12/12/2014 [Link] AM

CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER

Special proceedings
It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a

Based on Justice De Leons Outline, Civil Procedure by Riano, San

particular fact.

Beda Reviewer, and 1997 Rules of Court.

BASIC PRINCIPLES

GENERAL PROVISIONS (Rule 1)

Difference between substantive and remedial law

Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has the constitutional power to promulgate rules
concerning:

REMEDIAL LAW

SUBSTANTIVE LAW

Pleading,
It creates, defines and

It prescribes the methods of

regulates

and

enforcing those rights and

life,

obligations

Practice, and
rights

Procedure.
duties

concerning

created

by

liberty or property, which

substantive law by providing a

when violated gives rise

procedural

to a cause of action.

obtaining

redress

invasion

of

Three (3) limitations on the SCs rule-making power:

system

for
The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the

for

the
speedy disposition of cases;

rights

and
shall be uniform for courts of the same grade; and

violations of duties and by

shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
prescribing rules as to how
suits are filed, tried and
Article 6, Sec. 30, Constitution
decided upon by the courts.
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice
Civil actions, criminal actions, and special proceedings

and concurrence.

Civil actions

Procedural and substantive rules

It is one by which a party sues another for the protection of a right or

Substantive law creates, defines, regulates, and extinguishes rights

the prevention or redress of a wrong. Its primary purpose is

and obligations, while remedial or procedural law provides the

compensatory. Civil actions may be:

procedure for the enforcement of rights and obligations.

Ordinary, or
Force and effect of Rules of Court

Special.
Both are governed by rules for ordinary civil actions,

The Rules of Court have the force and effect of law, unless they

subject to specific rules prescribed for special civil actions.

happen to be inconsistent with positive law.

Criminal actions

Power of Supreme Court to suspend the Rules of Court

It is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or

omission punishable by law. Its primary purpose is punishment.

CIVIL PROCEDURE
2 REVIEWE

Whenever demanded by justice, the Supreme Court has the inherent

The courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which

power to suspend its own rules or exempt a particular case from the

is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.

operation of said rules.

Doctrine of continuing jurisdiction

Once jurisdiction has attached to a court, it retains that jurisdiction

May parties change the rules of procedure?

until it finally disposes of the case. Hence, it is not lost by

General rule: They may not. This is because these are matters of

The passage of new laws transferring the jurisdiction to another

public interest.

tribunal except when expressly provided by the statute;

Subsequent filing of a notice of appeal;

Exceptions:

The mere fact that a party who is a public official ceased to be in

Matters of procedure which may be

office; or

Agreed upon by the parties Venue may be changed by written

Finality of judgment (the court still has jurisdiction to enforce and

agreement of the parties (Rule 4, Sec. 4[b])

execute it)

Waived Venue may be waived if not objected to in a motion to

dismiss or in the answer. (Rule 16, Sec. 6); judgment in default may

Elements of a valid exercise of jurisdiction

be waived by failure to answer within 15 days.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case;

Fall within the discretion of the court The period to plead may be

the parties;

extended on motion of a party. (Rule 11, Sec. 11); rules of procedure

the res if jurisdiction over the defendant cannot be acquired;

may be relaxed in the interest of justice.

the issue of the case; and

Payment of docket fees.

JURISDICTION
It is the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decided a

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is a matter of substantive law.

case.

Jurisdiction over the parties, the res and the issues are
matters of procedure. Jurisdiction over the parties and the res are

1. Generally

covered by the rule on summons, while jurisdiction over the issues is

The statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action

subsumed under the rule on pleadings.

determines the jurisdiction of the court.

Before looking into other matters, it is the duty of the court to

As to subject matter

consider the question of jurisdiction without waiting for it to be

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution

raised.

or by law.

If court has jurisdiction, such must be exercised. Otherwise, it may be

enforced by a mandamus proceeding.

Therefore, jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be

conferred by

If court has no jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the claim and can
do so motu proprio.

Administrative policy of any court;

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

Courts unilateral assumption of jurisdiction;

Erroneous belief by the court that it has jurisdiction;

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

CIVIL PROCEDURE
3 REVIEWE

By contract or by the parties;

are desirous of obtaining a decision. Thus, where there is no disputed

By agreement, or by any act or omission of the parties, nor by

point, there is no issue.

acquiescence of the court; or

By the parties silence, acquiescence or consent

Jurisdiction over the issue may be conferred or determined by

General Rule: It is determined by the material allegations of the

Examination of the pleadings

initiatory pleading (e.g., the complaint), not the answer of the

Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the pleadings

defendant. Once acquired, jurisdiction is not lost because of the

of the parties.

defendants contrary allegation.

