REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I - CASE DIGEST COMPILATION BASED ON ATTY.

BRONDIAL'S 2017 SYLLABUS

COMPILED & UPDATED BY: REYNALDO DALISAY JR., MARIANNE SERRANO (The Poypis')

matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done
except to enforce by execution what the court has determined but the latter does not completely
dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with
preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to
ascertain whether or not an order or a judgement is interlocutory or final is, does the order or judgment
leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to merits of the case? If it does, the order or
judgment is interlocutory, otherwise, it is final.
And secondly, whether an order is final or interlocutory determines whether appeal is the correct
remedy or not. A final order is appealable, to accord with the final judgement rule enunciated in Section
1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the effect that “appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order
that completely disposes the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be
appealable,” but the remedy from an interlocutory one is not an appeal but a special civil action for
certiorari.

2. Yes

The appeal was made on time pursuant to Neypes v. CA

The Court meanwhile adopted the fresh period rule in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, by which an
aggrieved party desirous of appealing an adverse judgment or final order is allowed a fresh period of 15
days within which to the notice of appeal in the RTC reckoned from receipt of the order denying a
motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration. Under the rule, Javellana's notice of appeal filed on
July 19, 2000 was timely filed pursuant to the fresh period rule.

3. No

Forum shopping is the act of a party litigant against whom an adverse judgment has been
rendered in one forum seeking and possibly getting a favourable opinion in another forum, other than
by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause or supposition that one or the other court would make a favourable
disposition. Forum shopping happens when in the two or more pending cases, there is identity of
parties, identity of rights or causes of action, and identity of reliefs sought. Where the elements of litis
pendente are present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other,
there is forum shopping.
 For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, there must be: (a) identity of the
parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts and (c) the identity in the two cases
should be such that the judgment which may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the other.

For forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transaction, same essential
FACTS and circumstances and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Clearly, it
does not exist where different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of action and issues were
raised, and two objectives were sought.

In his appeal in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 68259, Javellana aimed to undo the RTC's erroneous dismissal
of Civil Case No. 79-M-97 to clear the way for his judicial demand for specific performance to be tried
and determined in due course by the RTC; but his petition for certiorari had the ostensible objective "to
prevent (Priscilla) from developing the subject property and from proceeding with the ejectment case
until his appeal is finally resolved," as the CA explicitly determined in its decision in C.A.-G.R. SP No.
60455.

Nor were the dangers that the adoption of the judicial policy against forum shopping designed
to prevent or to eliminate attendant. The first danger, i.e., the multiplicity of suits upon one and the
same cause of action would not materialize considering that the appeal was a continuity of Civil Case
No. 79-M-97 whereas C.A.-G.R. whereas C.A.-G.R.

S.P. No. 60455 dealt with an independent ground of alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC. The second danger, i.e., the unethical malpractice of
shopping for a friendly court or judge to ensure a favourable ruling or judgement after not getting it in
the appeal, would not arise because the CA had not yet decided C.A.-G.R. No. 68259 as of the filing of
the petition for certiorari.

MEDADO vs. HEIRS OF ANTONIO CONSUING

665 SCRA 534

TOPIC: Verification and Certification

FACTS: (Spouses Medado) and Estate of Consuing executed Deeds of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage
of the property identified as Hacienda.

As part of the deal Spouses Medado undertook to assume the estate's loan with (PNB). Subsequent to
the sale, however, the estate of Consing offered the subject lots to the government. Estate of Consing
also instituted with the RTC, an action for rescission and damages against Spouses Medado due to the
alleged failure of the spouses to meet the conditions in their agreement.
In the meantime while the case for rescission was pending, Land Bank issued in favour of the Estate of
Consing a certificate of deposit of cash as compensation for the lots. Spouses Medado feared that LBP
would release the full proceeds thereof to the Estate of Consing, they institute an action for injunction
to restrain LBP from releasing the remaining amount of the proceeds of the lots to Estate of Consing,
and restraining the Estate of Consing from receiving these proceeds.
RTC granted the injunction (Medado) and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued. The writ was
implemented 1 day before the hearing for the motion for reconsideration filed by Heirs of Consing.
Feeling aggrieved, the heirs of the late Antonio Consing (Consing) questioned the RTC's order via a
petition for certiorari filed with the CA. They sought among other reliefs, the dismissal of the complaint
for injunction for violation of the rules on litis pendentia and forum shopping.
On the matter of the absence of a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order before resorting
to a petition for certiorari, the heirs explained that the implementation of the questioned writs rendered
their motion for reconsideration moot and academic. The heirs argued that their case was within the
exceptions to the general rule that a petition under Rule 65 will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is first filed.

CA NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE the ruling of RTC

The CA ruled that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of Civil Case for injunction
during the pendency of Civil Case for rescission and damages as this violates the rule against forum
shopping.

ISSUES: Whether or not the requirement for verification and certification against forum shopping
complied with by the heirs of Consing when the same is solely signed by Soledad- administratix?

RULING: The requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping in the CA petition
were substantially compiled with following settled jurisprudence. Where the petitioners are immediate
relatives, who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of
the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will not deter the court from
proceeding with the action.
The Court has consistently held that verification of a pleading is a formal, not a jurisdictional
requirement intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and
correct. Thus, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and
waive strict compliance with the rules. It is deemed substantially complied with when one who has
ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations