #ear, try,

and decide all civil actions in ic# t#e subect of t#e litiation is

incapable of pecuniary estimation"

%n &ingsong v. sa*ela &awmill, t#e !ourt laid t#e test for determinin

et#er t#e subect matter of an action is incapable of pecuniary

estimation is to ascertain t#e nature of t#e principal action or remedy

sou#t" %f t#e action is primarily for recovery of a sum of money, t#e

claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation" @#et#er t#e trial

court #as urisdiction &ould depend upon t#e amount of t#e claim"

Ho2r, 2r t /&$ic i$$# i$ $o*tin otr t&n t rit

to rcor & $#* o% *on', 2r t *on' c-&i* i$ on-'

inci+nt&- or & con$>#nc o% t "rinci"&- r-i% $o#t, t

&ction i$ inc&"&/- o% "c#ni&r' $ti*&tion"

:ere, t#e primary reliefs prayed for by respondents in is t#e cancellation

of t#e real estate and c#attel mortaes for &ant of consideration" %numayog v. umas, t#e !ourt ruled t#at ere t#e issue involves t#e

validity of a mortae, t#e action is one incapable of pecuniary

estimation" Moreover, in t#e more recent case of 5ussell v. 9estil, t#e

!ourt, citin umayog,#eld t#at an action uestionin t#e validity of a

mortae is one incapable of pecuniary estimation" %n t#e case at bar,

;ar East Ban) #as not s#o&n adeuate reasons for t#is !ourt to revisit

umayog and 5ussell" :ence, petitioners contention can ot be

sustained" Since respondents paid t#e doc)et fees, as computed by t#e

cler) of court, conseuently, t#e trial court acuired urisdiction over t#e

case"

) S@S. MANILA .S@S. MANO

Doctrin!


22/46


desire to e$ercise t#e option to buy t#e said property"

Resp" Sps" ManHo filed an =ct*nt $#itaainst Pet" Sps" Manila

before t#e MeT!" T#e MeT! rendered its decision in favor of ManHo"

Petitioner Manila appealed to t#e RT! ic# reversed t#e MeT!" T#e

RT! found t#at petitioners #ave in fact e$ercised t#eir option to buy t#eleased property but t#e respondents refused to #onor t#e same" RT4

or+r+ t&t M&no $o#-+ c#t & ++ o% &/$o-#t $&- or

t -&$+ -&n+.

ManHo filed an MR done but ot denied because it &as filed out of time

due to fault of t#eir previous counsel 't#e previous counsel &as ill("

ManHo filed a petition for annulment of t#e RT! decision in t#e !+

claimin t#at RT! Xs urisdiction is limited to t#e determination of o is

entitled to t#e p#ysical possession of real property and t#e only

udment it can render in favor of t#e defendant is to recover #is costs"!+ ruled in favor of ManHo" + petition for revie& &as filed by t#e

petitioners to t#e S!"

I$$#- @CN t#e RT! acted &it#in its urisdiction in orderin t#e Sale of

t#e property en decidin in its appellate urisdictionJ !orollary to

t#is, @CN t#e !+s annulment of udment is proper

H-+- yes" Petitioners assail t#e !+ in #oldin t#at t#e RT! decision is

void because it ranted a relief inconsistent &it# t#e nature of an

eectment suit and not even prayed for by t#e respondents in t#eir

ans&er" T#ey contend t#at atever maybe uestionable in t#e decision

is a round for assinment of errors on appeal I or in certain cases, as

round for a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 25 I and not as

round for its annulment"

On t#e ot#er #and, respondents assert t#at t#e !+, bein a #i#er

court, #as t#e po&er to adopt, reverse or modify t#e findins of t#e RT!

in t#is case" T#ey point out t#at t#e !+ in t#e e$ercise of its sound

discretion found t#e RT!s findins unsupported by t#e evidence on

record ic# also indicated t#at t#e loss of ordinary remedies of appeal,

ne& trial and petition for revie& &as not due to t#e fault of t#e

respondents"

T#e !ourt said t#at in t#is case, t#e RT! acted in e$cess of its

urisdiction in decidin t#e appeal of respondents en, instead of

simply dismissin t#e complaint and a&ardin any counterclaim for

costs due to t#e defendants 'petitioners(, it ordered t#e respondents7lessors to e$ecute a deed of absolute sale in favor of t#e petitioners7

lessees, on t#e basis of its o&n interpretation of t#e !ontract of


23/46


T#e +nnulment of udment &as set aside"

15) LHUILLIERv" BRITISH AIRWAYS

Doctrin! Wn t tr&n$"ort o% & "r$on i$ +*+ to / &n

intrn&tion&- c&rri& 2itin t cont*"-&tion o% t W&r$&2

4onntion, t W&r$&2 4onntion &""-i$. Hnc, t "roi$ion$o% t W&r$&2 4onntion orn t =#ri$+iction or t $#/=ct

*&ttr o% t &ction. Moror, 2r t &--&tion$ o% tortio#$

con+#ct co**itt+ &&in$t &n &ir-in "&$$nr +#rin t co#r$

o% t intrn&tion&- c&rri&, it +o$ not /rin t c&$ o#t$i+ t

&*/it o% t W&r$&2 4onntion.

F&ct$- Edna *iao


24/46


force and effect of la& in t#is country" %t is settled t#at t#e @arsa&

!onvention #as t#e force and effect of la& in t#is country" %n T#e

!onvention is a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed by t#e

P#ilippine overnment and, as suc#, #as t#e force and effect of la& in

t#is country" T#e @arsa& !onvention applies because t#e air travel,

ere t#e alleed tortious conduct occurred, &as bet&een t#e /nited

Aindom and %taly, ic# are bot# sinatories to t#e @arsa&!onvention"

@#en t#e place of departure and t#e place of destination in a contract of

carriae are situated &it#in t#e territories of t&o :i# !ontractin

Parties, said carriae is deemed an international carriae"1T#e :i#

!ontractin Parties referred to #erein &ere t#e sinatories to t#e

@arsa& !onvention and t#ose ic# subseuently ad#ered to it" %n t#e

case at benc#, Ednas place of departure &as


25/46


tortio#$ con+#ct o% t &ir-in "r$onn-, t co#rt -+ t&t

tortio#$ con+#ct &$ ro#n+ %or t "titionr$ co*"-&int i$ 2itin

t "#ri2 o% t W&r$&2 4onntion.