Pre-trial

Exception: In ejectment cases, where tenancy is averred by way of

It may be conferred by stipulation of the parties in the pre-trial, as

defense and is proved to be the real issue, the case should be

when they enter into stipulations of facts and documents or enter

dismissed for not being properly filed with the DARAB.

into an agreement simplifying the issues of the case (Rule 18, Sec. 2)
Waiver

It is determined by the cause of action alleged, not by the amount

Failure to object to presentation of evidence on a matter not raised

substantiated and awarded. Example: If a complaint alleges a

in the pleadings. Said issues tried shall be treated as if they had been

recoverable amount of P1M, RTC has jurisdiction even if evidence

raised in the pleadings.

proves the only P300k may be recovered.

As to the parties
Note: Jurisdiction over the subject matter CANNOT be waived,

The court acquires jurisdiction over the

enlarged or diminished by stipulation of the parties.

Plaintiff
As to res or property

when he files his complaint

Jurisdiction over the res refers to the courts jurisdiction over the
thing or the property which is the subject of the action.

Defendant
Valid service of summons upon him, or

Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by

Voluntary appearance:

Custodia legisplacing the property or thing under the courts

The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be

custody (e.g., attachment)

equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to

Statutory authoritystatute conferring the court with power to deal

dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the

with the property or thing within its territorial jurisdiction

person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary

Summons by publication or other modes of extraterritorial service

appearance. (Rule 14, Sec. 20)

(Rule 14, Sec. 15)

As to the issues

Examples:

Issue a disputed point or question to which parties to an action

When defendant files the necessary pleading;

have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they

A motion for reconsideration;

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

CIVIL PROCEDURE
4 REVIEWE

Petition to set aside judgment o f default;

demands made by respondents to return said portion and to remove

An answer;

the house constructed thereon. Respondents filed a complaint

Petition for certiorari without questioning the courts jurisdiction

against him. Bertuldo filed his Answer, alleging ownership of the

over his person; or

disputed property by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Bertuldo died

When the parties jointly submit a compromise agreement for

without completing his evidence during the direct examination.

approval

Bertuldos original counsel was replaced by Atty. Petalcorin who

entered his appearance as new counsel for the heirs of Bertuldo.

BUT the filing of an answer should not be treated automatically as a

Atty. Petalcorin filed a motion to expunge the complaint from the

voluntary appearance when such answer is precisely to object to the

record and nullify all court proceedings on the ground that private

courts jurisdiction over the defendants person.

respondents failed to specify in the complaint the amount of

damages claimed so as to pay the correct docket fees; and that

La Naval v. CA: A defendant should be allowed to put up his own

under Manchester doctrine, non-payment of the correct docket fee is

defenses alternatively or hypothetically. It should not be the

jurisdictional.

invocation of available additional defenses that should be construed

as a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, but

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are barred by estoppel from

the failure to raise the defense.

questioning the jurisdiction of RTC

YES. The petitioners are barred from questioning

Note: Jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant cannot be acquired

jurisdiction of the trial court. Although the issue of jurisdiction at any

if the action is in personam.

stage of the proceedings as the same is conferred by law, it is

nonetheless settled that a party may be barred from raising it on the

2. Estoppel to deny jurisdiction

ground of estoppel. After the deceased Bertuldo participated in all

stages of the case before the trial court, the petitioners merely

HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG v. MELICOR

stepped into the shoes of their predecessor and are effectively

(455 SCRA 460, 2005)

barred by estoppel from challenging RTCs jurisdiction.

Since the deceased defendant participated in all

stages of the case before the trial court, he is
estopped from denying the jurisdiction of the court.
The petitioners merely stepped into the shoes of

3. Jurisdiction at the time of filing of action

their predecessor and are effectively barred by

estoppel from challenging RTCs jurisdiction.

PEOPLE v. CAWALING
(293 SCRA 267, 1998)

FACTS: Bertuldo Hinog allegedly occupied and built a small house on

a portion of a property owned by respondents Balane for 10 years at
a nominal annual rental. After 10 years, Bertuldo refused to heed
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

CIVIL PROCEDURE
5 REVIEWE

The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is

Section 4-a-2 of PD 1606, as amended by PD 1861 lists two requisites

determined by the law in force at the time of the institution

that must concur before the Sandiganbayan may exercise exclusive

of the action. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not

and original jurisdiction over a case: (a) the offense was committed

be ousted from the case by any subsequent events, such as a

by the accused public officer in relation to his office; and (b) the

new legislation placing such proceedings under the

penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or

jurisdiction of another tribunal. Exceptions to this rule arise

imprisonment for six (6) years, or higher than a fine of P6,000.

when: (1) there is an express provision in the statute, or (2)

Sanchez vs. Demetriou clarified that murder or homicide may be

the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending

committed both by public officers and by private citizens, and that

before its enactment.

public office is not a constitutive element of said crime. The relation

between the crime and the office contemplated should be direct and
not accidental.

FACTS: Brothers Vicente and Ronie Elisan were drinking tuba at the
kitchenette of one of the accused, Fontamilla. When they were
about to leave, they were warned by Luz Venus that the six (6)
accused consisting of Mayor Cawaling, four (4) policemen and a
civilian, had been watching and waiting for them outside the
restaurant. Nevertheless, the two went out and were chased by the
armed men. Vicente successfully ran and hid behind a coconut tree

The Information filed against the appellants contains no allegation

that appellants were public officers who committed the crime in
relation to their office. The charge was only for murder.
In the absence of any allegation that the offense was committed in
relation to the office of appellants or was necessarily connected with
the discharge of their functions, the regional trial court, not the
Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
while Ronie unfortunately went to the ricefield and was shot to
death there.
An Information alleging murder was filed in the RTC

REGULAR COURTS (MTC, RTC, CA, SC)

(See San Beda Reviewer)
against the 6 accused. RTC convicted them of murder. On appeal,
the appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case,
insisting that the Sandiganbayan was the tribunal with jurisdiction

SPECIAL COURTS (Sandiganbayan)

(See San Beda Reviewer)

since the accused were public officers at the time of the killing.
QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES
ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction
NO. The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is
determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the

Securities and Exchange Commission (Sec. 5.2, RA 8799)

The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over
action. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted
from the case by any subsequent events, such as a new legislation
placing such proceedings under the jurisdiction of another tribunal.
Exceptions to this rule arise when: (1) there is an express provision in
the statute, or (2) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions
pending before its enactment.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

Pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final

resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the
enactment of this Code, and
Jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation
cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

CIVIL PROCEDURE
6 REVIEWE

ISSUE: Whether the law authorized an appeal by the government from

Civil Service Commission

an adverse decision of the MSBP

NO. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, decisions of

MAGPALE v. CSC (215 SCRA 398, 1992)

the MPSB shall be final, except only those involving dismissal or

separation from the service which may be appealed to the

Under Section 47 of the Administrative Code, the

CSC shall decide on appeal all administrative
disciplinary cases involving the imposition of
(d) removal or dismissal from office.
The MPSB decision did not involve
dismissal or separation from office, rather, the
decision exonerated petitioner and ordered him
reinstated to his former position. The MSPB
decision was not a proper subject of appeal to the

Commission
While it is true that the CSC does have the power to hear
and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it
directly or on appeal, the exercise of the power is qualified by and
should be read together with Sec. 49 of Executive Order 292, which
prescribes, among others that (a) the decision must be appealable.
Under Section 47 of the Administrative Code, the CSC shall
decide on appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the
imposition of:
a penalty of suspension for more than 30 days;

CSC.

fine in an amount exceeding 30 days salary;

FACTS: Magpale, port manager of Philippine Ports Authority-Port
Management Unit (PPA-PMU) of Tacloban, was found by the
Secretary of DOTC guilty of Gross Negligence on two counts: (a) for

demotion in rank or salary or transfer; or

removal or dismissal from office.
The MPSB decision did not involve dismissal or separation from
office, rather, the decision exonerated petitioner and ordered him
his failure to account for the 44 units of equipment and (b) for failing
to render the required liquidation of his cash advances amounting to
P44,877.00 for a period of 4 yrs. He was also found guilty of frequent
and unauthorized absences. He was meted the penalty of dismissal
from the service with the corresponding accessory penalties.
He appealed to the Merit System and Protection Board (MSPB) of

reinstated to his former position. The MSPB decision was not a

proper subject of appeal to the CSC.
Settled is the rule that a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial
functions acts without jurisdiction if no authority has been conferred
by law to hear and decide the case.
the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The MSPB reversed the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
decision.
PPA filed an appeal with the Civil Service Field Office-PPA, which
SANDOVAL v. CAEBA
indorsed the appeal to CSC. Magpale moved for the implementation
of the MSPB decision which was opposed by the PPA. MSPB ordered

(190 SCRA 77, 1991)

the immediate implementation of its decision, which became final
and executory.
Respondent CSC reversed MPSBs decision and held
Magpale guilty.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

CIVIL PROCEDURE
7 REVIEWE

ISSUE: Whether the ordinary courts have jurisdiction over the

It is not the ordinary courts but the National

collection of unpaid installments regarding a subdivision lot

Housing Authority (NHA) which has exclusive

jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of (a) unsound
real estate business practices; (b) claims involving
refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot
or condominium unit buyer against the project
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
(c)

cases

involving

specific

performance

of

contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers

of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.

NO. Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 957 the

National Housing Authority (NHA) was given the exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide certain cases of the following nature:
Unsound real estate business practices:
Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot
or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer,
dealer, broker or salesman; and
Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
The exclusive jurisdiction over the case between the petitioner and
private respondent is vested not on the RTC but on the NHA. The

FACTS: Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (Estate) filed a

NHA was re-named Human Settlements Regulatory Commission

complaint against Nestor Sandoval (Sandoval) in the RTC for the

and thereafter it was re-named as the Housing and Land Use

collection of unpaid installments of a subdivision lot, pursuant to a

Regulatory Board (HLURB).

promissory note, plus interest. Sandoval alleges that he suspended

payments thereof because of the failure of the developer to develop

KINDS OF ACTION

the subdivision pursuant to their agreement. The RTC ruled in favor

of Estate, and ordered Sandoval to pay. A writ of execution was

1. As to cause or foundation

issued which thereafter became final and executory.

The distinction between a real action and a personal action is

Sandoval filed a motion to vacate judgment and to dismiss

important for the purpose of determining the venue of the action.

the complaint on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over
the subject matter. A motion for reconsideration of the writ of

(a) Personal

execution was also filed by petitioner. Estate opposed both motions.

Personal actions are those other than real actions. (Sec. 2, Rule 4)

RTC denied the motion to vacate for the reason that it is now beyond
the jurisdiction of the court to do so. A new writ of execution was

Examples

issued.

Action for specific performance

Sandoval filed a petition alleging that the RTC committed

Action for damages to real property

grave abuse of discretion since the exclusive and original jurisdiction

Action for declaration of the nullity of marriage

over the subject-matter thereof is vested with the Housing and Land

Action to compel mortgagee to accept payment of the mortgage

Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) pursuant to PD 957.

debt and release the mortgage

(b) Real

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

CIVIL PROCEDURE
8 REVIEWE

An action is real when it affects title to or possession of real property,

A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights

or an interest therein. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)

and obligations brought against the person and is based on the

To be a real action, it is not enough that it deals with real

jurisdiction of the person.

property. It is important that the matter in litigation must also

Its purpose is to impose some responsibility or liability

involve any of the following issues:

directly upon the person of the defendant. In an action in personam,

Title;

no one other than the defendant is sought to be held liable.

Ownership;
Possession;

Examples

Partition;

Action for sum of money

Foreclosure of mortgage; or

Action for damages

Any interest in real property

(c) Quasi in rem
Examples

An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as

Action to recover possession of real property plus damages

defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his

(damages is merely incidental)

interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.

Action to annul or rescind a sale of real property

Such action deals with the status, ownership or liability of a

particular property, but which are intended to operate on these
questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings,
and not to ascertain or cut-off the rights or interests of all possible

2. As to object

claimants.

The distinctions are important to determine whether the jurisdiction

of the defendant is required, and

NOTE: These rules are inapplicable in the following cases:

to determine the type of summons to be employed

Election cases;
Land registration;

(a) In rem

Cadastral;

An action is in rem when it is directed against the whole world. It is

Naturalization;

for the determination of the state or condition of a thing.

Insolvency proceedings;
Other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a

Examples

suppletory character, and whenever practicable and convenient.

Probate proceeding

(Sec. 4, Rule 1)

Cadastral proceeding
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION (Sec. 5, Rule 1)
(b) In personam

A civil action is commenced

by the filing of the original complaint in court, or

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

CIVIL PROCEDURE
9 REVIEWE

on the date of the filing of the later pleading if an additional

defendant is impleaded irrespective of whether the motion for its

Initiation of proceedings

admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.

Payment of appropriate filing fee

(with respect only to the defendant later impleaded)

Oral or written complaint to the Punong Barangay (chairman of the

Lupon)

1. Condition precedent
matters which must be complied with before a cause of

Chairman shall summon respondents to appear the next working day

Mediation proceedings for 15 days

action arises.

Should the chairman fail in his mediation efforts within said period,

When a claim is subject to a condition precedent, compliance must

he shall constitute the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo,

be alleged in the pleading.

If no amicable settlement is reached, the chairman shall issue a

Failure to comply with a condition precedent is an independent

certification to file action.

ground for a motion to dismiss. (Sec. 1 [j], Rule 16)

All amicable settlements shall be
Examples:

In writing;

Tender of payment before consignation

In a language or dialect known to the parties;

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Signed by them; and

Prior resort to barangay conciliation proceedings

Attested to by the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the

Earnest efforts towards a compromise

case may be.

Arbitration proceedings, when contract so provides

Effect
Katarungang Pambarangay (RA 7160)

The amiable settlement and arbitration award shall have the effect

Purpose: To reduce the number of court litigations and prevent the

of a final judgment of a court upon expiration of 10 days from date

deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought by the

thereof, unless:

indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts.

Repudiation of the settlement has been made, or

Only individuals shall be parties to KB proceedings, no juridical

Petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or

entities.

municipal court

Parties must personally appear in all KB proceedings and without

Execution shall issue upon expiration of 10 days from settlement.

assistance of counsel or representatives, except for minors and

incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin, not lawyers.

