Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
purely technical. The plaintiff has jurisdiction may be raised at any time
asserted all throughout that he is & at any stage of the action.
prosecuting the case not for himself
but for the Bishop. Substantially, no JAVIER V CA. Doctrine of Primary
one is deceived. Substitution is not Administrative Jurisdiction: file original and
substantial but formal & mere defect exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunal,
in form cannot possibly prejudice so even if possible to lead jurisdiction in both.
long as the substantial is clearly
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is to give
evident.
a chance for administrative functions to work.
ALONZO V VILLAMOR. misjoinder/non- Santos v. NW, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)
joinder of parties not ground for dismissal.
Must allege lack of cause of action Facts: Santos was bumped off his
Amendment allowed for matters of flight back to the USA despite
form; therefore, if parties acquiesce during trial, confirmation. He sued in the Makati
there may be no need for formal lesson. RTC for damages. NWOA filed a MTD
Lesson in ALONZO: If rules are clear, apply; if for on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
there is ambiguity, constr5uct so that there is citing the Warsaw Convention Art.
justice for all 28(1) w/c states that the complaint
could be instituted only in the territory
Jurisdiction of one of the High Contracting Parties,
before: (1) the ct. of the domicile of
BP Blg. 128 the carrier; (2) the ct. of the principal
place of business; (3) the ct. where it
RA No. 7691
has a place of business thru w/c the
RA No. 8369 contract had been made; & (4) the ct.
of the place of destination. The suit
was not filed in any of these places.
Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992)
Held: The Warsaw Convention applies
to all international transportation
Facts: Javier filed a case vs. Jebsens cases. A number of reasons tends to
Maritime, Inc. in RTC Makati to avail of
support the characterization of Art. 28
death benefits when her husband
(1) as a jurisdiction & not a venue
drowned off the coast of Spain. JMI’s
provision. First, the wording of Art. 32,
new counsel instead of continuing the
w/c indicate the places where the actin
trial filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) on
for damages must be brought
the ground that it is the POEA that has
underscores the mandatory nature of
jurisdiction. RTC denied. JMI failed to
Art. 28 (1). Second, this
appear at the hearing & RTC declared
characterization is consistent wit one
them as having waived right to cross-
of the objectives of the Convention w/c
examine. Motion for Reconsideration
is to regulate in a uniform manner the
was denied. JMI successfully appealed
condition of international
to CA. Javier’s MFR was denied.
transportation by air. Third, the
Held: EO 247 §3 (d) provides that the Convention does not contain any
POEA shall have exclusive & original provision prescribing rules on
jurisdiction to hear & decide all claims jurisdiction other than Art. 28 (1) w/c
arising out of an EE-ER relation or by means that the phrase “rules of
virtue of any law or contract involving jurisdiction” used in Art. 32 must refer
Filipino workers for overseas only to Art. 28 (1). In fact, the last
employment. Javier’s’ contention that sentence of Art. 32 specifically deals
JMI is estopped fr. assailing the w/ the exclusive enumeration in Art.
jurisdiction of the RTC considering that 28 (1) as jurisdictions w/c as such
the latter had actively participated in cannot be left to the will of the parties
the proceedings before said ct. is regardless of the time when the
unavailing since JMI had raised the damage occurred. The Constitutional
question of jurisdiction in the RTC. The right on free access to cts. refers to
doctrine of estoppel cannot be cts. w/ jurisdiction over the suit. The
properly invoked by Javier despite the place of destination as determined by
participation of JMI at the initial stages the contract is the ultimate destination
of the trial proceedings as the issue of
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
2
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Facts: Lopez was bumped off her Held: MuTC had jurisdiction. But to
flight to New York by Northwest. She resolve this, determine first the nature
filed a complaint for breach of contract of the action. This can be ascertained
of carriage w/ damages, alleging bad fr. the ultimate facts averred in the
faith on the part of the airline. NW complaint constituting the COA.
filed MTD on the ground that the RTC Allegations in the complaint determine
had no jurisdiction under the Warsaw the nature of the action &
Convention. RTC & CA denied: Art. 28 consequently the jurisdiction of the
(1) prescribes venue for actions under cts.. It is clear fr. a reading of the
Arts. 17-19 & does not cover carrier’s complaint that it is an action for
bad faith in absolutely refusing to damages predicated on quasi-delict
comply w/ contract of carriage; off- Although the title of the complaint
loading, & bumping off is not covered (“Damages”) is not necessarily
under the Warsaw Convention. Appeal determinative of the nature of the
in the SC failed. After trial on the action, it would nevertheless indicate
merits, RTC directed parties to submit that what was contemplated was an
their respective memoranda for action for damages. Allegations of the
decision 30 days & it expired Feb. 14, facts set forth in the complaint & not
1992. On July, NW filed MTD after SC the prayer for relief determine the
ruling on Santos vs. NW. RTC granted. nature of the action.
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. It is not BULAO V CA. The wonderful thing about the
clear whether the complaint contains servient's estate's complaint was the allegation
the allegation w/c may fall w/in Art. 28 that the dominant estate "maliciously put a dam"
(1). What is clear is that NW did not and this phrase placed it within the court's
object to RTC’s order to submit jurisdiction. To place the case within the
evidence & declare case submitted for National Water Resources Council (NWRC)'s
decision pursuant to 1987 Consti, Art. jurisdiction, allege that dominant estate set up
8, Sec. 15, Nos. 1 & 2. TC had 90 days dam without a permit in violation of PD 1067
fr. Feb. 15 to decide w/c was the only and took control of the water, in effect
thing left for it to do. BY virtue of the appropriated water illegally.
SC’s resolution, RTC had prima facie
jurisdiction. It was also not established Name game: Jurisdiction is prescribed by law
that the facts in Santos were and acquired by court.
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
3
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
4
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Jurisdiction, remedy, relief, cause of action, that gives rise to 2 causes of action: misjoinder
subject matter (what is this?) of parties
Place: Rules prescribing place to file may not L: lack cause of action a separate case (WIT?)
necessarily refer to venue but to jurisdiction as Strategy: file answer for 1st cause of action;
well file MTD for 2nd cause of action
admitted in ct.. Sun questions this examined the petitioner. R, then, filed
order. a certiorari & prohibition w/
preliminary injunction when the
Held: Petition dismissed for lack of decision was adverse to him.
merit. The contention that Manchester Held: Petition denied. A party who
ruling cannot apply retroactively to has affirmed & invoked the jurisdiction
this case is untenable. Statutes of a ct. in a particular matter to secure
regulating the procedure of the cts. an affirmative relief cannot,
will be construed to apply to actions afterwards, deny the same jurisdiction
pending & undetermined at the time to escape a penalty.
of their passage. Procedural laws are
retrospective in that sense & to that LECTURE ON KATARUNGANG
extent. It is not simply the filing of the PAMBARANGAY
complaint or pleading but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee General Rule. All civil actions, regardless of
that vests the trial ct. w/ jurisdiction amount of relief, between parties of the same
over the subject matter or nature of baranggay, should undergo Katarunggang
the action. Where the TC acquires Pambaranggay
jurisdiction over a claim w/ the filing of Remedy: a) Don't arrive at a settlement
the appropriate pleading & payment
b) File case v. Lupon to compel them
of the prescribed filing fee, but
subsequently the an award of an to dismiss objectinable Lupon member
amount not specified in the pleading, (This case need not undergo KP re sec. 408 (b)
or if specified, the same has been left and sec. 406 (a)) (WIT?)
for determination by the ct., the
additional filing fee shall constitute a MANCHESTER rule: full payment of docket
lien on the judgment. It shall be the fees necessary for court to acquire jurisdiction
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or All prayers must be in the complaint,
his duly authorized deputy to enforce not just in the body
said lien & assess the additional fee. Overruled LEGASPI re: installment
payments no longer allowed
Katarungang Pambarangay
SUN INSURANCE: bar problem. If there is an
honest difference of opinion as to amount of
See RA 7160 provisions docket fees and P is in good faith, court can
grant period of time to allow payment. Qualifies
Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 MANCHESTER only to that extent
Facts: This was a case for the MANCHESTER: if award to judgment creditor
recovery of a sum of money plus is greater than the amount prayed form,
damages = P49,400.00. AA MTD was difference in docket fees constitutes first lien.
filed bec. of failure to undergo
NOTE: but no payback of excess fees even if
conciliation proceeding in the brgy.
The MTD was opposed on the ground awarded less
that the law on KP covers only to
those cases falling w/in the exclusive L: Remember to bill your client for "incidental"
juris. of the MTCs. or "out of pocket" costs for sheriff's
Held: There is no distinction transportation, food and vitamins
whatsoever w/ respect to the classes
of civil dispute that should be
compromised at the brgy level as
contradistinguished w/ that of the JURISDICTION (power to hear, try and
criminal cases. decide cases)
Conferred by law. Law can only be changed by
Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA 470 passing through Congress. Party can't amend
rules on jurisdiction by agreement or voluntary
Facts: This is an ejectment case act Jurisdiction can be raised at any time even
again in the MTC. R, the lessee, on appeal, after termination of case of decision
participated in the trial & even cross- becomes final and executory, subject to rules on
prescription. Raise issues of jurisdiction via a
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
7
CIVIL PROCEDURE
MTD (Rule 16) but court can act motu proprio. (possession de facto) is independent
Rule on place not necessarily a rule on venue. of any claim of ownership (possession
de jure). Under the revised Summary
TIJAM. Bar problem. Qualifies who can raise Procedure (Nov. 15, 1991) all types of
matters of jurisdiction. If estopped by laches, ejectment cases are now covered by it
can't file MTD in equity regardless of whether or not the issue
of ownership of subject property is
JURISDICTION. May be subject to nature of pleaded by a party. No hearings are
1. Cause of action - eg. Admiralty cases, required in this procedure. The
adjudication of cases here are done on
domestic violence
the basis of affidavits & position
1. Relief papers.
1. Subject matter (thing over which the rights
and duties occur - eg. rights or title to real
property > P50 T; claims incapable of pecuniary SUMMARY PROCEDURE
estimation Remedy for forcible entry, unlawful detainer, <
1. Remedy - eg. forcible entry and unlawful P10,000
detainer, review by certiorari; BULAO v CA Katarunggang Pambaranggay condition
precedent before parties can obtain judicial relief
Jurisdiction, once acquired, is never lost. Not apply to ordinary civil actions in RTC
Exception: DY V CA. Court violates
constitution; ousted from jurisdiction. Summary Procedure
NOTE: judgment still valid, no jurisdiction only Ordinary Civil Action
for purposes of issuing writ of execution due to Pleadings Allowed
lack of notice to party Verified complaint
Compulsory counterclaim
WORD GAME: Answer to complaint
Conferment of Jurisdiction: law prescribes Crossclaim v existing defendant
jurisdiction Complaint
Acquisition of Jurisdiction: Rule 1 Section 5: Counterclaim
Filing of complaint vests court with jurisdiction a. Compulsory(relates to transaction)
over res. Summons vests court with jurisdiction a. Permissive (not related)
over the corpus. Crossclaim
NOTE: filing of complaint happens upon full Third party claim
payment of docket fees Intervention
Answer
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT Reply
NOTE: Failure to undergo Katarunggang Answer
Pambarangay not issue of jurisdiction Sec. 412 File answer w/in 10 days of service of summons
Loc. Government Code; neither a defect in File answer w/in 15 days of service of summons
jurisdiction but vulnerable to a MTD (Rule 16 Can court act motu proprio in dismissing the
sec. J) for failure to undergo condition case?
precedent. YES. Court can act motu proprio and dismiss
Failure to undergo condition precedent NO. Court cannot dismiss action motu proprio
can only be raised in a MTD or as an affirmative but must wait for MTD
defense Effect of other party's failure to file an answer
Get judgment. No need for motion for default or
order for default
File a motion to declare the other party in
Summary Procedure default
Rules on Summary Procedure (Oct. '91) Preliminary Conference not later than 30 days
Del Rosario v. CA, 241 SCRA 519 ('95) Effect of P's failure to appear
Cause for dismissal
Held: The presence of an action for Counterclaim barred
quieting of title does not divest the
MeTC of original jurisdiction over the Main Action dismissed but Compulsory
ejectment case. An ejectment case
Counterclaim not dismissed. D gets judgment
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
8
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Cause for dismissal with prejudice (a) The party joining the causes of
action shall comply with the rules on joinder of
Main action dismissed and Compulsory parties;
counterclaim also dismissed (b) The joinder shall not include special
Process civil actions or actions governed by special
Submit position papers and affidavits 10 days rules;
from receipt of pre-trail order (c) Where the causes of action are
L: on those affidavits hinge your entire case so between the same parties but pertain to different
pray (Angel of God, hindi motion) that the court venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
ask for clarificatory affidavits (motu proprio) allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided
Extension of time not allowed one of the causes of action falls within the
You figure it out. jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies
Contents of Affidavits therein; and
State facts (d) Where the claims in all the causes
Show competence to testify of action are principally for recovery of money,
Show admissibility of witness the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test
of jurisdiction.
Absent these: affidavits excluded and lawyer
may be subject to disciplinary action Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. -
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground
Prohibited Motions for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of
MTD on sec. 16 except lack of jurisdiction action may, on motion of a party or on the
Bill of particulars initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded
New judgment with separately.
Periods
No time period from beginning to end but Joseph v. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540 ('89)
mandatory periods in between
FACTS: Joseph was a paying
passenger in a cargo truck. The cargo
Rule 2 truck tried to overtake a tricycle
proceeding in the same direction. At
Actions in General the same time, a pick-up truck tried to
overtake the cargo truck, thus the
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. - cargo truck was forced to veer towards
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a the shoulder of the road & rammed a
cause of action. mango tree in the process. Joseph
sustained a bone fracture in one of his
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of legs. Joseph sued the owner of the
action is the act or omission by which a party cargo truck for breach of the contract
violates a right of another. of carriage & the owner of the pick-up
for quasi-delict for injuries he
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. sustained. The owner of the pick-up
- A party may not institute more than one suit paid Joseph the amount he was
for a single cause of action. claiming thru a settlement agreement.
Joseph still wants to maintain the
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; action vs. the truck owner claiming
effect of. - If two or more suits are instituted on that he still has another cause of
the basis of the same cause of action, the filing action vs. the latter, for breach of
contract of carriage.
of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one
is available as a ground for the dismissal of the
others. HELD: When there is only one delict
or wrong (i.e. one injury), there is only
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party one cause of action regardless of the
may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or number of rights that may have been
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may violated belonging to one person
have against an opposing party, subject to the (violation of contract of carriage &
quasi-delict).
following conditions:
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
9
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The singleness of a cause of earned fr. the land while it was still in
action lies in the singleness of the the latter’s possession fr. 1970 to
delict or wrong violating the rights of 1978.
one person. Nevertheless, if only one
injury resulted fr. several acts, only 1 HELD: The subject matter in the 2
cause of action arises. In this case, cases are essentially the same as the
the petitioner sustained a single injury income is only a consequence or
on his person. That vested in him a accessory of the disputed property.
single cause of action, albeit w/ the The claim for income fr. the land is
correlative rights of action vs. the incidental to, & should have been
different respondents thru appropriate raised by Bayang in his earlier claim
remedies allowed by law. for ownership of the land. As the filing
The resps. having been of the 2 cases constitute splitting of
found to be solidarily liable to the pet., the cause of action, the 2 nd case is
the full payment made by some of the barred by the 1st. Also, for about 7
solidary debtors & their subsequent years, the petitioner made no move
release fr. any & all liability to pet. at all to amend his complaint to
inevitably resulted in the include a claim for the income
extinguishment & release fr. liability of supposedly received by private resp.
other solidary debtors. during that period. He did not make
the proper claim at the proper time &
JOSEPH V BAUTISTA: NCC 2177: Bar v in the proper proceeding. Whatever
double recovery right he might have had is now
deemed waived bec. of his negligence.
City of Bacolod v. SM Brewery 29 SCRA
Enriquez v. Ramos, 7 SCRA 265 ('63)
FACTS: The City of BCD passed an
ordinance imposing a bottling tax for FACTS: Enriquez sold to Ramos 11
every case of soft drinks sold. For parcels of land for P101,000. Ramos
delinquency in paying said tax, a paid 5,000 as down payment.( 2,500-
surcharge was to be imposed. For cash, 2,500-check). To secure the
failure to pay said taxes on time, City 96,000 balance, Ramos mortgaged the
of BCD sued SMB. The SC ruled in land to the vendors. Enriquez filed a
favor of the City & ordered SMB to pay complaint vs. Ramos for stopping
taxes. Later, the City of BCD filed a the ;payment of the check. Enriquez
second complaint vs. SMB to recover filed another case for foreclosure of
the surcharges it forgot to claim in the the mortgage due to Ramos’ failure to
first case. comply w/ it’s conditions. Ramos now
moves to dismiss the 2nd case on
HELD: SMB’s failure to pay the taxes violated grounds that Enriquez split the cause
the City’s right to be paid. Thus, there was a of action.
single cause of action. However, under the
ordinance, the City became entitled to 2 reliefs: HELD: An examination of the 1 st
payment of taxes & the corresponding complaint shows it was based on
surcharges. The act of the City of filing appellant’s having unlawfully stopped
separate complaints for each of the two reliefs payment of the check for P2,500 she
related to the same single cause of action had issued in favor of appellees; while
resulted in the splitting of the cause of action. the complaint in the first action is for
Under the rule that a party may not institute the non-payment of the balance of
more than 1 suit for a single cause of action, the 96,000 guaranteed by the mortgage.