T#e court #eld t#at a cause of action based on tort did not brin t#e

case outside t#e sp#ere of t#e @arsa& !onvention" T#e court cited t#e

case !arey v" /nited +irlines ere t#e /nited States !ourt of +ppeals'9t# !ircuit( #eld t#at t#e passenerFs action aainst t#e airline carrier

arisin from alleed confrontational incident bet&een passener and

fli#t attendant on international fli#t &as overned e$clusively by t#e

@arsa& !onvention, even t#ou# t#e incident alleedly involved

intentional misconduct by t#e fli#t attendant" %t also cited t#e case of

Bloom v" +las)a +irlines, ere t#e same court cited above, #eld t#at

t#e @arsa& !onvention overns actions arisin from international air

travel and provides t#e e$clusive remedy for conduct ic# falls &it#in

its provisions" %t furt#er #eld t#at t#e said !onvention created no

e$ception for an inury suffered as a result of intentional conduct ic#

in t#at case involved a claim for intentional infliction of emotional

distress" It i$ t#$ $tt-+ t&t &--&tion$ o% tortio#$ con+#ct

co**itt+ &&in$t &n &ir-in "&$$nr +#rin t co#r$ o% t

intrn&tion&- c&rri& +o not /rin t c&$ o#t$i+ t &*/it o%

t W&r$&2 4onntion.

4AUSE OF A4TION

1) MINDANAO TERMINAL . @HOENI ASSURAN4E

Doctrin!+ plaintiff #as a cause of action aainst t#e defendant based onuasi7delict even t#ou# t#ere is no pre7e$istin relations#ip or contractbet&een t#e parties"

F&ct$!*el Monte P#ils" !ontracted Mindanao Terminal, a stevedorin company,to load and sto& a s#ipment of bananas and pineapples into t#e vessel MC>Mistrau doc)ed at t#e port of *avao !ity and bound for %nc#eon, Sout# Aorea"T#e oods &ere insured &it# P#oeni$ +ssurance" /pon disc#are of t#e caroin Aorea, several cartons of t#e bananas and pineapples &ere damaed and noloner #ad any commercial value" *el Monte filed an insurance claim and &aspaid by P#oeni$ +ssurance" T#e latter sued Mindanao Terminal for damaesbefore t#e RT! of *avao !ity" T#e RT! dismissed t#e complaint for lac) ofcause of action aainst Mindanao Terminal because its services &erecontracted by *el Monte and not by t#e insurer" T#e !+ reversed t#e rulin and#eld Mindanao Terminal to be liable for damaes"

I$$#!@#et#er P#oeni$ #as a cause of action aainst Mindanao Terminal"

H-+! =es" T#e complaint filed by P#oeni$ aainst Mindanao Terminal, fromic# t#e present case #as arisen, states a cause of action" T#e present actionis based on uasi7delict, arisin from t#e nelient and careless loadin andsto&in of t#e caroes belonin to *el Monte" Even assumin t#at P#oeni$#as only been subroated in t#e ri#ts of *el Monte, o is not a party to t#econtract of service bet&een Mindanao Terminal and *el Monte, still t#einsurance carriers may #ave a cause of action in li#t of t#e !ourts consistentrulin t#at t#e act t#at brea)s t#e contract may be also a tort" %n fine, a liabilityfor tort may arise even under a contract, ere tort is t#at ic# breac#es t#econtract" %n t#e present case, P#oeni$ is not suin for damaes for inuriesarisin from t#e breac# of t#e contract of service but from t#e alleed nelientmanner by ic# Mindanao Terminal #andled t#e caroes belonin to *elMonte Produce" *espite t#e absence of contractual relations#ip bet&een *elMonte Produce and Mindanao Terminal, t#e alleation of nelience on t#e partof t#e defendant s#ould be sufficient to establis# a cause of action arisin fromuasi7delict"

6) MA4ASLANG V AMORA

F&ct$! On Marc# 06, 0999, t#e respondents filed a complaint for unla&fuldetainer in t#e MT!!, allein t#at t#e petitioner sold to respondents aresidential land located in Saban, *anao !ity and t#at t#e petitionerreuested to be allo&ed to live in t#e #ouse &it# a promise to vacate as soonas s#e &ould be able to find a ne& residence" T#ey furt#er alleed t#at despitet#eir demand after a year, t#e petitioner failed or refused to vacate t#e premises"

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 68 : BDG ; SY 1


26/46


*espite t#e due service of t#e summons and copy of t#e complaint, t#epetitioner did not file #er ans&er" T#e MT!! declared #er in default upon t#erespondents motion to declare #er in default, and proceeded to receive t#erespondents oral testimony and documentary evidence" T#ereafter, onSeptember 01, 0999, t#e MT!! rendered udment- in favor of plaintiff Damoraand aainst defendant Macaslan orderin t#e latter to vacate t#e premisesRT!- dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. !+- reversed decision and

reinstated MT!!s decision

I$$#! @#et#er or not in an action for unla&ful detainer, ere t#ere &as noprior demand to vacate and comply &it# t#e conditions of t#e lease made, avalid cause of action e$istsJ

H-+!S! concurs &it# !+

+ complaint sufficiently allees a cause of action for unla&ful detainer if it statest#e follo&in-

a" %nitially, t#e possession of t#e property by t#e defendant &as bycontract &it# or by tolerance of t#e plaintiff.

b" Eventually, suc# possession became illeal upon notice by t#e plaintiff

to t#e defendant about t#e termination of t#e latters ri#t ofpossession.