LUMBUAN v. RONQUILLO

Conciliation proceedings required is not a jurisdictional requirement.

(489 SCRA 650, 2006)

NOTE: Failure to undergo the barangay conciliation proceedings is

non-compliance of a condition precedent. Hence, a motion to
dismiss a civil complaint may be filed. (Sec. 1 [j], Rule 16).
BUT the court may not motu proprio dismiss the case for failure to
undergo conciliation.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

CIVIL PROCEDURE
10 REVIEWE

NO. It should be noted that although no pangkat was

While admittedly no pangkat was constituted, the parties

met at the office of the Barangay Chairman for possible
settlement. The act of Lumbuan in raising the matter to
the Katarungang Pambarangay and the subsequent

formed since no amicable settlement was reached by the parties

before the Katarungang Pambarangay, there was substantial
compliance with Section 412(a) of R.A. 7160.
While admittedly no pangkat was constituted, the parties

confrontation of the lessee and lessor before the Lupon

Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the
precondition for filing the case in court.

met at the office of the Barangay Chairman for possible settlement.

Thereby, the act of petitioner Lumbuan in raising the matter to the
Katarungang Pambarangay and the subsequent confrontation of the
lessee and lessor before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is

FACTS: Lumbuan (lessor) leased a lot to respondent Ronquillo

sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in

(lessee) for 3 years at a rental of P5000/month. They agreed that: (a)

court. This is true notwithstanding the mandate of Section 410(b) of

there will be an annual 10% increase in rent for the next 2 years; and

the same law that the Barangay Chairman shall constitute a pangkat

(b) the leased premises shall be used only for lessees fastfood

if he fails in his mediation efforts. Section 410(b) should be construed

business. Ronquillo failed to abide by the conditions, and refused to

together with Section 412, as well as the circumstances obtaining in

pay or vacate the leased premises despite Lumbuans repeated

and peculiar to the case. On this score, it is significant that the

verbal demands.

Barangay Chairman or Punong Barangay is herself the Chairman of

Lumbuan referred the matter to the Barangay Chairmans Office but

the Lupon under the Local Government Code.

no amicable settlement was reached. The barangay chairman issued

a Certificate to File Action. Lumbuan filed an action for Unlawful

2. Payment of filing fee

Detainer with MeTC of Manila which ordered respondent Ronquillo

Payment of the prescribed docket fee vests a trial court with

to vacate the leased premises and to pay P46,000 as unpaid rentals.

jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. The court

RTC set aside the MeTC decision and directed the parties to go back

acquires jurisdiction upon payment of the correct docket fees.

to the Lupon Chairman or Punong Barangay for further proceedings

All complaints, petitions, answers, and similar pleadings must

and to comply strictly with the condition that should the parties fail

specify the amount of damages being prayed for, both in the body of

to reach an amicable settlement, the entire case will be remanded to

the pleadings and in the assessment of the filing fees.

the MeTC for it to decide the case anew.

Manchester v. CA: Any defect in the original pleading resulting in

The CA reversed the RTC and ordered the dismissal of the ejectment

underpayment of the docket fee cannot be cured by amendment,

case, ruling that when a complaint is prematurely instituted, as when

and for all legal purposes, the court acquired no jurisdiction in such

the mandatory mediation and conciliation in the barangay level had

case.

not been complied with, the court should dismiss the case and not

BUT nonpayment of filing fees does not automatically cause the

just remand the records to the court of origin so that the parties may

dismissal of the case. The fee may be paid within the applicable

go through the prerequisite proceedings.

prescriptive or reglementary period.

ISSUE: Whether the CA properly dismissed complaint for failure of the

HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG v. MELICOR

parties to comply with the mandatory mediation and conciliation

(455 SCRA 460, 2005)

proceedings in the barangay level

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

10

CIVIL PROCEDURE
11 REVIEWE

Non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically

cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid
within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period,
more so when the party involved demonstrates a
willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment.
Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the
government, the Manchester rule does not apply.
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE v. ASUNCION
(170 SCRA 274, 1989)
FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint against Bertuldo for recovery
of ownership of the premises leased by the latter. Bertuldo alleged
ownership of the property by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale.

Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied

Bertuldo died without completing his evidence during the direct

by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment

examination. Atty. Petalcorin replaced the original counsel and filed

of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the

the

applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Where the

record and nullify all court proceedings on the ground that private

trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of

respondents failed to specify in the complaint the amount of

the pleading and payment of prescribed filing fees but the

damages claimed as needed to pay the correct docket fees, and that

judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if

under Manchester doctrine, non-payment of the correct docket fee is

specified

jurisdictional.

determination, the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien

motion

to

expunge

the

complaint

from

the

same

has

been

left

for

the

courts

on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of

ISSUE: Whether the nonpayment of the correct docket fee is

Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and

jurisdictional in the present case

assess and collect the additional fee.