City’s 2nd complaint is barred by res judicata. The claim for 2,500 was therefore a
distinct debt not covered by security;
the security was for the balance of the
Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 ('87)
purchase price amounting to 96,000.
Therefore, there is no splitting of C of
FACTS: Bayang sued Biong for A in this case.
Quieting of Title w/ damages in 1969,
w/c resulted in a ruling in his favor in
1978. In 1978, Bayang sued Biong Cuevas v. Pineda, 143 SCRA 674 ('86)
again but this time for the income
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
10
CIVIL PROCEDURE
REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES: Not the real Held: Sunbeams should have been
parties but are allowed by law or the Rules to joined as a party-deft. in order that the
judgment of the lower ct. could legally
sue on behalf of the principal
affect it. But even if it was not
Example of representative party authorized by impleaded, the ct. could still validly
the Rules: Class suit proceed w/ the case bec. Sunbeams
Plaintiffs sue in 2 capacities: 1) themselves; 2) was not an indispensable party but
on behalf of the parties of the class or those with only a proper party. A proper party is
an interest in the subject matter of the suit but one w/c ought to be a party if
are too numerous to be brought in the suit complete relief is to be accorded as
(OPOSA V FACTORAN) between those already parties. A
party is indispensable if no final
L: What if defendant is a volleyball player of a determination can be had of an action
sportsfest and the plaintiff wants to sue all unless it is joined either as plff. or deft.
participants of the sportsfest?
A: Identify all and do not apply sec. 15 since FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL - Indispensable
identifiable and also a volleyball team is not a LAPERAL DEVT V CA - Proper party.
proper juridical entity Sunbeam only a necessary party and therefore
not a party to the compromise agreement. But
JOINDER OF PARTIES (Sec. 6) not necessary atty can't collect atty's fees since there was a
that parties be indispensable or necessary parties udicial admission as to waiver of all claims
a. Necessary or proper party (Sec. 8) Case may
proceed, only plaintiff may not be able to obtain Barfel Dev. Co. v. CA, 223 SCRA 268 ('93)
complete relief
Facts: Barfel (seller) & Reginas
Aranico-Rabino v. Aquino, 80 SCRA 254 ('77) (seller) concluded an agreement to
buy/sell 2 parcels of land w/c the
Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for former warranted to be free fr. liens &
recovery of a lot w/c priv. resp. claims encumbrances except for the BPI
to be owned by one Meimban & his mortgage. Reginas found out later
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
14
CIVIL PROCEDURE
b. Indispensable (Sec. 7) If not impleaded, case L: Is the environment property? Note: not
cannot proceed since there can be no final need to be property to be subject of a suit.
determination
Mathay v. Consolidated Bank, 58 SCRA 559
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 ('93) ('74)
the subject matter of the controversy vs. them in their private capacity as
be one of common or general interest well.
to many persons; & (2) such persons
be so numerous as to make it LECTURE ON PARTIES: Remedies available
impracticable to bring them all in ct.. for certain situations. L at his most practical.
An action does not become a class suit 1. P not the real party in interest but act as a
bec. it is designated as such in the plaintiff
pleadings: it depends upon the
Counsel for D: MTD since no cause of action.
attending facts & the complaint, or
other pleading initiating the class No injury v his person
action should allege the existence of
the necessary facts. 1. X an Indispensable party but P refuses to
bring him in as an indispensable party
As to the 1st element: the
interest that appellants-plff. & Eg. Co-owner sues for partition of property
intervenors & the CMI stockholders owned in common; thus, he must implead all co-
had in the subject matter was several, owners in order that final determination might
not common or general in the sense be made. What if P sues only 1 co-owner?
required by law. Each one had a (ARANICO-RABINO)
determinable interest, each had a
right, if any, only to his respective Counsel for D: Plan A) Motion to implead the
portion of the stocks None of them other co-owners
had an interest, or a right to, the stock Plan B) If court refuses to implead the other co-
to w/c another was entitled. owners, file MTD for lack of due process for
As to the 2 nd element, the failure to implead an indispensable party
number of said CMI subscribing Plan C) Go to CA for certiorari on grounds of
stockholder was not stated in the grave abuse of discretion on part of trial court
complaint. Thus, the ct. could not judge for refusing to iplead indispensable party
infer or make sure that the parties w/o whom there can be no final determination of
before it were sufficiently numerous & the case.
representative.
To determine whether or not a party is
Veterans Manpower & Protective Services v, indispensable:
CA, 214 SCRA 286 ('92) Proper joinder of parties: Parties necessary
Permissive joinder of parties: not necessarily
FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint vs. imply that parties indispensable or necessary
the PC Chief & PC-SUSIA, government Rule 3 sec. 6 same transaction or common
agencies regulating security services, question of law or fact is involved
to compel said agencies to issue
licenses to petitioner. 1. Party becomes insane
Counsel for D: Rule 3 sec. 18 file motion to
HELD: The State may not be sued w/o bring guardian of insane party brought in as a
its consent. Invoking this rule, the PC representative. If insane > 18 years old, ask for
Chief & PC- SUSIA, being guardian ad litem
instrumentalities of the national gov’t.
exercising a primarily governmental 1. Party dies. His counsel duty bound to inform
function may not be sued w/o the court of such fact and of his legal representative
Gov’t’s consent. This doctrine is also If there is no rep, court will order Counsel for D
applicable to complaints filed vs. to procure appointment of executor or
officials of the state for acts allegedly administrator
performed by them in the discharge of
their duties. NOTE: Personal action: remedy filed where
A public official may sometimes cause of action involves personal property or
be held in his personal or private right. Subject matter involves personal property
capacity if he acts in bad faith or and others. Not a real action which involves
beyond his authority or jurisdiction. In title to or possession of real property. Important
this case, however, the acts were for proper venue
performed as part of official duties
w/o malice, gross negligence or bad
faith. Thus, no recovery may be had
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
16
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Definition
THE CLAIM-ANSWER-COUNTERCLAIM- Rule 6, Sec. 1.
REPLY-CROSSCLAIM-LABYRINTH Pleadings are the written statements of
P files Complaint So the respective claims and defenses of the parties
D files answer submitted to the court for appropriate judgment
D
files counterclaim Allowed Pleadings
So P files Answer to counterclaim Rule 6, Sec. 2
P then files Amended Complaint due to new The claims of a party are asserted in a
matters raised complaint, counter-claim, cross-claim, third
So (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or complaint - in -
D files an amended answer called a reply intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in
A third guy files a CROSSCLAIM the answer to the pleading asserting a claim
against D against him.
So An answer may be responded to by a
D files an answer to the crossclaim reply.
And Liberal construction
he files his own crossclaim against Third
While P files his Answer to the 3rd Party Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA
Complaint 638 ('93)
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
18
CIVIL PROCEDURE
TEST: A fact is essential if it cannot be personal loan of its pres. Dizon. Quilts
stricken out w/o leaving the statement asked for the cancellation of the
of the cause of action insufficient.... mortgage on the ground that Dizon
had no authority to mortgage the
property. Metrobank refused. Quilts
Ultimate facts are important & filed an action vs. Metrobank for the
substantial facts w/c either directly annulment & cancellation of the
form the basis of the primary right & mortgage. Metrobank moved to
duty, or w/c directly make up the dismiss the complaint for failure to
wrongful acts or omissions of the state a cause of action as the
defendant. The term does not refer to complaint merely contained a single
the details of probative matter or par. alleging that Metrobank
particulars of evidence by w/c these committed illegal acts vs. Quilts.
material elements are to be
established. It refers to principal,
determinate, constitutive facts, upon Held: The complaint filed vs.
the existence of w/c, the entire cause Metrobank does not contain sufficient
of action rests. "Evidentiary facts" COA. The complaint expresses legal
are those facts w/c are necessary for conclusions & not averments or
determination of the ultimate facts; allegations of ultimate facts. The
they are the premises upon w/c ultimate facts upon w/c such
conclusions of ultimate facts are conclusions rest must be alleged. In
based. CAB, the bare allegations neither
establishes any right or COA on part of
the plaintiff.
Where the complaint states ultimate facts
that constitute the three (3) essential elements of Mathay v. Consolidated Bank, 58
a cause of action, namely: (1) the legal right of SCRA
the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the
defendant, & (3) the act or omission of the Facts: This is the classic case of the
defendant in violation of said legal right, the class suit filed by Mathay vs.
complaint states a cause of action, otherwise, the Consolidated Bank. Mathay & Co.
complaint must succumb to a motion to dismiss averred in the complaint that they
on that ground of failure to state a cause of were denied the right to subscribe
action. However, where the allegations of the shares in the Bank. All in all, the
complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form complaint filed by Mathay contained 6
of conclusions, the proper recourse would be, COA’s .
not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for a bill
of particulars. Held: Bare allegations that one is entitled to
something is an allegation of a conclusion.
Allegations Such kind of allegation adds nothing to the
In general complaint it being necessary to plead
Rule 8, Sec. 1 specifically the facts upon w/c such conclusion
Every pleading shall contain in a is founded. In CAB, the pet. did not show their
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise qualifications to being stockholders nor their
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on right to subscribe the shares. Did not show how
which the party pleading relies for his claim or they acquired the right, the extent of its exercise
defense, as the case may be, omitting the & amount of shareholdings that they are entitled
statement of mere evidentiary facts. to.
If a defense relied on is based on law,
the pertinent provisions thereof and their Capacity of parties
applicability to him shall be clearly and Rule 8, Sec. 4
concisely stated. Facts showing the capacity of a party to
sue or be sued or the authority of a prty to sue or
Metropolitan Bank v. Quilts, 222 SCRA 486 be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
('93) existence of an organized association of persons
that is made a party, must be averred. A prty
Facts: The property of Quilts was desiring to raise an issue as to the legal
mortgaged to Metrobank to secure a existence of any party or the capacity of any
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
20
CIVIL PROCEDURE
established, it was inconceivable how they can filed may serve as the answer to the amended
comply therewith. Trial court held in favor of complaint if no new answer is filed.
PHILAMGEN but CA reversed.
Supreme Court held that the action has This Rule shall apply to the answer to
already prescribed. Besides, plaintiff's failure to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim,
specifically deny the existence, genuineness and amended third (fourth, etc) party complaint, and
due execution of the instruments amounted too amended complaint-in-intervention.
an admission.
PHILAMGEN's denial has procedural Waiver of defenses
earmarks of a "negative pregnant" which is a Rule 9, Sec. 2
denial pregnant with the admission of the A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-
substantial facts in the pleading responded to claim, not set up shall be barred.
which are not squarely denied. Such defense is
in effect an admission of the averment. Thus, Director of Lands v. CA, 106 SCRA 426 ('81)
while they objected to the stipulation in the bills
of lading as being contrary to policy, existence Facts: Resp. filed an application for
of the bills were nevertheless impliedly confirmation of imperfect title. The
admitted. Dir. of Lands opposed. The trial ct.
ruled in favor of resp. On appeal, the
Affirmative Dir. raised the argument that the
Rule 6, Sec. 5(b) award to resp. is erroneous on ground
(b) An affirmative defense is an of res judicata. The lots were already
allegation of a new matter which, while declared public lots in a cadastral
hypothetically admitting the material allegations proceeding, it cannot be awarded to
the private resp.
in the pleading of the claimant, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him.
The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute Held: The failure of the Dir. to raise in
of limitations, release, payment, illegality, the proceedings before the trial ct. to
statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, interpose his objection nor set up the
discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by defense of res judicata constitutes
way of confession and avoidance. procedural infirmity w/c cannot be
cured on appeal. All defenses not
interposed in a motion to dismiss or in
Periods to plead
an answer are deemed waived. It
Rule 11, Sec. 1 cannot be pleaded for the first time or
The defendant shall file his answer to on appeal.
the complaint within 15 days after service of
summons, unless a different period is fixed by
the court.
Counterclaims
Rule 11, Sec. 2
Where the defendant is a foreign LECTURE ON CLAIMS AND
private juridical entity and service of summons COUNTERCLAIMS:
is made on the government official designated
by law to receive the same, the answer shall be L: are all counterclaims that are not compulsory
filed within 30 days after receipt of summons by permissive?
such entity. A: No; permissive counterclaims need not arise
from same transaction or occurrence
Rule 11, Sec. 3 constituting the subject matter of the opposing
Where the plaintiff files an amended party's claim
complaint as a matter of right, the defendant
shall answer the same within 15 days after being Compulsory counterclaim: need not pay docket
served with a copy thereof. fees since ancillary to main case
Permissive counterclaim: need to pay docket
Where its filing is not a matter of right, fees since has lfe independent of transaction in
the defendant shall answer the amended main case
complaint within 10 days from notice of the
order admitting the same. An answer earlier Apply Logical Relationship Test: arising out of
same transaction
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
22
CIVIL PROCEDURE
If there is duplication of effort and time, then original action before the RTC, the counterclaim
compulsory counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the
amount.
ROC: if counterclaim only for sum of money
less juridical limit, within RTC jurisdiction via BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 ('93)
compulsory/permissive counterclaim
Facts: Does the dismissal of the
Crossclaims always compulsory since arise from complaint for non-appearance of
same transaction or occurrence that is the plaintiff at pre-trial upon motion of the
subject matter of the complaint. Mandatory to defendant carry w/ it the dismissal of
raise it or else barred forever compulsory counterclaim? In CAB, the
GO V CA plaintiff did not appear at pre-trial, the
L: Go did not sue Lim since business partners defendant moved for the dismissal of
or didn't want to spend more, etc. the complaint. The same was granted.
SC wanted Go to sue Lim, wondered why? Now, the defendant moves for an
adjudication of his compulsory
L: see that SC not acquainted with business
counterclaim.
practices
Test: if P chose to sue only one P, then
the other P can be joined as party Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim
Lim could have been necessary is also dismissed. There are several
party thus Clover v Go requirements of a compulsory
Go can file 3rd party complaint counterclaim:
v. Lim It arises out or is necessarily.
connected w/ the transaction or
L: Do all 3rd party complaints arise from the occurrence that is the subj. matter of
same transaction or question of law? the opposing parties claim.
A: No eg. Insurance and torts It does not require the presence of
Test: if 3rd party D can be subrogated for D and third parties of whom the ct. cannot
D can raise same defense (Rule 14) acquire jurisdiction.
The trial ct. has jurisdiction to
PASCUAL V BAUTISTA entertain the same. The test of
L: SC did not rule on W/N 3rd party complaint compulsoriness is : WON the same
propert since not put in issue. Here, 3rd-party evidence to sustain it would refute the
complaint, since ancillary, then left behind, not plaintiff’s cause of action.
carried with main cause of action on appeal In CAB, the compulsory
(Differentiate from REPUBLIC V CENTRAL counterclaim cannot remain pending
SURETY where CA acquired jurisdiction since for independent adjudication. The CC
Central Surety appealed) Since Flores did not is auxiliary to the proceeding in the
appeal, CA did not acquire appellate jurisdiction original suit & merely derives its
over him jurisdictional support fr. the orig. case.
If the ct. has no or loses jurisdiction
Defined and in general over the main case, it has no jurisdxn
Rule 6, Sec. 6 over the comp. counterclaim. In CAB,
the ct. has lost jurisdxn. over the main
A counterclaim is any claim which a
case by virtue of its dismissal upon
defending party may have against an opposing motion by the defendant.
party.
Facts: Ziga filed a complaint adjacent Facts: This is the 30++ page case w/c
Meliton for rescission of a contract of was so diligently digested by Miss
lease. Meliton answered w/ Secretary Lourie but was not
counterclaims. Ziga filed an MTD & discussed in class (Ang bitter!). Upon
the same was granted. The CC of motion of the plaintiff, 4 of the 6
Meliton was dismissed w/o prejudice defendants were declared in default
on the ground that the docket fees while the case vs. the remaining two
were not paid, the ct. did not acquire were dismissed upon motion by the
jurisdiction over the counterclaim. plaintiff.
Meliton instituted a separate. civil Held: The respondent judge erred in dismissing
action for his counterclaim but the the 2 defendants fr. the case. The respondent
same was dismissed on the ground judge disregarded the existence of a
that his claims are compulsory & counterclaim w/c the judge earlier declared to be
should have been set up in the case compulsory in nature. A counterclaim is
filed vs. him by Ziga. Meliton’s failure compulsory nature if it arose out of or is
to do so amounted to a bar to a filing
necessarily connected w/ the occurrence that is
of a subsequent case based on the
same ground. the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim. It is
compulsory not only bec. the same evidence to
sustain it will also refute the cause of action
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
25
CIVIL PROCEDURE
alleged in plaintiff’s complaint but also bec. fr. Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim
its very nature it is obvious that the counterclaim is also dismissed. There are several
cannot remain pending for independent requirements of a compulsory
adjudication of the ct.. ( see Rule 17 Sec. 2 ) counterclaim:
Permissive It arises out or is necessarily.
connected w/ the transaction or
Remedies occurrence that is the subj. matter of
For failure to raise the opposing parties claim.
Rule 9, Sec. 2, supra. It does not require the presence of
third parties of whom the ct. cannot
Visayan Packing v. Reparations Commission, acquire jurisdiction.
155 SCRA 542 ('87) The trial ct. has jurisdiction to
entertain the same. The test of
Facts: REPACOM sought to collect vs. compulsoriness is : WON the same
Visayan. Visayan instituted an action evidence to sustain it would refute the
for declaratory relief alleging that the plaintiff’s cause of action.
contract bet. them is ambiguous w/ In CAB, the compulsory
respect to its failure to define clearly counterclaim cannot remain pending
the terms of payment. REPACOM then for independent adjudication. The CC
filed an ordinary civil action for is auxiliary to the proceeding in the
collection. Visayan moved to dismiss original suit & merely derives its
the collection suit on the ground of jurisdictional support fr. the orig. case.
LCOA. If the ct. has no or loses jurisdiction
over the main case, it has no jurisdxn
Held: The separate. collection suit should have over the comp. counterclaim. In CAB,
been dismissed & set up as a CC in the the ct. has lost jurisdxn. over the main
declaratory relief suit filed by Visayan packing case by virtue of its dismissal upon
by way of an amended answer. In CAB, the motion by the defendant.
actions proceeded independently & were decided
on the merits. However, under the circ. where
the length of time the case has been pending, it In case main action fails
would be violative to subs. justice to pronounce
the proceedings in the collection suit totally For failure to raise permissive
defective for breach of the rule on compulsory counterclaims
counterclaim. Rules of Procedure are after all
laid down to attain justice & technicalities Answer to counterclaim
cannot prevail over substance.
In general
Rule 6, Sec. 4, supra.
Oversight, inadvertence, excusable
neglect, et al Period to plead
Rule 11, Sec. 10, supra. Rule 11, Sec. 4
An counterclaim or cross-claim must be
BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 ('93) answered within 10 days from service.
such claims shall be set forth in an amended or but it differs fr. a cross-claim in that in
supplemental complaint. cross-claims, the third party is already
impleaded in the main action while in
When required TPC, the def. seeks to implead a third
Rule 6, sec. 10, supra. party not yet include in the main
Challenge due authenticity of documents action. A counterclaim does not
Rule 8, Sec. 8, supra. depend upon the main claim but rests
Usury on WON the claim is based or related
Rule 9, sec. 1 to the same transaction. A TPC, the
relation must be to the claim, to the
COA & not to the transaction fr. w/c
Period to plead the claim arises.
Rule 11, Sec. 6
A reply may be filed within 10 days
from service of the pleading responded to. Balbastro v. CA, 48 SCRA 232 ('72)
Facts: Rep. filed an action vs. Central to enforce the vendor’s warranty vs.
Surety for forfeiture of the bond it eviction since it leaves no other
issued when Po Kee Kam, a def. in CID alternative to enforce such warranty.
proceedings failed to appear . The Remember Sales, where the vendee
Surety filed a TPC vs. Po Kee Kam on must file an action vs. the vendor to
ground that the latter executed an make him liable for breach of warranty
indemnity agreement in favor of the vs. eviction. ( Art. 1559 CC- the
surety. The TC dismissed the TPC on vendee may do this in two ways. 1) As
the ground that the 3rd party claim is a co-defendant. 2) As a third party
only 6,000. def.)
The appeal would finally
Held: A TPC is an ancillary suit w/c dispose of Balagot’s rights to enforce
depends on the jurisdiction of the ct. the warranty.
over the main action. Jurisdiction over
the main action embraces all the Answer to third/fourth party complaint
incidental matters arising therefr. or In general
connected therew/, otherwise there Rule 6, Sec. 13
would be split jurisdiction. The TPC is A third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant
a continuation of the main action the may allege in his answer his defenses,
purpose of w/c is to seek contribution counterclaims or cross-claims, including such
or any other relief in resp. to defenses that the third (fourth, etc)-party
opponents claim. Thus, regardless of plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff's
LOJ over the amount in TPC, when ct.
claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a
has jurisdxn. over main action, it has
jurisdxn. over the TPC. counterclaim against the original plaintiff in
respect of the latter's claim against the third-
In TPC, the defendant sue in party plaintiff.
capacity he is being sued w/ resp. to
pltf. claim in the main action. the def.
cannot compel the pltf. to implead the Time to plead
third party def. There must also be Rule 11, Sec. 5
privity of contract in relation to the The time to answer a third (fourth,
property in litigation. etc.)-party complaint shall be governed by the
same rule as the answer to the complaint.
TEST: there must be a Extension of time to plead
showing that such third party is or
Rule 11, Sec. 11
might be liable to the def. or pltf. for
all or part of the claim vs. the def. Upon motion and on such terms as may
be just, the court may extend the time to plead as
- WON it arises out of the same provided in these Rules.
transaction on w/c pltf’s claim is
The court may also, upon like terms,
based. ( CAVEAT)
allow an answer or other pleading to be filed
The ct. must wait before the after the time fixed by these Rules.
3rd party def. files his answer before
proceeding to trial since before the
answer, the case is not yet ready for
trials as issues have not yet been Formal Requirements
joined. Rule 7
Sec. 1 Caption
The caption sets forth the name of the
Remedies when denied court, the title of the action, and the docket
Appeal, De Dios v. Balagot, 20 SCRA 950 number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the
Facts: This is an action for recovery of names of the parties. They shall be named in
possession of land filed by De Dios v. the original complaint or petition; but in
Balagot. the latter filed a third party subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the
complaint fr. his alleged seller of the name of the first party in each side be stated
lot. The TPC was denied. with an appropriate indication when there are
Held: The remedy for an order other parties.
denying motion to file TPC is APPEAL. Their respective participation in the
An order disallowing TPC is appealable case shall be indicated.
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
28
CIVIL PROCEDURE
L: Distinguish between: Conclusion of Law; Document: res ipsa loquitur: thing speaks for
Ultimate Facts; and Evidentiary Facts itself
Deny under oath: a) genuineness and
Non-issue if a) not alleged therefore not due execution of the document
need to be denied b) usury charges
b) acceptance of allegation
L: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Defense: tends to defeat claim as alleged in
complaint Joinder of Parties: arises from the same
L: prayer would be to dismiss for fact of merit transaction or common question of fact or law
Counterclaim: if answer with affirmative relief Joinder of Causes of Action: so long as the court
has jurisdiction, party can raise all causes of
Negative defenses: which factual allegations in action between the original P and D
complaint alleged as issues P can raise all causes of action against D arising
Issues: allegations and denials joined from different sources but if court has no J over
General denial: accept everything: admission the cause of action, can't join cause of action
of everything: it specifically denies each and But if complaint filed with the RTCF for a sum
every allegation made by the plaintiff: therefore, of money, if the sum is within RTC's
no factual issues anymore and so no more need jurisdiction, then can raise
to go through trial or pre-trial If you want to bring in a new D, need to find
L: Counsel for P: file motion for judgment on commonality in cause of action originally raised,
the pleading not commonality of parties
Specific denial proper: qualified, under oath and Counsel for D: Remedies when a complaint is
allege lack of knowledge or information filed:
sufficient to support a belief (WIT) (note: D must wait until court acquires
jurisdiction and serves him with summons
Affirmative defense: defeats allegations (service, not summons, if court sends him other
contained in complaint pleadings) or he can voluntarily appear and let
Effect: if able to prove during hearing, the court acquire jurisdiction over him
then entire pleading of the other party is file bill of particulars; file motion for extension
defeated of time for filing a pleading and file an amended
Eg. Defense of Lack of jurisdiction or failure to pleading / supplemental pleading
undergo a condition precedent. It is a new
matter. Hypothetical admission but still Final Order/Dismissal
avoidance. Relief prayed for is dismissal of 1. MTD (filed by D)
complaint 1. Dismissal of action by notice or motion (filed
by P)
Unlike Counterclaim: raises a relief other than 1. Default (D not act)
dismissal of complaint; always allege a new 1. Non-sut (P acts maliciously and not do what
matter will have specific and general denials. is required of him Rule 17 sec. 3
Or P acts passively)
Compulsory counterclaim: arises from the same
transaction or relation. If not set up L: the trial is not about justice, it's about what
immediately, deemed barred you can prove
Test: the logical relationship test - if there is
substantial duplication of efforts or that the same
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
30
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
32
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Facts: This is the 10-minute case. that the service is invalid. Proof of
Torres filed a complaint for Collection such prior attempts may be submitted
vs. Laus. Deputy Sheriff went to Laus’ by the plaintiff during the hearing of
residence to serve summons, but any incident assailing the validity of
found that there was no one in the the substituted service. While Sheriff’
house. He waited for 10 minutes. Return carries w/ it the presumption of
Then a three-wheeled vehicle (tricykol) regularity, that entries therein are
came w/ the savior who claimed to be deemed correct, it does not
the maid in the house. The Sheriff necessarily follow that an act done in
served summons upon the latter. Laus relation to the official duty for w/c the
was declared in default. Before he return is made was not simply done
received the final judgment, Laus filed bec. it is not disclosed therein.
an MTD on the ground that there was Besides, the sheriff’s neglect in
ineffective service of summons bec. making such a disclosure should not
there was no indication that S first unduly prejudice the plaintiff if what
exerted efforts to serve the same was undisclosed was in fact done.
personally before resorting to
substituted service. 2. The EE may be considered as an
Held: There was an ineffective “agent” for the purpose of Sec. 13, &
service of summons. there was a substantial compliance
General Rule: Must serve personally. under the said sec. bec. in the CAB,
Exception: If cannot serve personally petitioner failed to deny the statement
w/in reasonable period of time, may in Sheriff’s Return that the EE is
resort to Substituted Service. “authorized to receive process of this
How can Impossibility of Service be nature”, said Return enjoying the
shown? By stating efforts made to presumption of regularity, & the
find defendant personally & the fact logical conclusion is that she delivered
that such efforts failed. the summons to the corporation.
Mapa v. CA, 214 SCRA 417 (1993)
Facts: A complaint for Recovery of 3. In an action in personam as in the
sum of money was filed vs. High Peak CAB, personal service of summons
Mining. Summons was issued to be w/in the forum is essential to the
served upon Mapa, the chairperson, & acquisition of jurisdiction over the
upon other officers of the corporation. person of the defendant who does not
However, said summons was served voluntarily submit himself to the
upon an employee of said corp. authority of the ct..
Defendants were declared in default.
Defs. filed MTD & Set Aside Default Extraterritorial, Rule 14, Sec 15
Judgment on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction of the ct. over their person
as the service of summons was Dial Co. v. Soriano, 161 SCRA 737 (1988)
improper, i.e., served upon an EE who DIAL CO. V. SORIANO
may not be considered as an “agent” Facts: Dial is a foreign corporation
of the corporation; moreover, Sheriff organized & existing under the laws of
did not indicate in his Return his UK, US & Malaysia. It has NO agents,
efforts at serving summons personally officers or office in the Philippines.
before resorting to substituted service. Imperial Vegetable Oil, a Phil. corp.,
Held: Court lacked jurisdiction. entered, through its President, into
several contracts w/ Dial for the
1. General Rule: Sheriff’s Return delivery of coco oil by the former to
must show that prior attempts at the latter. Later, IVO repudiated said
personal service were made by the contracts on the ground that they are
Sheriff & that such attempts had “mere paper trading in futures” as no
failed, prompting him to resort to actual delivery of coco oil was really
Substituted service. HOWEVER, it intended. IVO also filed complaint for
must be emphasized that Absence in Damages vs. Dial. RTC, upon motion
the Sheriff’s Return of a statement of IVO, authorized the latter to effect
about the impossibility of personal Extraterritorial Service of Summons to
service DOES NOT conclusively prove Dial through DHL. Dial, w/o submitting
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
33
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The ct. cannot inquire into the truth of since there was no motion for
the allegations & declare them to be recon or appeal.
false. Otherwise, there would be a b. The ct. w/c rendered
denial of procedural due process. it had jurisdiction over the subject
matter
Laus v. CA, 219 SCRA & the parties.
c. Must be a judgment
HELD: If a defendant had not been on the MERITS. The first case was an
properly summoned, the period to file adjudication
a MTD for lack of jurisdiction over his on the merits since the CFI
person does not commence to run considered the evidence presented
until he voluntarily submits to the during the hearing;
jurisdiction of the ct..
dismissed w/ prejudice due to
In this case, D did not failure to appear during pre-trial
voluntarily submit. Thus, the period to despite due notice.
file a responsive pleading did not even
commence to run. d. There must be,
between the 1st & 2nd actions,
As a general rule: an order identity of parties, subject
denying a MTD being interlocutory
cannot be the subject of certiorari. matter & cause of action.
EXCEPTION: When TC clearly Absolute identity of
acted outside of its jurisdxn or w/ parties is not required. Substantial
grave abuse of discretion in denying identity is sufficient. Inclusion of add’l
MTD. parties will not affect the application
of RJ.
Test Of Identity of COA
Bar by prior judgment does not lie in the form of the action
but on whether
DBP v. Pondugar, 218 SCRA 118 the same evidence would
support & establish the former &
FACTS: CFI dismissed the injunction present COA
suit filed by IISMI vs. the government, 3. RTC has committed grave
DBP CB BOI & Sheriff of Lanao del abuse of discretion in taking
Norte w/ prejudice for IISMI’s failure to jurisdiction . Although it is not prayed
appear during the pre-trial. Fourteen that the CFI orders be annulled, the
years later, IISMI, Fernando Jacinto & effect is to annul the findings of
Jacinto Steel filed a complaint vs. mismanagement & to relitigate the
DBP, NDC & NSC before the RTC Iligan same claims. Action for reconveyance
praying that the extrajudicial is misleading since it is but the
foreclosure conducted in accordance inevitable consequence if the CFI
w/ the decision in the first case be orders are annulled.
annulled.
4. A finding that the complaint
HELD: states a COA does not imply that the
1. As a general rule, certiorari complainant is assured of a ruling in
is not available since a motion to his favor. While a MTD based on
dismiss is merely interlocutory. failure of the complainant to state a
However, when the ct., in denying the COA necessarily carries w/ it the
MTD, acts w/o or in excess of admission, for purposes of the motion,
jurisdiction or w/ grave abuse of of the truth of all material facts
discretion, certiorari becomes pleaded in the complaint, what is
available to relieve the defendant of submitted for determination therein is
the trouble of undergoing the ordeal & the sufficiency of the allegations in the
expense of a useless trial. complaint.
2. 2nd Case should be 5. A MTD may be granted
dismissed bec. of res judicata. even if only 1 ground is present.
RES JUDICATA - ELEMENTS
a. Former judgment Litis pendencia
must be final. CFI order has attained
finality
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
37
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Vitrionics Computers v. RTC, 217 SCRA 1 vs. A for the annulment of the
document of sale & or redemption of
FACTS: P filed w/ the RTC Makati Br. ownership plus damages. A filed a
63 a complaint for a sum of money & MTD on the ground of res judicata.
damages vs. PR (*1st case - Civil Case HELD: MTD granted on the ground of
# 91-2069) The following day, the PR res judicata. The general rule is that
filed a complaint for the nullification of the land registration ct. has limited
the contract on the ground of fraud. jurisdiction. EXCEPTIONS: 1. The
This was docketed as Civil Case # 91- parties have agreed or have
2192 * 2nd case. acquiesced in submitting the issues
PR filed a MTD & or to suspend for determination by the ct. in the
proceedings 1st case. RTC Makati Br. proceedings; 2. the parties were
63 dismissed the 1st case on the accorded opportunity in presenting
ground of litis pendentia their respective arguments of the
HELD: The 2nd case should be the issues litigated & of the evidence in
one dismissed & not the 1st case. support thereof; 3. the ct. has already
considered the evidence on record & is
REQUISITES OF LITIS
convinced that the same is sufficient &
PENDENTIA
adequate for rendering a decision
1. Identity of parties or at least upon the issues controverted. In the
such as representing the same CAB, the issue of ownership was fully
interests in both actions; ventilated.
2. Identity of rights asserted & While the jurisdiction of the LRC
relief prayed for; the relief being is limited, the power to determine the
founded on the same facts; validity of the documents pertaining to
3. Identity in the 2 cases sale of lands is necessarily w/in its
should be such that the judgment that jurisdiction.
may be rendered in the pending case
would, regardless of w/c party is
successful, amount to res judicata in Res judicata v. conclusiveness of
the other. judgment
In our jurisdiction, the ROC
simply requires that there is a Nabus v. CA, 190 SCRA
PENDING action, NOT a PRIOR FACTS: Nabus brought an action for
PENDING ACTION. Therefore, the reconveyance of land vs. Lim. This
priority in time rule is not applicable. was based on the Public Land Law.
***CRITERIA IN DETERMINING Upon failure of N to comply w/ the ct.
WHICH OF THE CASES SHOULD BE order (CFI ordered him to deposit the
ABATED repurchase price), the ct., upon L’s
filing of a MTD, dismissed the case w/
1. The more appropriate action prejudice.
shall be maintained (Teodoro vs.
Mirasol) N filed a 2nd case for the rescission of
the contract Was the complaint for
2. Interest of justice test, rescission & damages barred by prior
taking into account a) the nature of judgment of dismissal.
controversy; b) comparative
accessibility of the ct. to the parties; c) HELD: NO.
other similar factors (Roa-Magsaysay A. Res Judicata has 2
vs. Magsaysay) concepts:
**In both tests, the bona fides 1. Bar by Former Judgment.
or the good faith of the parties shall There is identity of parties, subject
be taken into consideration matter & COA. The judgment on the
merits rendered on the 1st case
constitutes an absolute bar to the
Res judicata subsequent action not only as to every
matter w/c was offered but as to any
Abalos v. CA, 223 SCRA admissible matter w/c might have
FACTS: The RTC, acting as a Land been offered for that purpose.