c" T#ereafter, t#e defendant remained in possession of t#e property anddeprived t#e plaintiff of its enoyment. and

d" @it#in one year from t#e ma)in of t#e last demand to vacate t#eproperty on t#e defendant, t#e plaintiff instituted t#e complaint foreectment"

%n resolvin et#er t#e complaint states a cause of action or not, only t#e factsalleed in t#e complaint are considered" T#e test is et#er t#e court canrender a valid udment on t#e complaint based on t#e facts alleed and t#eprayer as)ed for" Only ultimate facts, not leal conclusions or evidentiary facts,are considered for purposes of applyin t#e test"

Based on its alleations, t#e complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action forunla&ful detainer" ;irstly, it averred t#at t#e petitioner possessed t#e property byt#e mere tolerance of t#e respondents" Secondly, t#e respondents demandedt#at t#e petitioner vacate t#e property, t#ereby renderin #er possession illeal"T#irdly, s#e remained in possession of t#e property despite t#e demand tovacate" +nd, fourt#ly, t#e respondents instituted t#e complaint on Marc# 06,0999,ic# &as &ell &it#in a year after t#e demand to vacate &as made aroundSeptember of 099 or later"

=et, even as &e rule t#at t#e respondents complaint stated a cause of action,&e must find and #old t#at bot# t#e RT! and t#e !+ erroneously appreciatedt#e real issue to be about t#e complaints failure to state a cause of action" %tcertainly &as not so, but t#e respondents lac) of cause of action" T#eir

erroneous appreciation e$pectedly prevented t#e correct resolution of t#eaction"

F&i-#r to $t&t & c$ o% &ction &n+ -&c o% c$ o% &ction &r r&--'+i%%rnt %ro* &c otr. On t on &n+, %&i-#r to $t&t & c$ o%&ction r%r$ to t in$#%%icinc' o% t "-&+in, &n+ i$ & ro#n+ %or+i$*i$$&- #n+r R#- 19 o% t R#-$ o% 4o#rt. On t otr &n+, -&c o%c$ &ction r%r$ to & $it#&tion 2r t i+nc +o$ not "ro t

c$ o% &ction &--+ in t "-&+in" ustice Realado, a reconiHedcommentator on remedial la&, #as e$plained t#e distinction-

$$$ @#at is contemplated, t#erefore, is a failure to state a cause of action ic#is provided in Sec" 0'( of Rule 02" T#is is a matter of insufficiency of t#epleadin" Sec" 5 of Rule 06, ic# &as also included as t#e last mode for raisint#e issue to t#e court, refers to t#e situation ere t#e evidence does not provea cause of action" T#is is, t#erefore, a matter of insufficiency of evidence";ailure to state a cause of action is different from failure to prove a cause ofaction" T#e remedy in t#e first is to move for dismissal of t#e pleadin, ile t#eremedy in t#e second is to demur to t#e evidence, #ence reference to Sec" 5 ofRule 06 #as been eliminated in t#is section" T#e procedure &ould conseuentlybe to reuire t#e pleadin to state a cause of action, by timely obection to its

deficiency. or, at t#e trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if suc# motion is&arranted"

+ complaint states a cause of action if it avers t#e e$istence of t#e t#reeessential elements of a cause of action, namely-

'a( T#e leal ri#t of t#e plaintiff.'b( T#e correlative obliation of t#e defendant. and'c( T#e act or omission of t#e defendant in violation of said leal ri#t"

%f t#e alleations of t#e complaint do not aver t#e concurrence of t#eseelements, t#e complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on t#eround of failure to state a cause of action" Evidently, it is not t#e lac) orabsence of a cause of action t#at is a round for t#e dismissal of t#e complaintbut t#e fact t#at t#e complaint states no cause of action" ;ailure to state a causeof action may be raised at t#e earliest staes of an action t#rou# a motion todismiss, but lac) of cause of action may be raised at any time after t#euestions of fact #ave been resolved on t#e basis of t#e stipulations,admissions, or evidence presented"

:avin found t#at neit#er E$#ibit ! nor E$#ibit E &as a proper demand tovacate, considerin t#at E$#ibit ! 't#e respondents letter dated ;ebruary 00,099( demanded t#e payment and E$#ibit E 't#eir letter dated anuary 80,0999( demanded t#e payment, t#e RT! concluded t#at t#e demand alleed int#e complaint did not constitute a demand to pay rent and to vacate t#epremises necessary in an action for unla&ful detainer" %t &as t#is conclusion t#atcaused t#e RT! to confuse t#e defect as failure of t#e complaint to state acause of action for unla&ful detainer"

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 69 : BDG ; SY 1


27/46


+lso, t#e demand not bein to pay rent and to vacate did not render t#e causeof action deficient" Based on t#e complaint, t#e petitioners possession &asalleedly based on t#e respondents tolerance, not on any contract bet&eent#em" :ence, t#edemand to vacate sufficed"

@:ERE;ORE, &e rant t#e petition for revie& on certiorari. set aside t#edecision promulated on uly 1, 8668 by t#e !ourt of +ppeals. and dismiss t#ecomplaint for unla&ful detainer for lac) of a cause of action"

#i$ition or &ccr#&- o% on 2i- t &ction i$ "n+in, and asupplemental complaint or an amendment settin up suc# after7accrued cause of action is not permissible"

#ic F&ct$! T#is case concerns t#e ri#t of dissentin stoc)#olders to demand

payment of t#e value of t#eir s#are#oldins"

%n t#e stoc)#olders suit to recover t#e value of t#eir s#are#oldins from t#e

corporation, t#e Reional Trial !ourt 'RT!( up#eld t#e dissentin stoc)#olders,

#erein petitioners, and ordered t#e corporation, #erein respondent, to pay"