NO. While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a

jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing
FACTS
does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) filed a complaint against Uy for the
fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period,
consignation of a premium refund on a fire insurance policy with a
more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to
prayer for the judicial declaration of its nullity. Uy was declared in
abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient
default for failure to file the required answer within the reglementary
filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no
period. Uy filed a complaint in the RTC for the refund of premiums
intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not
and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment initially against
apply.
petitioner SIOL, but thereafter included Philipps and Warby as
additional defendants. The complaint sought the payment of actual,

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

11

CIVIL PROCEDURE
12 REVIEWE

compensatory, moral, exemplary and liquidated damages, attorney's

fees, expenses of litigation and costs of the suit. Although the prayer
in the complaint did not quantify the amount of damages sought
said amount may be inferred from the body of the complaint to be
about P50,000,000.
Uy paid only P210.00 as docket fee, which prompted petitioners'

CAUSE OF ACTION (RULE 2)

counsel to raise his objection for under-assessment of docket fees.

Petitioners allege that while Uy had paid P182,824.90 as docket fee,

Cause of Action

and considering that the total amount sought in the amended and

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the

supplemental complaint is P64,601,623.70, the docket fee that

rights of another. (Sec. 2, Rule 2)

should be paid by private respondent is P257,810.49, more or less.

Not having paid the same, petitioners contend that the complaint

Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of

action. (Sec. 1, Rule 2)

should be dismissed and all incidents arising therefrom should be

annulled.

Elements:
A legal right in favor of the plaintiff;

ISSUE: Whether or not a court acquires jurisdiction over case when the

A correlative obligation on the part of the named defendant to

correct and proper docket fee has not yet been paid

respect or to not violate such right; and

YES. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not

Act or omission on the part of defendant in violation of the right of

accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow

the plaintiff, or constituting a breach of the obligation of the

payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond

defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action

the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Where the trial

for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.

court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the

appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but,

Distinguished from right of action

subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the

Cause of action is the reason for bringing an action, the formal

pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by

statement of operative facts giving rise to a remedial right, and is

the court, the additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on

governed by procedural law. A right of action is the remedy for

the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his

bringing an action and is solely dependent on substantive law.

duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third

Right of action, elements

There must be a good cause;

party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered

A compliance with all the conditions precedent to the bringing of the

filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefore is paid.

action; and
The action must be instituted by the proper party.

Splitting a cause of action

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

12

CIVIL PROCEDURE
13 REVIEWE

Splitting of cause of action is the act of dividing a single or indivisible

cause of action into several parts or claims and bringing several
actions thereon.

JOSEPH v. BAUTISTA

A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of

(170 SCRA 540, 1989)

action. (Sec. 3, Rule 2)

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of

Where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single

action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is

cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may

available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (Sec. 4, Rule 2)

have been violated belonging to one person. Nevertheless, if

Applies also to counterclaims and cross-claims.

only one injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one
cause of action arises.

Examples

Single cause of action (Cannot be filed separately)

FACTS: Joseph, petitioner, boarded Perezs cargo truck with a load

A suit for the recovery of land and a separate suit to recover the

of livestock. At the highway, the truck driver overtook a tricycle but

fruits

hit a mango tree when a pick-up truck tried to overtake him at the

Action to recover damages to person and action for damages to

same time. This resulted to the bone fracture of the petitioners leg.

same persons car

Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Perez, as owner,

Action for recovery of taxes and action to demand surcharges

based on a breach of contract of carriage, and against Sioson and

resulting from delinquency in payment of said taxes

Villanueva, the owner and driver of the pick-up truck, based on

Action to collect debt and to foreclose mortgage

quasi-delict. Petitioner impleaded Pagarigan and Vargas, since he

Action for partition and action for the recovery of compensation on

could not ascertain who the real owners of the pick-up truck and the

the improvements

cargo truck were. Perez filed a cross-claim against the other

Action for annulment of sale and action to recover dividends

respondents for indemnity, in the event that she is ordered to pay.

The other respondents paid petitioner's claim for injuries, so they

Distinct causes of action (separate filing allowed)

were released from liability. They also paid Perez for her claim of

Action for reconveyance of title over property and action for forcible

damages. They thereafter filed a Motion to Exonerate and Exclude

entry or unlawful detainer

themselves since theyve already paid Joseph by way of amicable

Action for damages to a car in a vehicular accident, and another

settlement and Perezs claim for damages. Perez filed an Opposition

action for damages for injuries to a passenger other than the owner

to the motion since the release of claim executed by petitioner in

of the car

favor of the other respondents allegedly inured to his benefit. RTC

Action to collect loan and action for rescission of mortgage

dismissed the case.