Registration Court, granted the ELEMENTS OF BAR BY FORMER
application for registration of title filed JUDGMENT
by A. After this, PR filed a complaint
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
38
CIVIL PROCEDURE
In the CAB, there is No identity Procedure: Movant: one who files motions:
of Cause of Action since the evidence sets date for hearing: clerk of court to calendar
that was presented in the 1st case is it after getting proof of service: oppositor
not the same evidence that is needed should have actual receipt of notice 3 days
to sustain the 2nd case. before hearing and hearing should not be > 10
days from filing of the motion: periods depend
2. Conclusiveness of Judgment on how the filing is done whether personal
- There is identity of parties but no delivery or registered mail: if the latter,
identity of cause of action. In this explainwhy not personal delivery and with proof
case, judgment is conclusive only as of service
to matters actually & directly
controverted & determined & not as to Execptions to motions must be in writing:
matters merely involved. This is not a) made in open court or made in the course of a
applicable bec. the unpaid balance hearing or trial
was never put in issue. eg. Exclude public; hold other counsel in
contempt; admissibility of evidence; motion to
B. Nevertheless, the action leave the court
was dismissed bec. it had has already a) motions which do not substantially prejudice
prescribed. the rights of the other party
eg. Motions for suspension of the trial
UP v. CA, 218 SCRA 72
If no MTD filed, any of the grounds for an MTD
FACTS: Elizalde & the Tasaday can be raised as an affirmative defense
representatives filed a case vs. B & S Except lack of jurisdiction over the person
based on torts. UP filed a motion to Affirmative defense since it means that D made
intervene w/c was granted. After UP an answer and subjected himself to the
has filed an answer in intervention, B jurisdiction of the court
& S filed a MTD on the ground of lack
of COA. Court denied B & S’s MTD. Up Defenses NOT waived when not set up in an
also filed a MTD but this was denied MTD or affirmative defense Rule 9 sec 1
bec. UP has already filed an answer. a) jurisdiction over subject matter
HELD: Res Judicata does not apply a) res judicata or statute of limitations
bec. there is no identity of subject a) litis pendencia
matter. The ct. denied B & S’s MTD on
the ground that there is a COA while it
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
39
CIVIL PROCEDURE
if D files MTD for failure to state a cause of NOTE Rule 16 sec 6 makes it discretionary on
action, P's remedy is to file an amended the trial court to rule on affirmative defense
pleading raising any of the grounds of MTD as long as
Nature of MTD: hypothetically admits MTD not filed
allegations in complaint as true: affirmative
defense L: res judicata already raised as MTD, MTD
MTD confusion and avoidance (WIT): denied during hearing, then can't raise
hypothetical admission and denial affirmative defense on same ground since
already settled that not res judicata (WIT)
Possible defenses when served with a complaint.
Line by line: LINA V CA: Remedies for default judgment
RTC - lack of jurisdiction a) motion to set aside order of default
NCR, QC - wrong venue b) motion for new trial
P - lack of capacity to sue c) appeal
Summons - lack of J over D d) petition for review of judgment
Pleading - no cause of action
Body - litis pendentia, res judicata, LAUS: no default since D did not receive
paid/waived/unenforceable summons. Period for filing answer has not yet
Allegations of conditions precedent - started to run. Remedy: MTD. Remedy if
failure to undergo conditions precedent MTD denied: certiorari for arbitrary ruling
Failure to include certification against
forum shopping under oath NOTES ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Hearing on motion: receive evidence in support U. P. case - certiorari by Bailen and Salazar in
of motion SC first civil action
Trial : receive evidence on ultimate
causes Certiorari - as a mode of appeal
Certiorari - special civil action, grave abuse of
MTD not a responsive pleading but a motion discretion
After filing MTD can no longer file Bill of Distinguish between petition for review by
Particulars since MTD means that D is certiorari and original special civil action for
presumed to have understood the complaint. certiorari
Must file B of P before MTD then motion for
extension of time to plead then pleading with UP -orders of MTD contained two (2) different
counterclaim things
Special civil action is a different thing
Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
40
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Summary Judgment ]
Answer-in-intervention: grounds for dismissal Judgment on the merits;
may be raised in an affirmative defense inspite Judgement on the Pleadings ]
of prior dismissal of a MTD by the original ways of terminating trial
defendant. Judgment by Default ]
over subject matter & parties, there failure of parties to appear at the pre-
was judgment on the merits, & there trial conf., the ct. should have issued a
was identity of parties, subject matter "preliminary conference order"
& COA’s. Martial Law doesn’t qualify as defining the issues of the case.
a force majeure w/c would suspend Thereafter the parties should have
the running of the period. That the submitted their affidavits & other
Jacintos were abroad & couldn’t come evidence. Sec. 5 states that it is only
home as Marcos canceled their when defendants fail to file a
passports is not a bar to the filing of responsive pleading w/in the
the injunction case. When they lost, reglementary period may the ct.
they should have filed an appeal or proceed to render judgment. In the
separate action to annul the same CAB, resp. did not file an answer. TC
through their consuls based here. may not declare him in default bec. a
motion to declare defendant in default
is a prohibited pleading under Sec. 15
(h) of the Rules on SumPro.
Rule 9, Sec. 3
Default Datu v. CA, 215 SCRA
Facts: Defendant Habaluyas was
Lim Tan Hu v. Ramolete, supra declared in default. Decision was
rendered in favor of Mangelen
Facts: supra. awarding him exemplary damages w/c
Held: Parties declared in default waive their was not included in his prayer for
right to be heard & present evidence & are not specific performance.
entitled to receive notice of other proceedings & Held: In a judgment based on
to service of papers except when the latter evidence presented ex-parte,
consist of substantially amended pleadings & judgment should not exceed the
final orders. If the parties in default file a amount or be different in kind fr. that
Motion to Lift Order of Default, they shall not prayed for Thus, Mangelen is not
lose their right to the notices. entitled to exemplary damages. On
the other hand, in a judgment where
an answer was filed but def. did not
Malanyaon v. Sunga, 208 SCRA appear at the hearing, the award may
Facts: Petitioner got sick & asked the exceed the amount or be different in
judge to defer the schedule of his kind fr. that prayed for.
appearance at the pre-trial hearings.
As P did not appear at the hearings,
the judge declared P in default & Dulos v. CA, 188 SCRA
ordered his arrest. Facts: Dulos spouses were declared
Held: Where the failure to appear at as in default for failure to appear at
the pre-trial hearing was the pre-trial conference. In their
uncontrovertedly due to illness, the action for certiorari w/ the SC, they
default order may be set aside on the contend that they were not able to
ground of accident over w/c petitioner move to set aside the order of default
had no control. Also, the order of since they were not furnished w/
arrest was illegal as there is nothing in copies of the order declaring them in
the Rules of Court w/c authorizes such default.
as a consequence of a default order. Held: Party in default is not entitled
to notice of subsequent proceedings
under the Rules of Court.
Lesaca v. CA, 215 SCRA
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
46
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(b) The deposition of a party or of any introducing the deposition, but this shall not
one who at the time of taking the deposition was apply to the use by an adverse party of a
an officer, director, or managing agent of a deposition as described in paragraph (b) of
public or private corporation, partnership, or section 4 of this rule.
association which is a party may be used by an
adverse party for any purpose; Section 9. Rebutting deposition. - At the trial or
(c) The deposition of a witness, hearing any party may rebut any relevant
whether of not a party may be used by any party evidence contained in a deposition whether
for any purpose if the court finds: (1) that the introduced by him or by any other party,
witness is dead; or (2) that the witness resides at
a distance more than one hundred (100) Section 10. Persons before whom depositions
kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or may be taken within the Philippines. - Within
is out of the Philippines, unless it appears that the Philippines, depositions may be taken before
his absence was procured by the party offering any judge, notary public, or the person referred
the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to in section 14 hereof.
to attend or testify because of age, sickness,
infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party Section 11. Persons before whom depositions
offering the deposition has been unable to may be taken in foreign countries. - In a foreign
procure the attendance of the witness by state or country, depositions may be taken (a) on
subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, notice before a secretary of embassy or legation,
that such exceptional circumstances exist as to consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
make it desirable, in the interest of justice and agent of the Republic of the Philippines; (b)
with due regard to the importance of presenting before such person or officer as may be
the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, appointed by commission or under letters
to allow the deposition to be used; and rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in section
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered 14 hereof.
in evidence by a party; the adverse party may
require him to introduce all of it which is Section 12. Commission or letters rogatory. - A
relevant to the part introduced, and any party commission or letters rogatory shall be issued
may introduce any other parts. only when necessary or convenient, on
application and notice, and on such terms and
Section 5. Effect of substitution of parties. - with such direction as are just appropriate.
Substitution of parties does not affect the right to Officers may be designated in notices or
use depositions previously taken, and, when an commissions either by name or descriptive title
action has been dismissed and another action and letters rogatory may be addressed to the
involving the same subject is afterward brought appropriate judicial authority in the foreign
between the same parties or their representatives country.
or successors in interest, all depositions lawfully
taken and duly filed in the former action may be Section 13. Disqualification by interest. - No
used in the latter as if originally taken therefor; deposition shall be taken before a person who is
a relative within the sixth degree of
section 6. Objections to admissibility. - Subject consanguinity or affinity, or employee or counsel
to the provisions of section 29 of this Rule, of any of the parties; or who is a relative within
objection may be made at the trial or hearing to the same degree, or employee of such counsel;
receiving in evidence any deposition or part or who is financially interested in the action.
thereof for any reason which would require the
exclusion of the evidence if the witness were Section 14. Stipulations regarding taking of
then present and testifying. depositions. - If the parties so stipulate in
writing, depositions may be taken before any
Section 7. effect of taking depositions. - A party person authorized to administer oaths, at any
shall not be deemed to make a person his own time or place, in accordance with these Rules,
witness for nay purpose by taking his deposition. and when so taken may be used like other
depositions.
Section 8. Effect of using depositions. - The
introduction in evidence of the deposition or any Section 15. Deposition upon oral examination;
part thereof for any purpose other than that of notice, time and place. - A party desiring to take
contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes the deposition of any person upon oral
the deponent the witness of the party examination shall give reasonable notice in
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
47
CIVIL PROCEDURE
writing to every other party to the action. The Section 18. Motion to terminate or limit
notice shall state the time and place for taking examination. - At any time during the taking of
the deposition and the name and address of each the depositin, on motion or petition of any party
person to be examined, if known, and if the or of the deponent and upon a shwing that the
name is not known, a general description examination is being conducted in bad faith or
sufficient to identify him or the particular class in such manner, as unreasonably to annoy,
or group to which he belongs. On motion of any embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the
party upon whom the notice is served, the court court in which the action is pending or the
may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the Regional Trial Court of the place where the
time. deposition is being taken may order the officer
conducting the examinatin to cease forthwith
Section 16. Orders for the protection of parties from taking the deposition , or may limit the
and deponents. - After notice is served for taking scope and manner of the taking of the
a deposition by oral examination upon motion deposition, as provided in section 16 of this
seasonably made by any party or by the person Rule. If the order made terminates the
to be examined and for good cause shown, the examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only
court in which the action is pending may make upon the order of the court in which the action
an order that the deposition shall not be taken, is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party
or that it may be taken only at some designated or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be
place other than that stated in the notice or that suspended for the time necessary to make a
it may be taken only in written interrogatories, notice for an order. In granting or refusing such
or that certain matters shall not be inquired into, order, the court may impose upon either party or
or that the scope of the examination shall be upon the witness the requirement to pay such
held with no one present except the parties to costs or expenses as the court may deem
the action and their officers or counsel, or that reasonable.
after being sealed the deposition shall be opened
only by order of the court or that secret Section 19. Submission to witness; changes;
processes, developments, or research need not be signing. - When the testimony is fully
disclosed, or that the parties shall transcribed, the deposition shall be submitted to
simultaneously file specified documents or the witness for examination and sahll be read to
informatin enclosed in sealed envelope to be or by him, unless such examination and reading
opened as directed by the court, or the court may are waived by the witness and by the parties.
make any other order which justice requires to Any changes in form or substance which the
protect the party or witness from annoyance, wirness desires to make shall be entered upon
embarrassment or oppression. the deposition by the officer with a statement of
the reasons given by the witness for making
Section 17. Record of examination; oath; them. The deposition shall then be signed by
objections. - The officer before whom the the witness, unless the parties by stiplation
deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot
oath and shall personally, or by some one acting be found or refuses to sign. If the deposition is
under his direction and in his presence, record not signed by the witness, the officer shall sign
the testimony of the witness. The testimony it and state on the record the fact of the waiver
shall be taken stenographically unless the parties or of the illness or absence of the witness or the
agree otherwise. All objectins made at the time fact of the refusal to sign together with the
of the examination to the qualifications of the reason given therfor, if any, and the deposition
officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of may then be used as fully as though signed,
taking it, or to the evidence presented, or to the unless on a motion to suppress under section
conduct of any party and any other objection to 29(f) of this Rule, the court hold that the reasons
the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer given for the refusla to sign require rejection of
upon the deposition. Evidence objected to shall the deposition in whole or in part.
be taken subject to the objections. In lieu of
participating in the oral examination, parties Section 20. Certification and filing by officer. -
served with notice of taking a deposition may The officer shall certify on the deposition that
transmit wrtieen interrogatories to the officers, the witness was duly sworn to by him and that
who shall propound them to the witness and the deposition is a true record of the testimony
record the answers verbatim. given by the witness. He shall then securely seal
the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the
title of the action and marked “Deposition of
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
48
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(here insert the name of witness)” and shall Section 26. Officers to take responses and
promptly file it with the court in which the prepare record. - A copy of the notice and copies
action is pending or send it by registered mail to of all interrogatories served shall be delivered by
the clerk thereof for filing. the party taking the deposition to the officer
designated in the notice, who shall proceed
Section 21. Notice of filing. - The officer taking promptly in the manner provided by sections 17,
the deposition shall give prompt notice of its 19 and 20 of this Rule, to take the testimony of
filing to all the parties. the witness in response to the interrogatories
and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the
Section 22. Furnishing copies. - Upon payment deposition; attaching thereto the copy of the
of reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall notice and the interrogatories received by him.
furnish a copy of the deposition to any party or
to the deponent. Section 27. Notice of filing and furnishing
copies. - When a deposition uon interrogatories
Section 23. Failure to attend of party giving is filed, the officer taking it shall promptly give
notice. - If the party giving the notice of the notice thereof to all the parties, and may furnish
taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceed copies to them or to the deponent upon payment
therewith and another attends in person or by of reasonable charges therefor.
counsel pusuant to the notice, the court may
order the party giving the notice to pay such Section 28. Orders for the protectin of parties
other party the amount of the reasonably and deponents. = After the service of the
expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so interrogatories and prior to the taking of the
attensing, including reasonable attorney’s fees. testimony of the deponent, the court in which
the action is pending, on motin promptly made
Section 23. Failure of party giving notice to by a party or a deponent, and for good cause
serve subpoena. - If the party giving the notice shown, may make any order specified in sections
of the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to 15, 16 and 18 of this Rule which is appropriate
serve a subpoena upon him and the witness and just or an order that the deposition shall not
because of such failure does not attend, and if be taken before the officer designated in the
another party attends in person or by counsel notice or that it shall not be taken except upon
because he expects the deposition of that witness oral examination.
to be taken, the court may order the party giving
the notice to pay to such other party the amount Section 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in
of the reasonable expenses incurred by him depositions. -
andhis counsel in so attending, including (a) As to notice. - All errors and
reasonable attorney’s fees. irregularities in the notice for taking a
deposition are waived unless writeen objection is
Section 25. Deposition ypon written promptly served upon the party giving the
interrogatories; service of notice and of notice.
interrogatories. - A party desiring to take the (b) As to disqualification of officer. -
deposition of any person ypon written Objection to taking a deposition because of
interrogatories shall serve them upon every disqualification of the officer before whom it is
other party with a notice stating the name and to be taken is waived unless made before the
address of the person who is to answer them and taking of the deposition begins or as soon
the name or descriptive title and address of the thereafter as the disqualificatin becomes known
officer before whom the deposition is to be or could be discovered with reasonable
taken. Within ten (10) days thereafter, a party diligence.
so served may serve cross-interrogatories upon (c) As to competency or relevancy of
the party proposing to take the deposition. evidence. - Objections to the competency of a
Within five (5) days thereafter, the latter may witness or the competency, relevancy, or
serve re-direct interrogatories upon a party who materiality of testimony are not waived by
has served cross-interrogatories. Within three failure to make them bofore or during the taking
(3) days after being served with a re-direct of the deposition, unless the ground of the
interrogatories, a party may serve recross- objection is one which might have been obviated
interrogatories upon the party proposing to take or removed if presented at that time.
the deposition. (d) As to oral examinatin and other
particulars. - Errors and irregularities occurring
at the oral examination in the manner of taking
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
49
CIVIL PROCEDURE
the deposition , in the form of the questions or examined named in the petition for the purpose
answers; in the oath or affirmation, or in the of perpetuating their testimony.
conduct of the parties and errors of any kind
which might be obviated, removed, or cured if Section 3. Notice and service. - The petitioner
promptly prosectued, are waived unless shall serve a notice upon each person named in
reasonable objection thereto is made at the the petition as an expected adverse party,
taking of the deposition. together with a copy of the petition; stating that
(e) As to form of written the petitioner will apply to the court, at a time
interrogatories. - Objections to the form of and place named therein, for the order described
written interrogatories submitted under sections in the petition. At least twenty (20) days before
25 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless served the date of the hearing, the court shall casue
in writing upon the party propounding them notice thereof to be served on the parties and
within the time allowed for serving succeeding prospective deponenets int he manner provided
cross or other interrogatories and within three for service of summons.
(3) days after service of the last interrogatories
authorized. Section 4. Order and examination. - If the court
(f) As to manner of preparation. - is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony
Errors and irregularities in the manner in which may prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall
the testimony is transcribed or the deposition is make an order designating or describing the
parepared, signed, certified, selaed, indorsed, persons whose depostion may be takne and
transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by the specifying the subject matter of the examination
officer under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this and wherher the depositions shall be taken upon
Rule are waived unless a motion to suppress the oral examination or written interrogatories. The
deposition or some part thereof is made with depositions may then be taken in accordance
reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with Rule 23 before the hearing.
with due diligence might have been, ascertained.
Section 5. Reference to court. - For the purpose
of applying Rule 23 to depositions for
RULE 24 perpetuating testimony, each reference therein to
DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR the court in which the action is pending shall be
PENDING APPEAL deemed to refer to the court in which the
petition for such deposition was filed.
Section 2. Contents of petition. - The petition Section 27. Depositions pending appeal. - If an
shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner appeal has been taken from a judgment of a
and shall show: (a) that the petitioner expects to court, including the Court of Appeals in proper
be a party to an action in a court of the cases, or before the taking of an appeal if the
Philippines but is presently unable to bring it or time therefor has not expired, the court in which
cause it to be brought; (b) the subject matter of the judgment was rendered may allow the taking
the expected action and his interest therein; (c) of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their
the facts which he desires to establish by the testimony for use in the event of further
proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring proceedings in the said court. In such case the
to perpetuate it; (d) the names or a description of party who desires to perpetuate the testimony
the persons he expects will be adverse parties may make a motion in the said court for leave to
and them addresses so far as known; and (e) the take the depositions, upon the smae notice and
names and addresses of the persons to be service thereof as if the action was pending
examined and the substance of the testimony therein.. The motion shall state a) the names
which he expects to elicit from each, and shall and addresses of the persons to be examined and
ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to the substance of the testimony which he expects
take the depositions of the persons to be to elicit from each; and (b) the reason for
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
50
CIVIL PROCEDURE
perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds adverse party to give testimony in open court; or
that the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to give a deposition pending appeal.
to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it may make
an order allowing the depositions so be taken, RULE 26
and thereupon the depositions may be takne and ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
used in the same manner and under the smae
conditions as are prescribed in these Rules for Section1. Request for admission. - At any time
depositions taken in pending actions. after issues have been joined, a party may file
and serve upon any party a written request for
RULE 25 the admission by the latter of the genuineness of
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES any material and releant document described in
and exhibited with the request or of the truth of
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service any meterial and relevant matter of fact set forth
thereof. - Under the same conditions specified in in the request. Copies of the documents shall be
section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit delivered with the request unless copies have
material and relevant facts from any adverse already been furnished.
parties shall file and serve upon the latter
written interrogatories to be answered by the Section 2. Implied admission. -0 Each of the
party served or, fi the party served is a public or matters of which an admission is requested shall
private corporation or a partnership or be deemed admitted unless, within a period
association, by any officer thereof competent to designated in the request, which shall not be less
testify in its behalf. than fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or
within such further time as the court may allow
Section 2. Answer to interogatories. - The on motion, the party to whom the request
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing directed files and serves upon the party
and shall be signed and sworn t by the person requesting the admission a sworn statement
making them. The party upon whom the either denying specifically the matters of which
interrogatories have been sserved shall file and an admission si requested or setting forth in
serve a copy of the answers on the party detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully
submitting the interrogatories within fifteen (15) either admit or deny those matters.
days after service thereof, unless the court on Objections to any request for admission
motino and for good cause shown, extends or shall be submitted to the court by the party
shortens the time. requested within the period for and prior to the
filinf of his sworn statement as contemplated in
Section 3. Objections to interrogatories. - the preceding paragraph and his compliance
Objections to any interrogatories may be therewith shall be deferred until such obligatins
presented to the court within ten (10) days after are resolved, which resolution shall be made as
service thereof, with notice as in case of a early as practicable.
motion; and answers shall be deferred until the
objections are resolved., which shall be at as Section 3. Effect of admission - Any admission
early a time as is practicable. made by a party pursuant to such request is for
the purpose of the pending actin only and shall
Section 4. Number of interrogatoties. - No party not consitute an admission by him for any other
may, without leave of court, serve more than one purpose nor may the same be used against him
set of interrogatories to be answered by the same in any other proceeding.
party.
Section 4. Withdrawal. - The court may allow
Section 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. - the party making an admissin under this Rule,
Interrogatories may relate to any matters that whether express or implied, to withdraw or
can be inquired into under section 2 of Rule 23, amend it upon such terms as may be just.
and the answers may be used for the same
purposes provided in section 4 of the same Rule. Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve
request for admission. - Unless otherwise
Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written allowed by the court for good cause shown and
interrogatories. - Unless thereafter allowed by to prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails
the court for good cause shown and to prevent a to file and serve aw request for admission on the
failure of justice; a party not served with written adverse party of material and relevant facts at
interrogatories may now be compelled by the issue which, or ought to be within the personal
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
51
CIVIL PROCEDURE
knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to metnal or physical condition. If the party
present evidence on such facts. examined refuses to deliver such report, the
court on motion and notice may make an order
RULE 27 requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF if a physician fails or refuses to make such a
DOCUMENT OR THINGS report the court may exlude his testimony if
offered at the trial.
Section 1. Motion for productio or inspection;
order. - Upon motion of any party showing good Section 4. Waiver of Privilege. - By requesting
cause therefor, the court in which an action is and obtaining a report of the examination so
pending may (a) order any party to produce and ordered or by taking the deposition of the
permit the inspection and dopying or examiner , the party examined waives any
photographing, by or on behalf of the moving privilege he may have in that action or any other
party, of any designated documents, papers, involving the same controversy, regarding the
books, accounts, loetters, photographs, objects or testimony of every other person who has
tangible things, not privileged, which constitute examined or may thereafter examine him in
or contain evidence material to any matter respect of the mental or physical examination.
involved in the action and which are in his
possessin, custody or control; or (b) order any RULE 29
party or permit entry upon designated land or REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF
other porpoerty in his possession or control for DISCOVERY
the puropse of inspecting, measuring, surveying,
or photogrpahing the property or any designated Section 1. Refusal to answer. - If a party or
relevant object or operation thereon. The order other deponent refuses to answer any question
shall specify the time, place and manner of upon oral examination, the examination may be
making the inspection and taking ciopies and completed on other matters or adjourned as the
photogrpahs, and may prescribe such terms and proponent of the question may prefer. The
conditions as are just. proponent may thereafter apply to the proper
court of the place where the deposition is being
RULE 28 taken, for an order to compel an answer. The
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION same procedure may be availed of when a party
OF PERSONS or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory
submitted under Rules 23 or 25.
Section 1. When examination may be ordered. - If the application is granted, the court
In an action on which the mental or physical shall require the refusing party or deponent to
condition of a party is ain controversy, the court answer the question or interrogatory and if it
in which the acito is pending may in its also finds that the refusal to answer was without
discretion order him to submit to a physical or substantial justification, it may require the
mental examination by a physician. refusing party or deponent or the counsel
advising the refusal, or both of them, to pay the
Section 2. Oder for examination. - The orer for proponent the amount of the reasonable
examination may be made only on motion for expenses incurred in obtaining the order,
good cause shown and upon notice to the party including attorney’s fees.
to be examined and to all other parties, and shall If the application is denied and the
specify the time, place, manner, conditions and court finds that it was filed without substantial
scope of the esmination and the person or justification, the court may require the
persons by whom it is to be made. proponent or the counsel advising the filing of
the application, or both of them, to pay to the
Section 3. Report of findings. - If requested by refusing party or deponent the amount of the
the party examined, the party causeing the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the
esamination to be madee shall deliver to him a application, including attorney’s fees.
copy of a detailed written report of the
examining physician setting out his findings and Sec. 2. Contempt of court. - If the party or other
conclusions. After such request and delivery, the witness refuses to be sworn to answer any
party causing the examination to be made shall question after being directed to do so by the
be entitled upon request to receive from the court of the place in which the deposition is
party examined a like report of any examination, being taken, the refusal may be considered a
previously or thereafter made, of the same contempt of that court.
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
52
CIVIL PROCEDURE
served. It is only when an answer has not yet 4. Production or inspection of document or
been filed (but after jurisdiction has been things
obtained over the defendant or property subject 5. Motion for physical and mental examination
of the action) that prior leave of court is needed of persons
to avail of these modes of discovery, the reason
being that at that time the issues are not yet Two Kinds of Depositions:
joined and the disputed facts are not clear. 1. Oral examination
2. Written Interrogatories - different from two
On the other hand, leave of court is above
required as regards discovery by (a) production
or inspection of documents or things in
accordance with Rule 27, or (b) physical and Motions: Don't forget:
mental examination of persons under Rule 28, Notice, signatures
which may be granted upon due application and Request for admission, questions are
a showing of due course. answerable by yes or no
Attach receipt of registered mail in the
pleading to be sent to the court.
Po v. CA, 164 SCRA 668
A party should not be compelled to Purpose for suppression of evidence - based on
admit matters of fact already admitted by his form.
pleading and concerning which there is no issue, Purpose of provisional remedies - to prevent
nor should he be required to make a second judgment from being useless, judgment can be
denial of those already denied in his answer to satisfied
the complaint. A request for admission is not
intended to merely reproduce or reiterate the DISCOVERY
allegations of the requesting party’s pleading but PROVISIONAL
should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of
fact, or documents described in and exhibited PURPOSE to discover evidence
with the request, whose purpose is to establish prevent judgment from being
said party’s cause of action or defense. ineffective
NOTES ON DISCOVERY:
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Modes of Discovery allowed by the Rules:
1. Depositions
2. Written interrogatories of the parties Preliminary Attachment
3. Admissions of the adverse party Rule 57
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
54
CIVIL PROCEDURE
defendant is a foreigner; there must also be a and writ of attachment, on the defendant within
showing that defendant is about to leave the the Philippines.
Philippines with intent to defraud their creditor, The requirement of prior
or that he is a non-resident alien. contemporaneous service of summons shall not
apply where the summons could not be served
Requisites for issuance of writ of attachment: personally or by substituted service despite
1. a sufficient cause of action exists; diligent efforts, or the defendant is a resident of
2. case is one of those mentioned in Sec 1(a) of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom, or
Rule 57; the defendant is a non-resident of the
3. there is no other sufficient security for the Philippines, or the action is one in rem or quasi
claim sought to be enforced by the action; in rem.
4. the amount due to the applicant for
attachment or the value of the property of which Oñate v. Abrogar
he is entitled to recover is as much as the sum 230 SCRA 181
for which the order is granted above all legal
counterclaims. Facts:
Once defendant files a counter-bond, the writ of Held: Writ of preliminary attachment may be
attachment should be dissolved. validly applied for and granted even before the
defendant is summoned or is heard from.
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
56
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(a) Real property, or growing crops belonging to said party, are attached in
thereon, or any interest therein, standing upon pursuance of such writ;
the records of the registry of deeds of the (e) The interest of the party against
province in the name of the party against whom whom attachment is issued in the property
attachment is issued, or not appearing at all belonging to the estate of the decedent, whether
upon such records, or belonging to the party as heir, legatee, or devisee, by serving the
against whom attachment is issued and held by executor or administrator or other personal
any other person, or standing on the records of representative of the decedent with a copy of the
the registry of deeds in the name of any other writ and notice that said interest is attached. A
person, by filing with the registry of deeds a copy of said writ of attachment and of said
copy of the order, together with a description of notice shall also be filed in the office of the
the property attached, and a notice that it is clerk of court in which said estate is being
attached, or that such real property and any settled and served upon the heir, legatee or
interest therein held by or standing in the name devisee concerned.
of such other person are attached, and by If the property sought to be attached is
leaving a copy of such order, description, and in custodia legis, a copy of the writ of
notice with the occupant of the property, if any, attachment shall be filed with the proper court
or with such other person or his agent if found or quasi-judicial agency, and notice of the
within the province. Where the Land attachment served upon the custodian of such
Registration Act or the Property Registration property.
Decree, the notice shall contain a reference to
the number of the certificate of title, the volume Properties subject to Manner of attachment
and page in the registration book where the attachment
certificate is registered, and the registered File with register of
owner or owners thereof. deeds a copy of the
The registrar of deeds must index order of attachment
attachments filed under this section in the with notice that it is
names of the applicant, the adverse party, or the Real property, growing attached and a
person by whom the property is held or in whose crops thereon, any description of the
name it stands in the records. If the attachment interest in such real property being
is not claimed on the entire area of the land property attached
covered by the certificate of title, a description Leave copy of
sufficiently accurate for the identification of the attachment order,
land or interest to be affected shall be included description and notice
in the registration of such attachment; with the occupant of
(b) Personal property capable of the property
manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping it Serve attachment
in his custody, after issuing the corresponding Personal property order, issue receipt for
receipt therefor; capable of manual the property being
(c) Stocks or shares, or an interest in delivery attached and take
stocks or shares, of any corporation or property in his custody
company, by leaving with the president or Leave with president
managing agent thereof, a copy of the writ, and or managing agent
a notice stating that the stock or interest of the Stocks or shares, copy of the writ and
party against whom the attachment is issued is interest in such stocks notice that said stocks
attached in pursuance of such writ; or shares or shares or any
(d) Debts and credits, including bank interest therein is
deposits, financial interest, royalties, attached
commissions and other personal property not Debts and credits Leave with person
capable of manual delivery, by leaving with the (bank deposits, owing such debts or
person owing such debts, or having in his financial interest, credits a copy of the
possession or under his control, such credits or royalties,commissions) writ and a notice that
other personal property, or with his agent, a such debts or credits
copy of the writ, and notice that the debts owing Other personal are attached
by him to the party against whom attachment is property not capable of
issued, and the credits and other personal manual delivery
property in his possession or under his control, Serve executor or
administrator with a
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
57
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Interest of an heir, copy of the writ and a complete satisfaction of the judgment of the
legatee or devisee in notice that said court.
the property of a interest is attached.
decedent File copy of the writ Garnishment of third party liability insurance
and notice of contract may be effected from the moment the
attachment with clerk insured became liable to the third person for it is
of court where estate is also at that moment that the insured acquired an
being settled. interest in the insurance contract. Such interest
may be garnished like any other credit. It is not
Sec. 8. Effect of attachment of debts, credits necessary that the insured has effected payment
and all other similar personal property. - All to the injured third person in order that the
persons having in their possession or under obligation of the insurer may arise.
their control any credits or other similar
personal property belonging to the party Sec. 9. Effect of attachment of interest in
against whom attachment is issued, or owing property belonging to the estate of a decedent.
any debts to him, at the time of service upon - The attachment of the interest of an heir,
them of the copy of the writ of attachment and legatee, or devisee in the property belonging to
notice as provided in the last preceding section, the estate of a decedent shall not impair the
shall be liable to the applicant for the amount powers of the executor, administrator, or other
of such credits, debts or other similar personal personal representative of the decedent over
property, until the attachment is discharged, or such property for the purpose of administration.
any judgment recovered by him is satisfied, Such personal representative, however, shall
unless such property is delivered or transferred, report the attachment to the court when any
or such debts are paid, to the clerk, sheriff, or petition for distribution is filed, and in the order
other proper officer of the court issuing the made upon such petition, distribution may be
attachment. awarded to such heir, legatee, or devisee, but
the property attached shall be ordered delivered
Garnishment - is a species of attachment for to the sheriff making the levy, subject to the
reaching any property or credits pertaining or claim of such heir, legatee, or devisee, or any
payable to a judgment debtor. It is a forced person claiming under him.
novation by the substitution of creditors: the
judgment debtor, who is the original creditor of Sec. 10. Examination of party whose property
the garnishee, is, through the service of the writ is attached and persons indebted to him or
of garnishment, substituted by the judgment controlling his property; delivery of property to
creditor who thereby becomes creditor of the sheriff. - Any person owing debts to the party
garnishee. It serves as a warning to a person whose property is attached or having in his
having in his possession property or credits of possession or under his control any credit or
the judgment debtor, not to pay the money or other personal property belonging to such party,
deliver the property to the latter, but rather to may be required to attend before the court in
appear and answer the plaintiff’s suit. which the action is pending, or before a
commissioner appointed by the court, and be
Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Ramolete examined on oath respecting the same. The
203 SCRA party whose property is attached may also be
required to attend for the purpose of giving
Facts: information respecting his property, and may be
examined on oath. The court may, after such
Held: Service of summons upon the person of examination, order personal property capable
the garnishee is not necessary to acquire of manual delivery belonging to him, in the
jurisdiction over his person, all that is necessary possession of the person so required to attend
is the service of the writ of garnishment. before the court, to be delivered to the clerk of
Through the service of the writ of garnishment, court of sheriff on such terms as may be just,
the person who has in his possession credits having reference to any lien thereon or claim
belonging to the judgment debtor becomes a against the same, to await the judgment in the
“virtual party” to or a “forced intervenor” in, the action.
case and the trial court thereby acquires
jurisdiction over his person. Such person is, Sec. 11. When attached property may be sold
therefore, bound to comply with all orders and after levy on attachment and before entry of
processes of the trial court with a view to the judgment. - Whenever it shall be made to
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
58
CIVIL PROCEDURE
appear to the court in which the action is attachment is excessive, the discharge shall be
pending, upon hearing with notice to both limited to the excess. If the motion be made on
parties, that the property attached is perishable, affidavits on the part of the movant but not
or that the interests of all the parties to the otherwise, the attaching party may oppose the
action will be subserved by the sale thereof, the motion by counter-affidavits or other evidence
court may order such property to be sold at in addition to that on which the attachment was
public auction in such manner as it may direct made. After due notice and hearing, the court
and the proceeds of such sale to be deposited in shall order the setting aside or the
court to abide the judgment in the action. corresponding discharge of the attachment if it
appears that it was improperly or irregularly
Sec. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving issued or enforced, or that the bond is
counter-bond. - After a writ of attachment has insufficient, or that the attachment is excessive
been enforced, the party whose property has and the defect is not cured forthwith.
been attached or the person appearing on his
behalf, may move for the discharge of the Peroxide Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals
attachment wholly or in part on the security 199 SCRA
given. The court shall, after due notice and
hearing, order the discharge of the attachment Where the order lifting of the writ of attachment
if the movant makes a cash deposit, or files a was improperly issued as the attaching creditor
counter-bond executed to the attaching party was not allowed to oppose the application for the
with the clerk of the court where the application discharge of the attachment by counter-affidavit
is made an amount equal to that fixed by the or other evidence, such order is void and does
court in the order of attachment, exclusive of not have any effect at all to the writ of
costs. But if the attachment is sought to be attachment. The writ continued to be valid from
discharged with respect to a particular property, its issuance since the judgment had not been
the counter-bond shall be equal to the value of satisfied , nor has there been a valid discharge
that property as determined by the court. In thereof either by the filing of a counter-bond or
either case, the cash deposit or the counter- for improper or irregular issuance.
bond shall secure the payment of any judgment
that the attaching party may recover in the Sec. 14. Proceedings where property claimed
action. A notice of the deposit shall forthwith be by third person. - If the property attached is
served on the attaching party. Upon the claimed by any person other than the party
discharge of the attachment in accordance with against whom attachment had been issued or his
the provisions of this section, the property agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his
attached, or the proceeds of any sale thereof, title thereto, or right to the possession thereof,
shall be delivered to the party making the stating the grounds of such right or title, and
deposit or giving the counter-bond, or to the serves such affidavit upon the sheriff while the
person appearing on his behalf, the deposit or latter has possession of the attached property,
counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the and a copy thereof upon the attaching party, the
property so released. Should such counter-bond sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property
for any reason be found to be or become under attachment, unless the attaching party or
insufficient, and the party furnishing the same his agent, on demand of the sheriff, shall file a
fail to file an additional counter-bond, the bond approved by the court to indemnify the
attaching party may apply for a new order of third-party claimant in a sum not less than the
attachment. value of the property levied upon. In case of
disagreement as to such value, the same shall
Motion to Discharge cannot be acted upon ex- be decided by the court issuing the writ of
parte - must be accompanied by hearing. attachment. No claim for damages for the
taking or keeping of the property may be
Sec. 13. Discharge of attachment on other enforced against the bond unless the action
grounds. - The party whose property has been therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120)
ordered attached may file a motion with the days from the date of the filing of the bond.
court in which the action is pending, before or The sheriff shall not be liable for
after levy or even after the release of the damages for the taking or keeping of such
attached property, for an order to set aside or property, to any such third-party claimant, if
discharge the attachment on the ground that the such bond shall be filed. Nothing herein
same was improperly or irregularly issued or contained shall prevent such claimant or any
enforced, or that the bond is insufficient. If the third person from vindicating his claim to the
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
59
CIVIL PROCEDURE
property, or prevent the attaching party from upon ordinary execution. Whenever the
claiming damages against a third-party judgment shall have been paid, the sheriff, upon
claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly reasonable demand, must return to the judgment
spurious claim, in the same or separate action. obligor the attached property remaining in his
When the writ of attachment is issued hands, and any proceeds of the sale of the
in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or property attached not applied to the judgment.
any officer duly representing it, the filing of
such bond shall not be required, and in case the Sec. 17. Recovery upon the counter-bond. -
sheriff is sued for damages as a result of the When the judgment has become executory, the
attachment, he shall be represented by the surety or sureties on any counter-bond given
Solicitor General, and if held liable therefor, the pursuant to the provisions of this Rule to secure
actual damages adjudged by the court shall be the payment of the judgment shall become
paid by the National Treasurer out of the funds charged on such counter-bond and bound to pay
to be appropriated for the purpose. the judgment obligee upon demand the amount
due under the judgment, which amount may be
Sec. 15. Satisfaction of judgment out of recovered from such surety or sureties after
property attached; return of sheriff. - If notice and summary hearing in the same action.
judgment be recovered by the attaching party
and execution issue thereon, the sheriff may Towers Assurance Co. v. Ororama Supermart
cause the judgment to be satisfied out of the 80 SCRA
property attached, if it be sufficient for that
purpose in the following manner: In order that the judgment creditor might
(a) By paying to the judgment obligee recover from the surety on the counterbond, it is
the proceeds of all sales of perishable or other necessary (1) that execution be first issued
property sold in pursuance of the order of the against the principal debtor and that such
court or so much as shall be necessary to satisfy execution was returned unsatisfied in whole or
the judgment; in part; (2) that the creditor made a demand
(b) If any balance remains due, by upon the surety for the satisfaction of the
selling so much of the property, real or judgment; and (3) that the surety be given notice
personal, as may be necessary to satisfy the and a summary hearing in the same action as to
balance, if enough for that purpose remain in his liability for the judgment under his
the sheriff’s hands, or in those of the clerk of counterbond.
the court;
(c) By collecting from all persons Sec. 18. Disposition of money deposited. -
having in their possession credits belonging to Where the party against whom attachment had
the judgment obligor, or owing debts to the been issued has deposited money instead of
latter at the time of the attachment of such giving counter-bond, it shall be applied under
credits or debts, the amount of such credits and the direction of the court to the satisfaction of
debts as determined by the court in the action, any judgment rendered in favor of the attaching
and stated in the judgment, and paying the party, and after satisfying the judgment the
proceeds of such collection over to the balance shall be refunded to the depositor or
judgment obligee. his assignee. If the judgment is in favor of the
The sheriff shall forthwith make a party against whom attachment was issued, the
return in writing to the court of his proceedings whole sum deposited must be refunded to him or
under this section and furnish the parties with his assignee.
copies thereof.
Sec. 19, Disposition of attached property where
Sec. 16. Balance due collected upon judgment is for party against whom
execution; excess delivered to judgment attachment was issued. - If judgment be
obligor. - If after realizing upon all the property rendered against the attaching party, all the
attached, including the proceeds of any debts or proceeds of sales and money collected or
credits collected, and applying the proceeds of received by the sheriff, under the order of
any debts or credits collected, and applying the attachment, and all property attached
proceeds to the satisfaction of the judgment, remaining in any such officer’s hands, shall be
less the expenses of proceedings upon the delivered to the party against whom attachment
judgment, less the expenses of proceedings upon was issued, and the order of attachment
the judgment, any balance shall remain due, the discharged.
sheriff must proceed to collect such balance as
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
60
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Sec. 20. Claim for damages on account of Right in esse and clear for a writ of preliminary
improper, irregular or excessive attachment. - mandatory injunction
An application for damages on account of
improper, irregular, or excessive attachment Preliminary Injunction
must be filed before the trial or before appeal is Rule 58
perfected or before the judgment becomes
executory, with due notice to the attaching party Sec. 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes.
and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts - A preliminary injunction is an order granted
showing his right to damages and the amount at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to
thereof. Such damages may be awarded only the judgment or final order, requiring a party or
after proper hearing and shall be included in a court , agency or a person to refrain from a
the judgment on the main case. particular act or acts. It may also require the
If the judgment of the appellate court performance of a particular act or acts, in
be favorable to the party against whom which case it shall be known as a preliminary
attachment was issued, he must claim damages mandatory injunction.
sustained during the pendency of the appeal by
filing an application in the appellate court, with The primary purpose of injunction is to preserve
notice to the party in whose favor the the status quo by restraining action or
attachment was issued or his surety or sureties, interference or by furnishing preventive relief.
before judgment of the appellate court becomes The status quo is the last actual, peaceable,
executory. The appellate court may allow the uncontested status which precedes the pending
application to be heard and decided by the trial controversy.
court.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent A mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy
the party against whom the attachment was and will be granted only on a showing that (a)
issued from recovering in the same action the the invasion of the right is material and
damages awarded to him from any property of substantial, (b) the right of the complainant is
the attaching party not exempt from execution clear and unmistakable, and (c) there is an
should the bond or deposit given by the latter urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
be insufficient or fail to fully satisfy the award. prevent serious damage.
injunction or temporary restraining order if the However, and subject to the provisions
court should finally decide that the applicant of the preceding sections, if the matter is of
was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer
requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction grave injustice and irreparable injury, the
shall be issued. executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the
(c) When an application for a writ of presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue
preliminary injunction or a temporary ex parte a temporary restraining order effective
restraining order is included in a complaint or for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance
any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a but he shall immediately comply with the
multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after provisions of the next preceding section as to
notice to and in the presence of the adverse service of summons and the documents to be
party or the person to be enjoined. In any event, served therewith. Thereafter, within the
such notice shall be preceded, or aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge
contemporaneously accompanied by service of before whom the case is pending shall conduct a
summons, together with a copy of the complaint summary hearing to determine whether the
or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s temporary restraining order shall be extended
affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in until the application for preliminary injunction
the Philippines. can be heard. In no case shall the total period
However, where the summons could not of effectivity of the temporary restraining order
be served personally or by substituted service exceed twenty (20 days, including the original
despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a seventy-two hours provided herein.
resident of the Philippines temporarily absent
therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the In the event that the application for
requirement of prior or contemporaneous preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved
service of summons shall not apply. within the said period, the temporary
(d) The application for a temporary restraining order is deemed automatically
restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon vacated. The effectivity of a temporary
only after all parties are heard in a summary restraining order is not extendible without need
hearing which shall be conducted within twenty- of any judicial declaration to that effect and no
four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return of court shall have authority to extend or renew
service and/or the records are received by the the same on the same ground for which it was
branch selected by raffle and to which the issued.
records shall be transmitted immediately.
However, if issued by the Court of
Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted Appeals or a member thereof, the temporary
without notice; exception. - No preliminary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60)
injunction shall be granted without hearing and days from service on the party or person sought
prior notice to the party or person sought to be to be enjoined. A restraining order issued by the
enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be
affidavits or by verified application that great effective until further orders.
or irreparable injury would result to the
applicant before the matter can be heard on Temporary restraining order, when issued
notice, the court to which the application for
preliminary injunction was made, nay issue ex 1. When great or irreparable injury would
parte a temporary restraining order to be result to the applicant even before the
effective only for a period of twenty (20) days application is heard on notice; 20-day
from service on the party or person sought to be temporary restraining order is issued.
enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the
said twenty-day period, the court must order 2. If the matter is of extreme urgency and the
said party or person to show cause, at a applicant will suffer grave injustice and
specified time and place, why the injunction irreparable injury, the court may issue ex
should not be granted, determine within the parte a 72-hour temporary restraining order;
same period whether or not the preliminary can only be issued by the executive judge of
injunction shall be granted, and accordingly a multiple-sala court or by the presiding
issue the corresponding order. judge of a single-sala court.
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
63
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The judge issuing a 72-hour TRO is obliged to Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion
conduct a summary hearing within the of dissolution of, injunction or restraining
effectivity of the 72-hour TRO to determine order. - The application for injunction or
whether the TRO shall be extended in which restraining order may be denied, upon a
case, the same is converted into a 20-day TRO. showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or
Within the 20-day period of effectivity of the restraining order may also be denied, or, if
TRO the court shall determine in a hearing granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds
whether or not the preliminary injunction is to upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined,
be granted. This 20-day period is inextendible. which may be opposed by the applicant also by
affidavits. It may further be denied or granted,
Thus, a TRO may be converted to a preliminary may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing
injunction, which in turn may be converted into that although the applicant is entitled to the
a final injunction. TRO and preliminary injunction or restraining order, the issuance or
injunction are issued to maintain the status quo continuance thereof, as the case may be, would
ante, that is, prior to the institution of the main cause irreparable damage to the party or
action. A final injunction confirms a preliminary person enjoined while the applicant can be fully
injunction and perpetually enjoins a party or compensated for such damages as he may suffer,
person from doing the act/s complained of. and the former files a bond in an amount fixed
by the court conditioned that he will pay all
Effectivity of TROs: damages which the applicant may suffer by the
denial or the dissolution of the injunction or
TRO issued by trail court may either be for 72 restraining order. If it appears that the extent of
hours or 20 days; if issued by the CA or a the preliminary injunction or restraining order
member thereof, it shall be effective for sixty granted is too great, it may be modified.
(60) days; TROs0 issued by the SC shall be
effective until further notice. Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of
disapproval of same. - The party filing a bond
in accordance with the provisions of this Rule
Social Security Commission v. Bayona shall forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the
5 SCRA other party, who may except to the sufficiency of
the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If
Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the applicant’s bond is found to be insufficient
the rule relative to the issuance of injunction in amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon
when there is no standard by which their fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in amount
amount can be measured with reasonable with sufficient sureties approved after
accuracy. An irreparable injury which a court of justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction
equity will enjoin includes that degree of wrong shall be dissolved. If the bond of the adverse
of a repeated and continuing kind which party is found to be insufficient in amount, or
produce hurt, inconvenience, or damage that can the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify a
be estimated only by conjecture and not by any bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties
accurate standard of measurement. An approved after justification is not filed
irreparable injury to authorize an injunction forthwith, the injunction shall be granted or
consists of “a serious charge of, or is destructive restored, as the case may be.
to, the property it affects, either physically or in
the character in which it has been held and Sec. 8. Judgment to include damages against
enjoined, or when the property has some party and sureties. - AT the trial, the amount of
peculiar quality or use, so that its pecuniary damages to be awarded to either party, upon the
value will not fairly recompense the owner of bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed,
the loss thereof.” ascertained, and awarded under the same
procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.
For an injury to be irreparable, it does not have
to refer to the amount of damages that may be Sec. 9. When final injunction granted. - If after
caused but rather to the difficulty of measuring the trial of the action it appears that the
the damages inflicted. If full compensation can applicant is entitled to have the act or acts
be obtained by way of damages, equity will not complained of permanently enjoined, the court
apply the remedy of injunction. shall grant a final injunction perpetually
restraining the party or person enjoined from
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
64
CIVIL PROCEDURE
faithfully discharge his duties in the action or refused or neglected to be surrendered, together
proceeding and obey the orders of the court. with all damages that may have been sustained
by the party or parties entitled thereto as a
Sec. 5. Service of copies of bonds; effect of consequence of such refusal or neglect.
disapproval of same. - The person filing a bond
in accordance with the provisions of this Rule Sec. 8. Termination of receivership;
shall forthwith serve a copy thereof on each compensation of receiver. - Whenever the
interested party, who may except to its court, motu propio or on motion of either party,
sufficiency or of the surety or sureties thereon. shall determine that the necessity for a receiver
If either the applicant’s of the receiver’s bond is n longer exists, it shall, after due notice to all
found to be insufficient in amount, or if the interested parties and hearing, settle the
surety or sureties thereon fail to justify, and a accounts of the receiver, direct the delivery of
bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties the funds and other property in his possession to
approved after justification is not filed the person adjudged to be entitled to receive
forthwith, the application shall be denied or the them, and order the discharge of thereceiver
receiver discharged, as the case may be. If the from further duty as such. The court shall allow
bond of the adverse party is found to be the receiver such reasonable compensation as
insufficient in amount or the surety or sureties the circumstances of the case warrant, to be
thereon fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in taxed as costs against the defeated party, or
amount with sufficient sureties approved after apportioned, as justice requires.
justification is not filed forthwith, the receiver
shall be appointed and re-appointed, as the Sec. 9. Judgment to include recovery against
case may be. sureties. - The amount, if any, to be awarded to
any party upon any bond filed in accordance
Sec. 6. General powers of receiver. - Subject to with the provisions of this Rule, shall be
the control of the court in which the action or claimed, ascertained, and granted under the
proceeding is pending, a receiver shall have the same procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule
power to bring and defend, in such capacity, 57.
actions in his own name; to take and keep
possession of the property in controversy; to
receive rents; o collect debts due to himself as
receiver or to the fund, property, estate, person,
or corporation of which he is the receiver; to
compound and compromise the same; to make Replevin
transfers; to pay outstanding debts; to divide Rule 60
the money and other property that shall remain
among the persons legally entitled to receive
the same; and generally to do such acts
respecting the property as the court may Sec. 1. Application - A party praying for the
authorize. However, funds in the hands of a recovery of possession of personal property
receiver may be invested only by order of the may, at the commencement of the action or at
court upon the written consent of all the parties any time before answer, apply for an order for
to the action. the delivery of such property to him, in the
No action may be filed by or against a manner hereinafter provided.
receiver without leave of the court which
appointed him. Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond. - The applicant must
show by his own affidavit or that of some other
Sec. 7. Liability for refusal or neglect to person who personally knows the facts:
deliver property to receiver. - A person who (a) That the applicant is the owner of
refuses or neglects, upon reasonable demand, to the property claimed, particularly describing it,
deliver to the receiver all the property, money, or is entitled to the possession thereof;
books, deeds, notes, bills, documents and (b) That the property is wrongfully
papers within his power of control subject of or detained by the adverse party, alleging the
involved in the action or proceeding, or in case cause of detention thereof according to the best
of disagreement, as determined and ordered by of his knowledge, information, and belief;
the court, may be punished for contempt and (c) That the property has not been
shall be liable to the receiver for the money or distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a
the value of the property and other things so fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
66
CIVIL PROCEDURE
execution or preliminary attachment, or the sheriff, the adverse party does not object to
otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so the sufficiency of the bond, or the surety or
seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or sureties thereon; or if the adverse party so
custody; and objects and the court affirms its approval of the
(d) The actual market value of the applicant’s bond or approves a new bond, or if
property. the adverse party requires the return of the
The applicant must also give a bond, property but his bond is objected to and found
executed to the adverse party in double the insufficient and he does not forthwith file an
value of the property as stated in the affidavit approved bond, the property shall be delivered
aforementioned, for the return of the property to to the applicant. If for any reason the property
the adverse party if such return be adjudged, is not delivered to the applicant, the sheriff must
and for the payment to the adverse party of such return it to the adverse party.