E$ecution &as partially carried out aainst t#e respondent" On t#e respondents

petition for certiorari, #o&ever, t#e !ourt of +ppeals '!+( corrected t#e RT! and

dismissed t#e petitioners suit on t#e round t#at t#eir cause of action for

collection #ad not yet accrued due to t#e lac) of unrestricted retained earnins

in t#e boo)s of t#e respondent"

T#us, t#e petitioners are no& before t#e !ourt to c#allene t#e !+s decision"

F&ct$! T#e petitioners #eld 0,606,666 s#ares of stoc) of t#e respondent, a

domestic corporation enaed primarily in caro s#ippin activities" %n une

0999, t#e respondent decided to amend its articles of incorporation to remove

t#e stoc)#olders pre7emptive ri#ts to ne&ly issued s#ares of stoc)" ;eelin

t#at t#e corporate move &ould be preudicial to t#eir interest as stoc)#olders,

t#e petitioners voted aainst t#e amendment and demanded payment of t#eir

s#ares at t#e rate of P8"842Cs#are based on t#e boo) value of t#e s#ares, or a

total of P8,89,426"66"

T#e respondent found t#e fair value of t#e s#ares demanded by t#e petitioners

unacceptable" %t insisted t#at t#e mar)et value on t#e date before t#e action to

remove t#e pre7emptive ri#t &as ta)en s#ould be t#e value, or P6"30Cs#are 'ora total of P303,066"66(, considerin t#at its s#ares &ere listed in t#e P#ilippine

Stoc) E$c#ane, and t#at t#e payment could be made only if t#e respondent

#ad unrestricted retained earnins in its boo)s to cover t#e value of t#e s#ares,

ic# &as not t#e case"

T#e disareement on t#e valuation of t#e s#ares led t#e parties to constitute an

appraisal committee" T#e appraisal committee reported its valuation of

P8"53Cs#are, for an areate value of P8,525,366"66 for t#e petitioners"

Subseuently, t#e petitioners demanded payment based on t#e valuation of t#e

appraisal committee"

T#e respondent refused t#e petitioners demand, e$plainin t#at pursuant to t#e!orporation !ode, t#e dissentin stoc)#olders e$ercisin t#eir appraisal ri#ts

could be paid only en t#e corporation #ad unrestricted retained earnins to

cover t#e fair value of t#e s#ares, but t#at it #ad no retained earnins at t#e time

of t#e petitioners demand"

/pon t#e respondents refusal to pay, t#e petitioners sued t#e respondent for

collection and damaes in t#e RT! in Ma)ati !ity on anuary 88, 6551" T#e

RT! ude issued an order rantin t#e petitioners motion for partial summary

udment" Subseuently, t#e RT! issued a &rit of e$ecution"

T#e evidence submitted by plaintiffs s#o&s t#at in its uarterly financial

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 6 : BDG ; SY 1


28/46


statement it submitted to t#e Securities and E$c#ane !ommission, t#e

defendant #as retained earnins of P00,945,396 as of Marc# 80, 6556" T#is is

not disputed by t#e defendant" %ts only arument aainst payin is t#at t#ere

must be unrestricted retained earnin at t#e time t#e demand for payment is

made" *efendant appealed to t#e !+"

T#e !+ promulated its assailed decision #oldin t#at t#e Turners ri#t of

action arose only en defendant #ad already retained earnins in t#e amountof P00,945,396"66 on Marc# 80, 8668. suc# ri#t of action &as ine$istent on

anuary 88, 8660 en t#ey filed t#e !omplaint"

I$$#! @#et#er or not t#ere &as a cause of action en t#e complaint &as filed

'NO I cause of action &as premature(

H-+!

T#at t#e respondent #ad indisputably no unrestricted retained earnins in its

boo)s at t#e time t#e petitioners commenced !ivil !ase No" 60762 on anuary

88, 8660 proved t#at t#e respondents leal obliation to pay t#e value of t#e

petitioners s#ares did not yet arise" T#us, t#e !+ did not err in #oldin t#at t#e

petitioners #ad no cause of action, and in rulin t#at t#e RT! did not validly

render t#e partial summary udment"

Section 0, Rule 8, of t#e Rules of !ourt reuires t#at every ordinary civil action

must be based on a cause of action" +ccordinly, !ivil !ase No" 60762 &as

dismissible from t#e beinnin for bein &it#out any cause of action"

Even t#e fact t#at t#e respondent already #ad unrestricted retained earnins

more t#an sufficient to cover t#e petitioners claims on une 82, 8668 'en t#ey

filed t#eir motion for partial summary udment( did not rectify t#e absence of

t#e cause of action at t#e time of t#e commencement of !ivil !ase No" 60762"

T#e motion for partial summary udment, bein a mere application for relief

ot#er t#an by a pleadin, &as not t#e same as t#e complaint in !ivil !ase No"

60762" T#ereby, t#e petitioners did not meet t#e reuirement of t#e Rules of

!ourt t#at a cause of action must e$ist at t#e commencement of an action,

ic# is commenced by t#e filin of t#e oriinal complaint in court"

@:ERE;ORE, t#e petition for revie& on certiorari is denied for lac) of merit"

0) 4HUA . METROBAN?

Doctrin! ;orum s#oppin is committed by filin multiple cases basedon t#e same cause of action, alt#ou# &it# different prayers" Rules of

!ourt proscribe t#e splittin of a sinle cause of action" ;orums#oppin occurs alt#ou# t#e actions seem to be different, en it canbe seen t#at t#ere is a splittin of a cause of action" + cause of action isunderstood to be t#e delict or &ronful act or omission committed by t#edefendant in violation of t#e primary ri#ts of t#e plaintiff" %t is true t#at asinle act or omission can violate various ri#ts at t#e same time, asen t#e act constitutes uridically a violation of several separate and

distinct leal obliations" :o&ever, ere t#ere is only one delict or&ron, t#ere is but a sinle cause of action reardless of t#e number ofri#ts t#at may #ave been violated belonin to one person"

F&ct$! !#ua is t#e president of ;iliden, a domestic corporation,enaed in t#e realty business" Metropolitan Ban) and Trust !o"'Metroban)( is a domestic corporation and a duly licensed ban)ininstitution" Sometime in 09, !#ua and ;iliden 'petitioners( obtainedfrom Metroban) a loan of P3M, ic# &as secured by a real estatemortae 'REM( on parcels of land covered by T!Ts reistered in!#uas name 'subect properties("Since t#e value of t#e collateral &asmore t#an t#e loan, petitioners &ere iven an open credit line for future

loans" Subseuently, petitioners obtained ot#er loans from Metroban),and t#e real estate mortaes &ere repeatedly amended in accordance&it# t#e increase in petitioners liabilities" :avin failed to fully pay t#eirobliations, petitioners entered into a *ebt Settlement +reement &it#Metroban) ereby t#e loan obliations of t#e former &ere restructured"T#e debt consisted of a total principal amount of P49"25M plus unpaidinterest of P4"96M and penalty c#ares of P558,43"92" +mortiHationpayments &ere to be made in accordance &it# t#e sc#edule attac#ed tot#e areement" %n a letter dated t#e la&yers of Metroban) demandedt#at petitioners fully pay and settle t#eir liabilities, includin interest andpenalties, in t#e total amount of P061M as &ell as t#e stipulatedattorneys fees, &it#in t#ree days from receipt of said letter"

@#en petitioners still failed to pay t#eir loans, Metroban) sou#t toe$tra7udicially foreclose t#e REM constituted on t#e subect properties"/pon a verified Petition for ;oreclosure filed by Metroban) +tty" !elestraissued a Notice of Sale, erein t#e mortae debt &as set at PMe$cludin unpaid interest and penalties, attorneys fees, leal fees, andot#er e$penses for t#e foreclosure and sale" T#e auction sale &assc#eduled on 10 May 8660" On 3 May 8660, petitioners received a copyof t#e Notice of Sale"

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 6 : BDG ; SY 1


29/46


Subseuently, !#ua, in #is personal capacity and actin on be#alf of;iliden, filed before t#e RT!, a !omplaint for %nunction &it# Prayer for%ssuance of TRO, Preliminary %nunction and *amaes, aainst +tty"!elestra et"al" '!ivil !ase 0(" /pon t#e motion of petitioners, RT!issued a TRO enoinin Metroban) and +tty" !elestra from conductint#e auction sale of t#e mortaed properties" +fter t#e e$piration of t#eTRO, and no inunction #avin been issued by RT!7Branc# 854, +tty"

!elestra reset t#e auction sale" On t#e resc#eduled date of t#e auctionsale, RT!7Branc# 854 issued an Order directin t#at t#e said sale bereset ane&" T#e Order &as served on November 8660, on +tty"!elestras dau#ter, +rlene !elestra, at a coffee s#op o&ned by t#eformers ot#er dau#ter, ?race !elestra +uirre" T#e auction sale,#o&ever, proceeded on November 8660, and a !ertificate of Sale &asaccordinly issued to Metroban) as t#e #i#est bidder of t#e foreclosedproperties"

Petitioners filed &it# RT!7Branc# 854 a Motion to +dmit +mended!omplaint in !ivil !ase 0" T#e +mended >erified !omplaint,attac#ed tot#e said Motion, impleaded as additional defendant t#e incumbent

Reister of *eeds of Paraaue !ity" Petitioners alleed t#at t#e!ertificate of Sale &as a falsified document since t#ere &as no actualsale t#at too) place on November 8660" +nd, even if an auction sale&as conducted, t#e !ertificate of Sale &ould still be void because t#eauction sale &as done in disobedience to a la&ful order of RT!7Branc#854" Petitioners additionally prayed in t#eir +mended !omplaint for t#ea&ard of damaes iven t#e abuse of po&er of Metroban) in t#epreparation, e$ecution, and implementation of t#e *ebt Settlement

+reement &it# petitioners. t#e bad fait# of Metroban) in offerin t#esubect properties at a price muc# lo&er t#an its assessed fair mar)etvalue. and t#e ross violation by Metroban) and +tty" !elestra of t#einunction" Petitioners also sou#t, in t#eir +mended !omplaint, t#e

issuance of a TRO or a &rit of preliminary inunction to enoinrespondent +tty" !elestra and all ot#er persons from proceedin &it# t#eforeclosure sale, on t#e premise t#at no auction sale &as actually #eldon November 8660"

%n an Order, RT!7Branc# 854 denied petitioners application forinunction on t#e round t#at t#e sale of t#e foreclosed propertiesrendered t#e same moot and academic" T#e auction sale, ic# &asconducted by Metroban) and +tty" !elestra, after t#e e$piration of t#eTRO, and &it#out )no&lede of t#e Order dated November 8660 ofRT!7Branc# 854, &as considered as proper and valid" Petitioners filed a

MR of t#e 2 Marc# 8668 Order of RT!7Branc# 854" @#en RT!7Branc#854 failed to ta)e any action on said Motion, petitioners filed &it# t#e !+a Petition for !ertiorari" %n a *ecision, t#e !+ reversed t#e 2 Marc#8668 Order of RT!7Branc# 854 and remanded t#e case for furt#erproceedins" T#e Supreme !ourt dismissed t#e appeal of respondents&it# finality" T#us, RT!7Branc# 854 set t#e #earin for t#e presentationof evidence by Metroban) for t#e application for preliminary inunction"

Petitioner also sou#t t#e in#ibition of +ctin E$ecutive ude Rolando:o& of RT!7Branc# 854, o presided over !ivil !ase" T#eir motion&as ranted and t#e case &as re7raffled to RT!7Branc# 85"