Action based on breach of contract of carriage and action based on

quasi-delict

ISSUE: Whether the judgment on the compromise agreement under

the cause of action based on quasi-delict is a bar to the cause of action
for breach of contract of carriage

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

13

CIVIL PROCEDURE
14 REVIEWE

YES. A single act or omission can be violative of various

DATICOR paid a total of P3 million to PDCP, which the

rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes a juridical

latter applied to interest, service fees and penalty charges. This left

violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However,

them with an outstanding balance of P10 million according to

where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of

PDCPs computation.

action regardless of the number of rights that may have been

DATICOR filed a complaint against PDCP for violation of the Usury

violated belonging to one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury

Law and annulment of contract and damages. The CFI dismissed the

resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises.

complaint. The IAC set aside the dismissal and declared void and of

There is no question that petitioner sustained a single

no effect the stipulation of interest in the loan agreement. PDCP

injury on his person, which vested in him a single cause of action,

appealed the IAC's decision to SC.

albeit with the correlative rights of action against the different

In the interim, PDCP assigned a portion of its receivables from

respondents through the appropriate remedies allowed by law. Only

DATICOR to FEBTC for of P5.4 M. FEBTC and DATICOR, in a MOA,

one cause of action was involved although the bases of recovery

agreed to P6.4 million as full settlement of the receivables.

invoked by petitioner against the defendants therein were not

SC affirmed in toto the decision of the IAC, nullifying the stipulation

necessarily identical since the respondents were not identically

of interests.

circumstanced.

money against PDCP and FEBTC to recover the excess payment

DATICOR thus filed a Complaint for sum of

which they computed to be P5.3 million. RTC ordered PDCP to pay

petitioners P4.035 million, to bear interest at 12% per annum until
DEL ROSARIO v. FEBTC

fully paid; to release or cancel the mortgages and to return the

(537 SCRA 571, 2007)

corresponding titles to petitioners; and to pay the costs of the suit.

RTC dismissed the complaint against FEBTC for lack of cause of

It is well established, however, that a party cannot,

by varying the form of action or adopting a different
method of presenting his case, or by pleading
justifiable circumstances as herein petitioners are
doing, escape the operation of the principle that one
and the same cause of action shall not be twice
litigated.

action since the MOA between petitioners and FEBTC was not
subject to SC decision, FEBTC not being a party thereto.
Petitioners and PDCP appealed to the CA, which held that
petitioners' outstanding obligation (determined to be only P1.4
million) could not be increased or decreased by any act of the
creditor PDCP, and held that when PDCP assigned its receivables,
the amount payable to it by DATICOR was the same amount payable
to assignee FEBTC, irrespective of any stipulation that PDCP and
FEBTC might have provided in the Deed of Assignment, DATICOR

FACTS: PDCP extended a P4.4 million loan to DATICOR, which that

not having been a party thereto, hence, not bound by its terms.

DATICOR shall pay: a service fee of 1% per annum (later increased

By the principle of solutio indebiti, the CA held that FEBTC was bound

6% per annum) on the outstanding balance; 12% per annum interest;

to refund DATICOR the excess payment of P5 million it received; and

and penalty charges 2% per month in case of default. The loans were

that FEBTC could recover from PDCP the P4.035 million for the

secured by real estate mortgages over six (6) parcels of land and

overpayment for the assigned receivables. But since DATICOR

chattel mortgages over machinery and equipment.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

14

CIVIL PROCEDURE
15 REVIEWE

claimed in its complaint only of P965,000 from FEBTC, the latter was

the grounds for recovery, he is mandated to set forth in his first

ordered to pay them only that amount.

action every ground for relief which he claims to exist and upon

Petitioners

filed

before

the

RTC

another

which he relies; he cannot be permitted to rely upon them by

Complaint against FEBTC to recover the balance of the excess

piecemeal in successive actions to recover for the same wrong or

payment of P4.335 million.

injury.

The trial court dismissed petitioners' complaint on the ground of res

Both the rules on res judicata and splitting of causes of action are

judicata and splitting of cause of action. It recalled that petitioners

based on the salutary public policy against unnecessary multiplicity

had filed an action to recover the alleged overpayment both from

of suitsinterest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. Re-litigation of matters

PDCP and FEBTC and that the CA Decision, ordering PDCP to

already settled by a court's final judgment merely burdens the courts

release and cancel the mortgages and FEBTC to pay P965,000 with

and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes

interest became final and executory.

valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.

ISSUE: Whether FEBTC can be held liable for the balance of the
overpayment of P4.335 million plus interest which petitioners
previously claimed against PDCP in a previously decided case
NO. A cause of action is the delict or the wrongful act or
omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary
rights of the plaintiff. In the two cases, petitioners imputed to FEBTC
the same alleged wrongful act of mistakenly receiving and refusing
to return an amount in excess of what was due it in violation of their
right to a refund. The same facts and evidence presented in the first
case were the very same facts and evidence that petitioners
presented in the second case.
A party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different
method of presenting his case, or by pleading justifiable
circumstances as herein petitioners are doing, escape the operation
of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be
twice litigated.