sum as he may recover from the application in
the action. Sec. 7. Proceedings where property claimed by
third person. – If the property taken is claimed
Sec. 3. Order. - Upon the filing of such affidavit by any third person other than the party against
and approval of the bond, the court shall issue whom the writ of replevin had been issued or his
an order and the corresponding writ of replevin agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his
describing the personal property alleged to be title thereto, or right to the possession thereof,
wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff stating the grounds therefor, and serves such
forthwith to take such property into his custody. affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has
possession of the property and a copy thereof
Sec. 4. Duty of the sheriff. - Upon receiving upon the applicant, the sheriff shall not be
such order, the sheriff must serve a copy thereof bound to keep the property under replevin or
on the adverse party, together with a copy of the deliver it to the applicant unless the applicant
application, affidavit and bond, and must or his agent, on demand of said sheriff shall file
forthwith take the property, if it be in the a bond approved by the court to indemnify the
possession of the adverse party, or his agent, third-party claimant in a sum not less than the
and retain it in his custody. If the property or value of the property under replevin as provided
any part thereof be concealed in a building or in section 2 hereof. In case of disagreement as
enclosure, the sheriff must demand its delivery, to such value, the court shall determine the
and if it be not delivered, he must cause the same. No claim for damages for the taking or
building or enclosure to be broken open and keeping of the property may be enforced against
take the property as herein provided, he must the bond unless the action therefor is filed
keep it in a secure place and shall be within one hundred twenty (120) days from the
responsible for its delivery to the party entitled date of the filing of the bond.
thereto upon receiving his fees and necessary The sheriff shall not be liable for
expenses for taking and keeping the same. damages, for the taking or keeping of such
property, to any such third-party claimant if
Sec. 5. Return of property. – If the adverse such bond shall be filed. Nothing herein
party objects of the sufficiency of the contained shall prevent such claimant or any
applicant’s bond, or of the surety or sureties third person from vindicating his claim to the
thereon, he cannot immediately require the property, or prevent the applicant from claiming
return of the property, but if he does not so damages against a third-party claimant who
object, he may, at any time before the delivery filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, in
of the property to the applicant, require the the same or a separate action.
return thereof, by filing with the court where the When the writ of replevin is issued in
action is pending a bond executed to the favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any
applicant, in double the value of the property as officer duly representing it, the filing of such
stated in the applicant’s affidavit for the bond shall not be required, and in case the
delivery thereof to the applicant, if such sheriff is sued for damages as a result of the
delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of replevin, he shall be represented by the Solicitor
such sum to him as may be recovered against General, and if held liable therefor, the actual
the adverse party, and by serving a copy of such damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by
bond on the applicant. the National Treasurer out of the funds to be
appropriated for the purpose.
Sec. 6. Disposition of property by sheriff. – If
within five (5) days after taking the property by
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
67
CIVIL PROCEDURE
mode for providing the support, If the enforce his right of reimbursement against the
application is denied, the principal case shall person ordered to provide support.
be tried and decided as early as possible.
Sec. 6. Support in criminal cases. – In criminal
Ramos v. Court of Appeals actions where the civil liability includes support
45 SCRA for the offspring as a consequence of the crime
and the civil aspect thereof has not been
Held: Where the trial court ruled that the claim waived, reserved or instituted prior to its filing,
of filiation and support has been adequately the accused may be ordered to provide support
proven, alimony pendente lite can be validly pendente lite to the child born to the offended
granted pending appeal of such decision. party allegedly because of the crime. The
Trial court’s refusal to grant support pendente application therefor may be filed successively
lite does not deprive the appellate court the by the offended party, her parents, grandparents
authority to grant the same especially so where, or guardian and the State in accordance with
in view of the poverty of the child, it would be a the procedure established under this Rule.
travesty of justice to refuse him support until the
decision of the judge is sustained on appeal. Sec. 7. Restitution. – When the judgment or
final order of the court finds that the person
Reyes v. Ines-Luciano who has been providing support pendente lite is
81 SCRA not liable therefor, it shall order the recipient
thereof to return to the former the amounts
Facts: already paid with legal interest from the dates
Held: Where petitioner failed to present of actual payment, without prejudice to the right
evidence on the alleged adultery of his wife of the recipient to obtain reimbursement in a
when the action for legal separation is heard on separate action from the person legally obliged
the merits, the grant of support pendente lite is to give support. Should the recipient fail to
valid. Adultery is a good defense and if properly reimburse said amounts, the person who
proved and sustained will defeat the action. provided the same may likewise seek
However, the alleged adultery of the wife must reimbursement thereof in a separate action from
be established by competent evidence. Mere the person legally obliged to give such support.
allegation would not suffice to bar her from
receiving support pendente lite. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
(c) Effect of partial default. – When a parte and the court to render judgement on the
pleading asserting a claim states a common basis thereof.
cause of action against several defending parties,
some of whom answer and the others fail to do Dismissals under Rule 29, Sec. 5
so, the court shall try the case against all upon
the answers thus filed and render judgement Rule 29, Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or
upon the evidence presented. serve answers. – If a party or an officer or
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. – A managing agent of a party wilfully fails to
judgement rendered against a party in default appear before the officer who is to take his
shall not exceed the amount or be different in deposition, after being served with a proper
kind from that prayed for nor award notice, or fails to serve answers to
unliquidated damages. interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after
proper service of such interrogatories, the court
(e) Where no defaults allowed. – If the
on motion and notice, may strike out all or any
defending party in an action for annulment or
part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the
declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal
action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter
separation fails to answer, the court shall order
a judgement by default against that party, and in
the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether
its discretion, order him to pay reasonable
or not a collusion between the parties exists, and
expenses incurred by the other, including
if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State
attorney’s fees.
in order to see to it that the evidence submitted
is not fabricated.
As to parties
Judgements after ex parte
As against one or more several parties
presentation of Evidence
Rule 36, Sec. 3. Judgement for or against one
Rule 18, Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. –
or more of several parties. – Judgement may be
The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so
given for or against one or more of several
required pursuant to the next preceding section
plaintiffs, and for or against one or more of
shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The
several defendants. When justice so demands,
dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless
the court may require the parties on each side to
otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure
file adversary pleadings as between themselves
on the part of the defendant shall be cause to
and determine their ultimate rights and
allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex
obligations.
parte and the court to render judgement on the
basis thereof.
Several Judgement
Compromise Judgement
Rule 36, Sec. 4. Several judgements. – In an
action against several defendants, the court may,
when a several judgement is proper, render
judgement against one or more of them, leaving
Order for Dismissal
the action to proceed against the others.
Motion to Dismiss (See Rule 16)
Rule 9, Sec. 3 (c). Effect of partial default. –
When a pleading asserting a claim states a
Dismissals under Rule 17 (Dismissal
common cause of action against several
of Actions)
defending parties, some of whom answer and
the others fail to do so, the court shall try the
Dismissals under Rule 18, Sec. 5
case against all upon the answers thus filed and
render judgement upon the evidence presented.
Rule 18, Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. –
The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so
Against entity without juridical personality
required pursuant to the next preceding section
shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The
Rule 36, Sec. 6. Judgement against entity
dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless
without juridical personality. – When judgement
otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure
is rendered against two or more persons sued as
on the part of the defendant shall be cause to
an entity without juridical personality, the
allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
73
CIVIL PROCEDURE
judgement obligor of every kind and nature In the event there are two or more garnishees
whatsoever which may be disposed of for value holding deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy
and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the judgement, the judgement obligor, if
the latter the option to immediately choose available, shall have the right to indicate the
which property or part thereof may be levied garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to
upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgement. If the deliver the amount due; otherwise, the choice
judgement obligor does not exercise the option, shall be made by the judgement obligee.
the officer shall first levy on the personal
properties, if any, and then on the real properties The executing sheriff shall observe the same
if the personal properties are insufficient to procedure under paragraph (a) with respect to
answer for the judgement. delivery of payment to the judgement obligee.
The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of Judgements for specific acts
the personal or real property of the judgement
obligor which has been levied upon. Rule 39, Sec. 10. Execution of judgements for
specific acts. –
When there is more property of the judgement
obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgement (a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other
and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the specific acts; vesting title. – If a judgement
personal or real property as is sufficient to directs a party to execute a conveyance of land
satisfy the judgement and lawful fees. or personal property, or to deliver deeds or other
documents, or to perform any other specific act
Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and in connection therewith, and the party fails to
other personal property, may be levied upon in comply within the time specified, the court may
like manner and with like effect as under a writ direct the act to be done at the cost of the
of attachment. disobedient party by some other person
appointed by the court and the act when so done
(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. – shall have like effect as if done by the party. If
The officer may levy on debts due the judgement real or personal property is situated within the
obligor and other credits, including bank Philippines, the court in lieu of directing
deposits, financial interests, royalties, conveyance thereof may by an order divest the
commissions and other personal property not title of any party and vest it in others, which
capable of manual delivery in the possession or shall have the force and effect of a conveyance
control of third parties. Levy shall be made by executed in due form of law.
serving notice upon the person owing such debts
or having in his possession or control such (b) Sale of real or personal property. – If
credits to which the judgement obligor is the judgement be for the sale of real or personal
entitled. The garnishment shall only cover such property, to sell such property, describing it, and
amount as will satisfy the judgement and all apply the proceeds in conformity with the
lawful fees. judgement.
The garnishee shall make a written report to the (c) Delivery or restitution of real property.
court within five (5) days from service of the – The officer shall demand of the person against
notice of garnishment stating whether or not the whom the judgement for the delivery or
judgement obligor has sufficient funds or credits restitution of real property is rendered and all
to satisfy the amount of judgement. If not, the persons claiming rights under him to peaceably
report shall state how much funds or credits the vacate the property within three (3) working
garnishee holds for the judgement obligor. The days, and restore possession thereof to the
garnished amount in cash, or certified bank judgement obligee; otherwise, the officer shall
check issued in the name of the judgement oust all such persons therefrom with the
obligee, shall be delivered directly to the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace
judgement obligee within ten (10) working days officers, and employing such means as may be
from service of notice on the said garnishee reasonably necessary to retake possession, and
requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees place the judgement obligee in possession of
which shall be paid directly to the court. such property. Any costs, damages, rents or
profits awarded by the judgement shall be
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
75
CIVIL PROCEDURE
satisfied in the same manner as a judgement for shall only be prima facie evidence of the death
money. of the testator or intestate.
(d) Removal of improvements on property (b) In other cases, the judgement or final
subject of execution. – When the property order is, with respect to the matter directly
subject of the execution contains improvements adjudged or as to any other matter that could
constructed or planted by the judgement obligor have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive
or his agent, the officer shall not destroy, between the parties and their successors in
demolish or remove said improvements except interest by title subsequent to the
upon special order of the court, issued upon commencement of the action or special
motion of the judgement oblige after due proceeding, litigating for the same thing and
hearing and after the former has failed to under the same title and in the same capacity;
remove the same within a reasonable time fixed and
by the court.
(c) In any other litigation between the
(e) Delivery of personal property. – In same parties or their successors in interest, that
judgements for the delivery of personal property, only is deemed to have been adjudged in a
the officer shall take possession of the same and former judgement or final order which appears
forthwith deliver it to the party entitled thereto upon its face to have been so adjudged, or
and satisfy any judgement for money as therein which was actually and necessarily included
provided. therein or necessary thereto.
Rule 39, Sec. 11. Execution of special Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgements
judgements. – When a judgement requires the or final orders. – The effect of a judgement or
performance of any act other than those final order of a tribunal of a foreign country,
mentioned in the two preceding sections, a having jurisdiction to render the judgement or
certified copy of the judgement shall be attached final order is as follows:
to the writ of execution and shall be served by
the officer upon the party against whom the (a) In case of a judgement or final order
same is rendered, or upon any other person upon a specific thing, the judgement or final
required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, order is conclusive upon the title of the thing;
and such party or person may be punished for and
contempt if he disobeys such judgement.
(b) In case of a judgement or final order
Effect of Judgements and Final Orders against a person, the judgement or final order is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the
Local parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title.
Rule 39, Sec. 47. Effect of judgements or final
orders. – The effect of a judgement or final order In either case, the judgement or final order may
rendered by a court of the Philippines, having be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction,
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgement or final want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
order, may be as follows: clear mistake of law or fact.
(a) In case of a judgement or final order NOTES ON JUDGMENT AND FINAL
against a specific thing, or in respect to the ORDERS:
probate of a will, or the administration of the
estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the Rule 36 § 1. Rendition of judgment and final
personal, political, or legal condition or status of orders. A judgment or final order determining
a particular person or his relationship to the merits of the case shall be:
another, the judgement or final order is (1) in writing
conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or (2) personally and directly prepared by the judge
administration, or the condition, status or (3) stating clearly and distinctly the facts and
relationship of the person; however, the probate the law on which it is based.
of a will or granting of letters of administration (4) Signed by him
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
76
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(5) And filed with the Clerk of Court. Before it becomes final and
executory
Rule 36 § 3. Judgment for or against one or
more of several parties.
Judgment is rendered in favor of party Eternal Gardens Memorial v. IAC
A; based on particular judgment is rendered 165 SCRA 439
only against Facts: A Land Development
Agreement was executed between
Eternal & Mission. Mission owned the
property & Eternal was to develop it
Final order - Court has nothing else to do. into a memorial park. Thereafter, a
Deed of Absolute Sale w/ mortgage
Order granting a MTD - a Final Order was executed. BUT Maysilo claimed
Only final orders and judgment are subjects of ownership over the land. Thus, Eternal
appeal. Interlocutory orders are not subject of filed w/ the CFI a complaint for
appeal. interpleader vs. Mission & Maysilo
Estate. It alleged that, in view of the
Rendition of judgment - upon the clerk receiving conflicting claims & to protect its
the copy interests, defendants should be
Book of entry of judgment - date of the lapse of required to interplead & litigate
the fifteen (15) days; not on the date of entry. between themselves.
Book of satisfaction of judgment Mission filed a Motion for placing
on judicial deposit the amounts due &
Entry of judgment - important for counting of unpaid fr. Eternal. Motion was DENIED.
petition for entry of judgment, among others. The contract was declared ineffective
First Sense - terminates action on the ground that the subject matter
Second Sense of finality - final and executory. of the sale was not existing.
Mission then filed a Motion to
Final judgment under new rules - that which can Dismiss the Interpleader. TC ordered
already be executed Eternal to comply w/ the contract
Nunc pro tunc - "then as now" EXCEPT w/ regard to the interpleader
of Maysilo Estate. Maysilo filed Motion
Final & executory - even if ground is substantial for Recon w/c was GRANTED by the TC.
can no longer be modified, except: Hearings on the merits were ordered
1. Clerical errors BUT Mission filed for Writ of Execution.
2. Nunc pro tunc This was DENIED. On appeal, CA
3. Annulment of judgment based on extrinsic dismissed & this was affirmed by the
SC. The order became final &
fraud (Jep Management Co.)
executory.
4. Void judgment (Paluwagan and Vda de
Macoy) a void judgment never prescribes. In 1983, heirs of Singson spouses
filed an action for quieting of title
where Eternal & Mission were
Difference between Motion for Re-open and
defendants. This case is still pending.
MNT (taken within the period for taking
appeal): In the present case, Mission filed a
To re-open trial - make use of ordinary petition for certiorari w/ the CA for the
setting aside of RTC orders regarding
prudence, rules on motions
the setting of the hearing on the
MNT - extrinsic fraud - basis of the cause of merits. CA dismissed BUT later on
action, performance of a contract reversed. Eternal filed a Motion for
Content of the action itself. Recon w/c was again DENIED.
Held: Courts have the power to
Extrinsic Fraud - one of the parties prevented amend their judgments, to make them
the other by fraudulent acts to be given his day conformable to the applicable
in court. jurisprudence PROVIDED said
judgments ARE NOT YET FINAL. In the
CAB, Eternal admitted it still has to
Amendment of judgment pay whoever will be declared as
owner. Therefore, there was no
plausible reason for petitioner’s
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
77
CIVIL PROCEDURE
objections to the deposit order after if a case bet. Greggy & Velasquez
having asked the ct. by complaint for regarding the lot will be successful.
interpleader whose deposit is not only Trini & Fajards then filed an action to
required but is a contractual ENFORCE the agreement & the TC
obligation. ruled in their favor. Trini & Fajards then
Finally, there is no res judicata filed a motion for the issuance of a
here bec. there was no judgment on writ of execution w/c was granted by
the merits. Also, there was no identity the TC. The Register of Deeds,
of issues. One case involved the however, informed the ct. that the
propriety of motion for recon w/o a deed of conveyance cannot be issued
hearing & the denial of the motion for in favor of Trini & Fajards bec. the land
execution. The other case involved the had already been sold to other
propriety of a CA order that Eternal persons. However, the TC directed the
shall deposit what was required of it Register of Deeds to issue separate
pending the trial on the merits. titles in favor of the two. Top
Management then filed this petition to
annul the orders of the TC on the
After it becomes final and ground of extrinsic fraud. It claimed
executory the it has title to the same parcel of
land w/c was being levied upon since
David v. CA< 214 SCRA 644 it bought the same fr. the heirs of
Facts: SUPRA Greggy. The CA dismissed the petition
for annulment.