Petitioners filed &it# Branc# 095 of t#e RT! Paraaue 'RT!7Branc#095( a >erified !omplaint for *amaes aainst Metroban), +tty"!elestra, and 1 Metroban) la&yers, namely, +tty" >iray, +tty" Mirandaand +tty" Maynio '!ivil !ase 8(" Petitioners sou#t in t#eir !omplaintt#e a&ard of actual, moral, and e$emplary damaes aainst t#erespondents for ma)in it appear t#at an auction sale of t#e subectproperties too) place, as a result of ic#, t#e prospective buyers of t#esaid properties lost t#eir interest and !#ua &as prevented from realiHin

a profit of P46M from t#e intended sale"

Petitioners filed &it# RT!7Branc# 095 a Motion to !onsolidated, see)int#e consolidation of !ivil !ase 8, t#e action for damaes pendin beforesaid court, &it# !ivil !ase 0, t#e inunction case t#at &as bein #eardbefore RT!7Branc# 85, based on t#e follo&in rounds- +" T#e above7captioned case is a complaint for damaes as a result of t#e #ereinrespondents conspiracy to ma)e it appear as if t#ere &as an auctionsale conducted on November , 8660 en in fact t#ere &as none" T#eproperties subect of t#e said auction sale are t#e same propertiessubect of !ivil !ase No" 0". B" Since t#e subect matter of bot# casesare t#e same properties and t#e parties of bot# cases are almost t#e

same, and bot# cases #ave t#e same central issue of et#er t#ere&as an auction sale, t#en necessarily, bot# cases s#ould beconsolidated"

Respondents filed &it# RT!7Branc# 095 an Opposition to Motion to!onsolidate &it# Prayer for Sanctions, prayin for t#e dismissal of t#e!omplaint for *amaes in !ivil !ase No" 8, on t#e round of forums#oppin" %n an Order, RT!7Branc# 095 ranted t#e Motion to!onsolidate, and ordered t#at !ivil !ase 8 be transferred to RT!7Branc# 85, ic# &as #earin !ivil !ase 0" +fter t#e t&o cases &ereconsolidated, respondents filed t&o motions before RT!7Branc# 85-

Att'. T. S&-&+or : 6 : BDG ; SY 1


30/46


'0( MR of t#e Order RT!7Branc# 095, ic# ranted t#e Motion to!onsolidate of petitioners. and '8( Manifestation and Motion raisin t#eround of forum s#oppin, amon t#e affirmative defenses ofrespondents"RT!7Branc# 85 issued an Order, rantin t#e first Motionof respondents, t#us, dismissin !ivil !ase 8 on t#e round of forums#oppin, and conseuently, renderin t#e second Motion ofrespondents moot" RT!7Branc# 85 declared t#at t#e facts or claims

submitted by petitioners, t#e ri#ts asserted, and t#e principal parties int#e t&o cases &ere t#e same" RT!7Branc# 85 #eld in its Order t#at-since t#ere is identity of parties and t#e ri#ts asserted, t#e alleationsof t#e defendant are found meritorious and &it# leal basis, t#e motionis ?R+NTE* and t#is case is *%SM%SSE* due to forum s#oppin" +sreards t#e second motion, t#e same #as already been mooted by t#edismissal of t#is case" T#e MR filed by t#e defendants ereby t#iscase is *%SM%SSE* due to forum s#oppin and t#e Manifestation andMotion li)e&ise filed by t#e defendants #as already been MOOTE* byt#e said dismissal"

;rom t#e foreoin Order of RT!7Branc# 85, petitioners filed a Petition

for Revie& on !ertiorari &it# t#e !+" %n a *ecision t#e !+ affirmedOrder of RT!7Branc# 85" T#e appellate court observed t#at alt#ou#t#e defendants in t#e t&o cases &ere not identical, t#ey represented acommunity of interest" %t also declared t#at t#e cause of action of t#et&o cases, upon ic# t#e recovery of damaes &as based, &as t#esame, i"e", t#e feined auction sale, suc# t#at t#e nullification of t#eforeclosure of t#e subect properties, ic# petitioners sou#t in !ivil!ase 0, &ould render proper t#e a&ard for damaes, claimed bypetitioners in !ivil !ase 8" T#us, udment in eit#er case &ould result inres udicata" !+ additionally noted t#at petitioners admitted in t#eirMotion for !onsolidation t#at !ivil !ase 0 and !ivil !ase 8 involved t#esame parties, central issue, and subect properties" %n its *ecision, t#e

appellate court decreed- T#e dismissal by t#e RT!7Br" 85, !ivil !ase8, on t#e round of forum s#oppin s#ould be up#eld as it is supportedby la& and urisprudence" Petitioners filed a MR, ic# t#e !+ denied"

I$$#! @ONpetitioners t#e successive filin of civil cases amounts to

forum s#oppin" '=ES(

H-+! Section 5 or t#e RO! provides !ertification aainst forums#oppin" ;ailure to comply &it# t#ose reuirements s#all not becurable by mere amendment of t#e complaint or ot#er initiatory pleadinbut s#all be cause for t#e dismissal of t#e case &it#out preudice, unless

ot#er&ise provided, upon motion and after #earin" T#e submission of afalse certification or non7compliance &it# any of t#e underta)ins t#ereins#all constitute indirect contempt of court, &it#out preudice to t#ecorrespondin administrative and criminal actions" %f t#e acts of t#eparty or #is counsel clearly constitutes &illful and deliberate forums#oppin, t#e same s#all be round for summary dismissal &it#preudice and s#all constitute direct contempt, as &ell as a cause for

administrative sanctions" ;orum s#oppin e$ists en a partyrepeatedly avails #imself of several udicial remedies in different courts,simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on t#e sametransactions and t#e same essential facts and circumstances, and allraisin substantially t#e same issues eit#er pendin in or alreadyresolved adversely by some ot#er court" /ltimately, at is trulyimportant in determinin et#er forum s#oppin e$ists or not is t#eve$ation caused t#e courts and party7litiant by a party o as)sdifferent courts to rule on t#e same or related causes andCor to rant t#esame or substantially t#e same reliefs, in t#e process creatin t#epossibility of conflictin decisions bein rendered by t#e different foraupon t#e same issue" ;orum s#oppin can be committed in t#ree &ays-

'0( filin multiple cases based on t#e same cause of action and &it# t#esame prayer, t#e previous case not #avin been resolved yet 'ere t#eround for dismissal is litis pendentia(. '8( filin multiple cases based ont#e same cause of action and t#e same prayer, t#e previous case#avin been finally resolved 'ere t#e round for dismissal is res

udicata(. and '1( filin multiple cases based on t#e same cause ofaction, but &it# different prayers 'splittin of causes of action, ere t#eround for dismissal is also eit#er litis pendentia or res udicata("

%n t#e present case, t#ere is no dispute t#at petitioners failed to state int#e !ertificate of Non7;orum S#oppin, attac#ed to t#eir >erified!omplaint in !ivil !ase t#e e$istence of !ivil !ase in Paranaue

pendin before RT!7Branc# 85" Nevert#eless, petitioners insist t#att#ey are not uilty of forum s#oppin, since '0( t#e t&o cases do not#ave t#e same ultimate obective I !ivil !ase 0 see)s t#e annulment oft#e public auction and certificate of sale issued t#erein, ile !ivil !ase8 prays for t#e a&ard of actual and compensatory damaes forrespondents tortuous act of ma)in it appear t#at an auction saleactually too) place on November 8660. and '8( t#e udment in !ivil!ase 0, on t#e annulment of t#e foreclosure sale, &ould not affect t#eoutcome of !ivil !ase 8, on t#e entitlement of petitioners to damaes"T#e !ourt, #o&ever, finds t#ese aruments refuted by t#e alleationsmade by petitioners t#emselves in t#eir !omplaints in bot# cases"

Att'. T. S&-&+or :


31/46


:o&ever, Petitioners committed forum s#oppin by filin multiple casesbased on t#e same cause of action, alt#ou# &it# different prayers"Sections 1 and 3, Rule 8 of t#e Rules of !ourt proscribe t#e splittin of asinle cause of action- Section 1" + party may not institute more t#anone suit for a sinle cause of action" Section 3" Splittin a sinle causeof action. effect of"Y%f t&o or more suits are instituted on t#e basis of t#esame cause of action, t#e filin of one or a udment upon t#e merits in

any one is available as a round for t#e dismissal of t#e ot#ers"

;orum s#oppin occurs alt#ou# t#e actions seem to be different, enit can be seen t#at t#ere is a splittin of a cause of action" + cause ofaction is understood to be t#e delict or &ronful act or omissioncommitted by t#e defendant in violation of t#e primary ri#ts of t#eplaintiff" %t is true t#at a sinle act or omission can violate various ri#tsat t#e same time, as en t#e act constitutes uridically a violation ofseveral separate and distinct leal obliations" :o&ever, ere t#ere isonly one delict or &ron, t#ere is but a sinle cause of action reardlessof t#e number of ri#ts t#at may #ave been violated belonin to oneperson"

Petitioners &ould li)e to ma)e it appear t#at !ivil !ase 0 &as solelyconcerned &it# t#e nullification of t#e auction sale and certification ofsale, ile !ivil !ase 8 &as a totally separate claim for damaes" =et, arevie& of t#e records reveals t#at petitioners also included an e$plicitclaim for damaes in t#eir +mended !omplaint in !ivil !ase 0"Petitioners averred in t#eir +mended !omplaint in !ivil !ase 0 t#at t#eassessed fair mar)et value of t#e subect properties &as P042,004,666"T#e !ourt observes t#at t#e damaes bein claimed by petitioners int#eir !omplaint in !ivil !ase 8 &ere also occasioned by t#e supposedlyfictitious November 8660 foreclosure sale"

T#ere is no uestion t#at t#e claims of petitioners for damaes in !ivil!ase 0 and !ivil !ase 8 are premised on t#e same cause of action, i"e",t#e purportedly &ronful conduct of respondents in connection &it# t#eforeclosure sale of t#e subect properties"

+t first lance, said claims for damaes may appear different" %n !ivil!ase 0, t#e damaes purportedly arose from t#e bad fait# ofrespondents in offerin t#e subect properties at t#e auction sale at aprice muc# lo&er t#an t#e assessed fair mar)et value of t#e saidproperties, said to be P042,004,666" On t#e ot#er #and, t#e damaes in!ivil !ase 8, alleedly resulted from t#e bac)in out of prospective

buyers, o #ad initially offered to buy t#e subect properties for notless t#an P045M because respondents made it appear t#at t#e saidproperties &ere already sold at t#e auction sale" =et, it is &ort#y to notet#at petitioners uoted closely similar values for t#e subect properties inbot# cases, aainst ic# t#ey measured t#e damaes t#ey supposedlysuffered" Evidently, t#is is due to t#e fact t#at petitioners actually basedt#e said values on t#e sinle appraisal report of t#e P#ilippine +ppraisal

!ompany on t#e subect properties" Even t#ou# petitioners did notspecify in t#eir +mended !omplaint in !ivil !ase 0 t#e e$act amount ofdamaes t#ey &ere see)in to recover, leavin t#e same to t#edetermination of t#e trial court, and petitioners e$pressly prayed t#att#ey be a&arded damaes of not less t#an P46M in t#eir !omplaint in!ivil !ase 8 petitioners cannot deny t#at all t#eir claims for damaesarose from at t#ey averred &as a fictitious public auction sale of t#esubect properties" 1avvphi1

Petitioners contention t#at t#e outcome of !ivil !ase 0 &ill notdetermine t#at of !ivil !ase 8 does not ustify t#e filin of separatecases" Even if it &ere assumed t#at t#e t&o cases contain t&o separate

remedies t#at are bot# available to petitioners, t#ese t&o remedies t#atarose from one &ronful act cannot be pursued in t&o different cases"T#e rule aainst splittin a cause of action is intended to preventrepeated litiation bet&een t#e same parties in reard to t#e samesubect of controversy, to protect t#e defendant from unnecessaryve$ation. and to avoid t#e costs and e$penses incident to numeroussuits" %t comes from t#e old ma$im nemo debet bis ve$ari, pro una eteadem causa 'no man s#all be t&ice ve$ed for one and t#e samecause(" Moreover, petitioners admitted in t#eir Motion to !onsolidatedbefore RT!7Branc# 095 t#at bot# cases s#ared t#e same parties, t#esame central issue, and t#e same subect property"

%f t#e forum s#oppin is not considered &illful and deliberate, t#esubseuent case s#all be dismissed &it#out preudice, on t#e round ofeit#er litis pendentia or res udicata" :o&ever, if t#e forum s#oppin is&illful and deliberate, bot# 'or all, if t#ere are more t#an t&o( actionss#all be dismissed &it# preudice" %n t#is case, petitioners did notdeliberately file !ivil !ase 8 for t#e purpose of see)in a favorabledecision in anot#er forum" Ot#er&ise, t#ey &ould not #ave moved fort#e consolidation of bot# cases" T#us, only !ivil !ase 8 is dismissedand t#e #earin of !ivil !ase 0 before RT!7Branc# 85 &ill becontinued"

Att'. T. S&-&+or :


32/46


T#e Petition is *EN%E*" T#e *ecision and Resolution of t#e !+affirmin t#e Order of Branc# 85 of t#e Reional Trial !ourt ofParaaue !ity, dismissin !ivil !ase, is +;;%RME*, &it#out preudiceto t#e proceedins in anot#er !ivil !ase" !osts aainst petitioners"

8) 4HU V. 4UNANAN

Doctrin! Splittin a sinle cause of action is t#e act of dividin a sinleor indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and institutin

t&o or more actions upon t#em" + sinle cause of action or entire claim

or demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be made t#e subect

of t&o or more actions" %f t&o or more suits are instituted on t#e basis of

t#e same cause of action, t#e filin of one or a udment upon t#e merits

in any one is available as a round for t#e dismissal of ot#ers"

F&ct$! T#e !#us e$ecuted a deed of sale &it# assumption of mortae

coverin 5 parcels of lot in favor of t#e !unanans" T#e deed stipulated

t#at t#e o&ners#ip over t#e lots &ould only be transferred to t#e

!unanans upon complete payment" @it#out t#e )no&lede of t#e

!#us, t#e !unanans &ere able to transfer t#e title of t#e lots to t#eir

names, pursuant to a special po&er of attorney issued by t#e !#us in

favor of t#e !unanans"

T#us, t#e !#us sued for t#e recovery of t#e unpaid balance, ic# &as

later on amended to see) t#e annulment of t#e deed of sale &it#

assumption of mortae" Since some of t#e lots &ere already

transferred to t#ird parties, t#e parties entered into a compromise

areement statin t#at t#e !unanans &ill transfer to t#e !#us 56K of

t#eir s#are in all parcels of land for and in consideration of t#e fullsettlement of t#e case" T#e compromise areement &as approved by

t#e court"

T#ereafter, t#e !#us sued t#e !unanans for t#e cancellation of t#e

T!Ts of t&o lots 'out of t#e 5 lots involved(" T#e !unanans moved to

dismiss on rounds of res udicata" T#e lo&er court denied t#e motion"

T#e !+ reversed"

I$$#! @CN t#e !#us may proceed aainst t#e !unanans in t#e

subseuent action"

H-+! NO. T#e !#us &ere uilty of splittin t#eir cause of action" T#e

compromise areement #as already put to end t#e litiation amon t#e

5 lots involved" T#e ri#ts and obliations of t#e parties concernin t#e

five lots &ere defined and overned by t#e deed of sale &it# assumptionof mortae, t#e only contract bet&een t#em" T#at contract &as sinle

and indivisible" T#e !#us could not properly proceed aainst t#e

!unanans in t#e subseuent case because t#ere can only be one action

ere t#e contract is entire, and t#e breac# is total, t#us, t#e !#us must

recover all t#eir claims and damaes in one case" T#ey cannot be

permitted to split up a sinle cause of action and ma)e t#at sinle cause

of action t#e basis of several suits"

@it# t#at, res udicata is present barrin t#e subseuent action aainst

t#e !unanans" 'Reuisites for res udicata- identity of parties, subect

matter and cause of action("

9) NM Rot$ci-+ P Son$ . L"&nto 4on$o-i+&t+ Minin 4o*"&n'

F&ct$!


33/46


H-+!Petition *EN%E*" +s correctly ruled by t#e T! and t#e !+, t#e alleed

absence of a cause of action 'as opposed to t#e failure to state a cause of

action(, t#e alleed estoppel on t#e part of petitioner, and t#e arument t#at

respondent is inpari delictoin t#e e$ecution of t#e c#allened contracts, are not

rounds in a MT* as enumerated in Sec 0, Rule 02, RO!" " Rat#er, suc#

defenses raise evidentiary issues closely related to t#e validity andCor e$istence

of respondents alleed cause of action and s#ould t#erefore be t#res#ed out

durin t#e trial"

+ cause of action is t#e act or omission by ic# a party violates a ri#t of

anot#er" %ts elements are t#e follo&in- '0( a ri#t e$istin in favor of t#e plaintiff,

'8( a duty on t#e part of t#e defendant to respect t#e plaintiffFs ri#t, and '1( an

act or omission of t#e defendant in violation of suc# ri#t" T#e complaint must

s#o& t#at t#e claim for relief does not e$ist and not only t#at t#e claim &as

defectively stated or is ambiuous, indefinite or uncertain"

:ere, t#e case contains all t#ree elements of a cause of action" i.e. it allees

t#at- '0( plaintiff #as t#e ri#t to as) for t#e declaration of nullity of t#e :edin.

'8( defendant #as t#e correspondin obliation not to enforce t#e :edin

rem digests set1 1.7

Documents