Held: The filing of the petition for
relief fr. judgment w/ the TC was an HELD: Extrinsic fraud is one the effect
unequivocal admission on Afable’s of w/c PREVENTS a party fr. having a
part that his period to appeal fr. the trial or real contest or fr. presenting all
decision had already expired. When a of his case to the ct. or where it
final judgment has become executory, operates upon matters pertaining NOT
it thereby becomes immutable & TO THE JUDGMENT ITSELF but of the
unalterable. The judgment MAY NO MANNER in w/c it was procured so that
LONGER BE MODIFIED in any respect there is not a fair submission of the
even if the modification is meant to controversy.
correct what is perceived to be an In other words, EXTRINSIC FRAUD
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, & refers to any fraudulent act of the
regardless of whether the modification prevailing party in the litigation w/c is
is attempted to be made by the ct. committed OUTSIDE OF THE TRIAL of
rendering it or by the highest ct. of the the case, whereby the defeated party
land. has been PREVENTED fr. exhibiting
The only recognized EXCEPTIONS FULLY his side of the case, by fraud,
are: deception or deception practiced upon
him by his opponent.
1. Correction of clerical errors
The relief is granted on the theory
2. Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc
that by reason of the extrinsic fraud
3. Where the judgment is VOID preventing a party fr. fully trying his
These are entries w/c cause NO INJURY case, there has never been a real
to any party. contest before the ct. on the subject
matter of the action.
The allegations that the judge had
Judgments nunc pro tunc no jurisdiction to order the sheriff to
levy on execution since the judge had
full knowledge that Top Management
Cardoza v. Singson, 181 SCRA 45 & not Greggy who owned the land,
that the writ vs. the prop. was not
Annulment of judgment justified bec. Top Management was not
a party to the case--These DO NOT
Top Management Programs v. CA CONSTITUTE FRAUD.
222 SCRA 763 Top Management has not pointed
Facts: Gregorio promised to give a to any act w/c prevented it form fully
large tract of land to Trinidad & Fajardo ventilating its case. If ever there was
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
78
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
79
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
82
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Held: Where fraud is the ground, the Relief under Rule 38 is of equitable
fraud must be extrinsic or collateral & character & is allowed only in
the facts upon w/c the extrinsic fraud exceptional cases where there is no
is based must have not been other available or adequate remedy.
controverted or resolved in the case Meralco could have proceeded by
where the judgment sought to be appeal to vacate or modify the default
annulled was rendered. For this judgment. Relief will not be granted
purpose, fraud is regarded as extrinsic when the loss of remedy at law was
or collateral where it has prevented a due to his own negligence or a
party fr. having a trial or fr. presenting mistaken mode of procedure,
all of his case to the ct.. Intrinsic fraud otherwise the petition for relief will be
takes the form of acts of the party in a tantamount to the right of appeal
litigation during the trial, such as the already. Further, when other lawyers
use of forged instruments of perjured could have appeared & moved for
testimony w/c did not affect the postponement, sickness of counsel is
presentation of the case but did not excusable.
prevent a fair & just determination of
the case.
Requires final judgment or loss of
Conde v. IAC, 144 SCRA 144
appeal
Facts: Petitioners alleged fraud.
Gutierrez was able to make it appear Villa Rey Transit v. Far East Motor Co., 81
that he was the son of Esteban & SCRA 298
Fermina Gutierrez & as a necessary Facts: Villa Rey failed to answer w/in
consequence of such filiation, was the the reglementary period even after
absolute owner by succession of the denial of its motion to extend time to
prop. in Q. answer. Hence, & order of default was
Held: Petition should be dismissed for rendered. Thereafter it filed a MTQ
lack of merit bec. the fraud allegedly Service of Summons, Motion to Lift
perpetuated by G is only intrinsic in Order of Default & To Set Aside
nature & not extrinsic. Fraud is Judgment. This was denied. The 30-
regarded as extrinsic or collateral day appeal period expired w/o any
where it has prevented a party fr. appeal. Villa Rey contends the motion
having a trial or fr. presenting all of his it filed should be considered as
case to the ct.. In the case at bar, the Petition for Relief.
fraud was in the nature of documents Held: This is untenable. A petition
allegedly manufactured by G to make for relief presupposes a final &
it appear he was the rightful heir of unappealable judgment. In this case,
the disputed property. Hence the judgment has not yet become final &
fraud is intrinsic in nature. unappealable at the time of the filing
of the motion.
Meralco v. CA, 187 SCRA 200
Facts: Meralco, after failing to appear David v CA, 214 SCRA 644
at a pre-trial conference, was declared Facts: An RTC decision was affirmed
in default. Thereafter, Meralco made by CA w/ slight modification to reflect
the following steps: 1) Filed a MFR to the date for the computation of the
Lift Order of Default & to Vacate interest to be awarded. This was done
Judgment by Default - bec. of after denying the petitioner’s relief fr.
counsel’s influenza. Denied. 2) judgment.
Petition for Relief fr. Judgment . Held: CA. In sustaining the RTC
Dismissed. 3) Petition for Certiorari. decision to deny the petition for relief
Propriety of this last action is the issue fr. judgment the respondent Court
in this case. cannot at the same time modify the
Held: Certiorari is not proper. Such decision sought to be overturned by
remedy had already been lost bec. of such a petition. The filing of the
Meralco’s neglect or error in the choice petition for relief fr. judgment w/ the
of remedies. Certiorari shall not lie to trial ct. was an unequivocal admission
shield Meralco fr. the adverse on the private respondent’s that his
consequences of such neglect or error. period to appeal fr. the decision had
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
83
CIVIL PROCEDURE
already expired. A petition for relief fr. Garcia v. CA, 202 SCRA 228
judgment under Rule 38 presupposes Facts: Eduardo Garcia was able to
a final judgment or loss of the right to secure a judgment fr. the trial ct.
appeal. The affirmance of the CA of issuing to him the Certificate of Title to
the denial of the petition is a a land actually owned by the spouses
confirmation of the existence of a final Garcia. He did this by misinforming
& executory judgment. CA can neither the ct. of the spouses’ address so that
amend nor modify it. When a final the notices wont reach them thereby
judgment becomes executory it depriving them of the opportunity to
becomes immutable & unalterable, participate in the trial. Garcia further
even if modification is meant to made further recovery of the land
correct an erroneous conclusion of fact difficult by conveying the land to
or law. Only corrections of clerical another. The couple filed a petition for
errors or the making of so-called NUNC relief fr. said judgment but failed to
PRO TUNC entries & other judgment categorically allege extrinsic fraud in
w/c cause no prejudice to any party their affidavit of merit. The PFR was
are the exceptions to this rule, dismissed by CA saying that extrinsic
otherwise any other modifications of a fraud should be expressly alleged in
final & executory judgment is VOID. the affidavit of merit for the petition to
lie. The SC said that since in case at
bar, the spouses were able to allege
facts leading to extrinsic fraud,
Time for Filing, Rule 38, Sec. 3 express allegation of such is not
Strictly followed necessary.
Held: CA denied PFR for want of
First Integrated Bonding v. Hernando, 199 express allegation of extrinsic fraud.
SCRA 796 SC reversed saying that since Rule 38
Facts: FIB was impleaded as the Sec 3 (FAME as ground in affidavit of
insurance agency of defendant who merit for PFR) & that in case at bar,
figured in an accident killing one petitioners were able to show extrinsic
person. FIB failed to answer so it was fraud, affidavit is not necessary.
declared in default. FIB took no HELD: The affidavit of merit serves as
positive step to vacate the order of a jurisdictional basis for a ct. to
default. Instead it chose to file a entertain a petition for relief. But it
petition for relief fr. judgment almost admits of exceptions, i.e. Where the
five months fr. its receipt of copy of attachment of the affidavit of merit in
the amended decision. the petition for relief is unnecessary.
Held: The petition for relief fr. The affidavit of merit is essential bec.
judgment was filed out of time. The a new trial would be a waste of court’s
rules require that such petition should time if the complaint turned out to be
be filed w/in 60 days after receipt of groundless. Thus, where there was no
judgment & not more than six months jurisdiction over the defendant on the
after entry of judgment. Period subject matter of the action, where a
required by R 38 is non-extendible & judgment was taken by default before
never interrupted. It is not subject to defendant’s time to answer had
any cond. or contingency, bec. it is expired, where it was entertained by
itself devised to meet a condition or mistake, or was obtained by fraud &
contingency. The remedy under the other similar cases, as when the
Rule 38 was an act of grace, designed applicant had no notice of the trial, we
to give the party one last chance. ruled that an affidavit is not necessary.
Being in the position of one who begs,
such party’s privilege is not to impose When motion for reconsideration
conditions, haggle, or dilly-dally, but
to grab what is offered him. considered as petition for relief
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
85
CIVIL PROCEDURE
a view to the removal of the litigation For this reason, Trial courts are accorded high
beyond the period for seeking relief, fr. respect in their findings of questions of fact.
a final order of judgment under Rule
38 unless A) judgment is void for want Questions of law: characterization of facts as
of jurisdiction or for lack of due shown by the evidence, correct characterization
process of law or B) it has been fraud. of fact based on a provision of law. Which law
(In other words, period for filing of PFR is applicable given a set of circumstances
is mandatory but admits of exceptions
– lack of J & fraud.)
Several Modes of Appeal:
Reopening not allowed 1. Mandatory - appellate court must accept
2. Discretionary - appellate court can deny
Alvendia v. IAC, 181 SCRA 252
Normally:
Facts: Alvendia defaulted on his First appeal - always mandatory; as a matter of
obligation to pay Bonamy. Alvendia statutory right
did not do anything fr. the filing of the Second appeal - discretionary
complaint against him up to the time Third appeal - discretionary (however, if
that the judgment became final & originating fr. MTC, may not be discretionary)
executory. Execution has been ordered
& his property has been levied. He Exercise of jurisdiction - subject matter of
moved for extension of time to file appeal
petition for review. Questions of jurisdiction - file an entirely new
Held: It is axiomatic that there is no case; subject matter of special civil actions
justification in law & in fact for the reopening of
a case w/c has long become final & w/c in fact In Appeals - title of the case remains the same
has been executed. Time & again this ct. has Plaintiff/Defendant only
said that the doctrine of finality of judgment is becomes Appellant/Appellee
grounded on fundamental considerations of
public policy & sound practice that at the risk of Issue of jurisdiction - file entirely a different
occasional error, the judgments of cts. must case by filing special civil action attaching as a
become final at some definite date fixed by law – ground, abuse of discretion
Alvendia cannot invoke equity to reopen case
since they have been given opportunity but Appeal can focus in the issue of law or fact or
failed. both.
Appeals
Rules 40 - 56
Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of
NOTES ON APPEAL: Judgments
Rule 39
Appeal is a matter of right created by statutes.
Once denied, one can avail of the constitutional
right to due process Special Civil Actions
Appeal is asking appellate court to correct errors
in the exercise of jurisdiction Rules 62 - 71
Errors of jurisdiction corrected by review on
certiorari. NOTES ON SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS:
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
88
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Quasi-judicial
Agency QJA CA
SC
Rule 45- Appeal by certiorari (18 copies) 43 45
MODES OF APPEAL
Ordinary Appeal Notice (1
Appeal)
Notice with
record of appeal (Multiple Appeal)
Appeal by Certiorari
Notice: Rule 65 is not an Appeal
Concept of an APPEAL
Errors of jurisdiction
Rule 65
Subject matter
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
90
CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
91
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
92
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Not applicable.
Discharge of
remedy
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
93
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Interpleader Declaratory Certiorari Certiorari Prohibition Quo Expropriation Foreclosure of Partition Forcible Detainer Contempt
Relief (COMELEC Mandamus Warranto Real Estate Entry
and COA) Mortgage
Purpose Compel conflicting Declaration of
claimants to litigate rights and duties Division of real Protect judicial
their claims among (reformation of Taking of private Satisfy creditor property among the system from
themselves instrument, Correcting errors of jurisdiction Remove a usurper property for public based upon parties claiming Recover possession in fact unwarranted
quieting of title, use security rights thereto intrusion
consolidation of
ownership)
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
94
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Requisites Conflicting Person has Judgment or Certiorari: A person Property A person Real property A person A person Direct contempt:
claims exist upon interest under a final order has Any tribunal, board or officer usurps, intrudes owned by a owes another a is owned by enjoys lawful lawfully takes A person
the same subject deed, will, been rendered by exercising judicial or quasi judicial into, or private party loan several persons possession of the possession of the behaved
matter contract or other the COMELEC functions has rendered judgment unlawfully holds Taking by Loan is Person property land at the improperly in the
Such claims written or the COA Such tribunal, etc. has acted without or exercises office, government for secured by claiming right to Another beginning presence or so
are made upon a instrument Aggrieved or in excess of its jurisdiction position, or public use mortgage of real the property does person acquires Such lawful near a court
person who claims Person’s party wants the franchise Just property not want co- possession of the possession has Such
no interest in the rights are judgment or final Prohibition: A public compensation Debtor ownership to same property by ended misbehavior
subject matter affected by a order reviewed Proceedings in a tribunal, officer does or defaulted in continue force, A demand to obstructed or
statute, executive by a higher court corporation, board, officer or person suffers an act payment intimidation, vacate has been interrupted court
order or exercising judicial, quasi judicial or which, by the Final demand threat, strategy or made proceedings
regulation, ministerial functions are conducted provision of law, has been made stealth
ordinance, or any without or in excess of its jurisdiction constitutes a Indirect contempt:
other ground for the
governmental Mandamus: forfeiture of his Misbehavior
regulation When any tribunal, corporation, office; in performance of
No breach or board, officer or person unlawfully An official functions
violation of the neglects performance of an act which the association acts as Disobe-
rights has yet law specifically enjoins a corporation dience to lawful
occurred within the court orders
Common requisite: Philippines Abuse or
There is no appeal or any plain, without being unlawful
speedy, and adequate remedy in the legally interference with
ordinary course of law incorporated or court processes
without lawful Improper
authority so to act conduct which
tends to impede
administration of
justice
Pretending to
be a lawyer or
officer
Failure to
obey subpoena
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
95
CIVIL PROCEDURE
cedure Complaint is Action is 18 copies of Petition must be filed within 60 days Verified Verified Complaint filed
filed brought before verified petition from notice of judgment petition in the complaint filed, Court ascertaines
Summons appropriate RTC shall be filed Court orders respondents to file name of the RP is stating right and amount due to
served upon All persons within 30 days comment within 10 days from receipt of filed (Person purpose of plaintiff and
parties affected made from notice of the order claiming to be expropriation renders judgment
Parties files parties judgment or final Court may order filing of reply or entitled to a Persons owning ordering defendant
motion to dismiss Notice to Sol order other responsive pleadings public office or or claiming to own to pay within a
or answers the Gen if validity of If motion for Court may hear the case or require position usurped any interest within a period not
complaint a statue, executive new trial or recon- parties to submit memoranda by another may pertaining to the less than 90 days
Pre-trial order or sideration is Court either grants petition or bring action in his property must be but not more than
Court regulation of any allowed, period to dismisses the same if it finds the same to own name) joined as 120 days
determines other file petition is be patently without merit, prosecuted Person at defendants If defendant fails
parties’ respective governmental interrupted. If manifestly for delay, or that the questions whose instance Plaintiff may to pay, foreclosure
rights and regulation is motion is denied, raised are too insubstantial to require the petition is enter property after sale ensues
adjudicate their involved petition shall be consideration brought pays costs filing complaint Costs deducted
several claims Notice to filed within Certified copy of judgment is served and expenses and depositing with from proceeds of
prosecutor or remaining period, upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, Respondent is a government sale, mortgagee
Note: Docket fees attorney of LGU in no case less than tribunal, corporation, board, officer or notified depositary amount paid amount due; if
paid by if involving 5 days. person and disobedience thereto shall be Court may equivalent to there is excess in
complainant validity of a local Pay docket punished as contempt. reduce periods for assessed value of the proceeds, same
constitute a lien ordinance and other lawful filing pleadings to property is turned over to
upon subject matter Court acts on fees and deposit of secure most Defendants mortgagor
of the action application P500 for costs expeditious allowed to file If proceeds of
If during SC either determination of objections sale is not sufficient
pendency of orders respon- matters involved Court rules on to cover entire
action there dents to file their in the action the issue of indebtedness,
occurs breach or comment if it finds Judgment is expropriation, deficiency
violation, action is petition sufficient rendered. Court granting or denying judgment is
converted into an in form and may render the same rendered: execution
ordinary action substance or judgment for costs If expropriation immediately issues
dismisses the against petitioner, is granted, court if whole debt is
petition if it was relator or person/s appoints notmore due, otherwise,
filed manifestly for claiming to be a than 3 mortagor entitled
delay or the corporation commisioners to execution upon
questions raised Person Objections to original terms of
are too adjudged entitled appointment of the contract
unsubstantial to public office commisioners may Certified copy of
Respondents may demand of be filed within ten final order
file comment the respondent to days from service confirming the sale
SC either sets deliver all books Commissioners is registered in the
case for oral and papers to him take oath before registry of deeds
argument or assuming function
requires Commissioners
submission of ascertain and report
memoranda or the just
decides the case compensation for
based on submit- the property
ted documents Clerk of court
serves copies of
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
96
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Prepared by:
AKSYON PARTY
97