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. CA

SC held that to allow the re-litigation of an issue that was finally

(301 SCRA 367, 1991)

settled as between petitioners and FEBTC in the prior case is to allow

the splitting of a cause of action, a ground for dismissal under
Section 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
This rule proscribes a party from dividing a single or
indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting
two or more actions based on it. Because the plaintiff cannot divide

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

15

CIVIL PROCEDURE
16 REVIEWE

When a single delict or wrong is committed like the

guarantee payment of its back rentals. Westin did not comply with

unlawful taking or detention of the property of another

its undertaking, and instead, with the forcible entry case still

there is but one single cause of action regardless of the

pending, Westin instituted another action for damages against PDC

number of rights that may have been violated, and all such

with the RTC.

rights should be alleged in a single complaint as constituting

The forcible entry case had as its cause of action the alleged unlawful

one single cause of action. In a forcible entry case, the real

entry by PDC into the leased premises out of which three (3) reliefs

issue is the physical possession of the real property. The

arose: (a) the restoration by PDC of possession of the leased

question of damages is merely secondary or incidental, so

premises to the lessee; (b) the claim for actual damages due to losses

much so that the amount thereof does not affect the

suffered by Westin; and, (c) the claim for attorneys fees and cost of

jurisdiction of the court. In other words, the unlawful act of a

suit.

deforciant in taking possession of a piece of land by means of

On the other hand, the complaint for damages prays for a monetary

force and intimidation against the rights of the party actually

award consisting of moral and exemplary damages; actual damages

in possession thereof is a delict or wrong, or a cause of action

and compensatory damages representing unrealized profits; and,

that gives rise to two (2) remedies, namely, the recovery of

attorney's fees and costs, all based on the alleged forcible takeover

possession and recovery of damages arising from the loss of

of the leased premises by PDC.

possession, but only to one action. For obvious reasons,

PDC filed a motion to dismiss the damage suit on the ground of litis

both remedies cannot be the subject of two (2) separate

pendencia and forum shopping. The RTC, instead of ruling on the

and independent actions, one for recovery of possession

motion, archived the case pending the outcome of the forcible entry

only, and the other, for the recovery of damages. That would

case.

inevitably lead to what is termed in law as splitting up a

Westin filed with the RTC an amended complaint for damages,

cause of action.

which was granted. It also filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the
Issuance of a TRO and Motion for the Grant of a Preliminary
Prohibitory and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, which were all

FACTS: PDC leased to Westin a parcel of land with a commercial

building for 9 years and 3 months, with a monthly rental of
approximately P600,000. Westin failed to pay rentals despite several
demands. The arrearages amounted to P8,6M. PDC repossessed the
leased premises, inventoried the movable properties found within
and owned by Westin, and scheduled a public auction for the sale of
the movables, with notice to Westin.
Westin filed a forcible entry case with the MeTC against PDC for with

granted. PDCs motion to dismiss was denied.

Thus, PDC filed with the CA a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition. But the CA dismissed the petition. It clarified that since
the damages prayed for in the amended complaint with the RTC
were those caused by the alleged high-handed manner with which
PDC reacquired possession of the leased premises and the sale of
Westin's movables found therein, the RTC and not the MeTC had
jurisdiction over the action of damages.

damages and a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ

of preliminary injunction. A TRO enjoined PDC from selling Westin's
properties.
At the continuation of the hearing, the parties agreed, among

ISSUE: Whether Westin may institute a separate suit for damages with
the RTC after having instituted an action for forcible entry with
damages with the MeTC

others, that Westin would deposit with the PCIB (Bank) P8M to
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

16

CIVIL PROCEDURE
17 REVIEWE

NO. Sec. 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that all

recovery of damages arising from the loss of possession, but only to

cases for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be filed before the

one action. For obvious reasons, both remedies cannot be the

MTC which shall include not only the plea for restoration of

subject of two (2) separate and independent actions, one for

possession but also all claims for damages and costs arising

recovery of possession only, and the other, for the recovery of

therefrom. Otherwise expressed, no claim for damages arising out of

damages. That would inevitably lead to what is termed in law as

forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be filed separately and

splitting up a cause of action.

independently of the claim for restoration of possession.

What then is the effect of the dismissal of the other action?

Under Sec. 3 of Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, as

Since the rule is that all such rights should be alleged in a single

amended, a party may not institute more than one suit for a single

complaint, it goes without saying that those not therein included

cause of action. Under Sec. 4 of the same Rule, if two or more suits

cannot be the subject of subsequent complaints for they are barred

are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of

forever. If a suit is brought for a part of a claim, a judgment obtained

one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground

in that action precludes the plaintiff from bringing a second action

for the dismissal of the other or others.

for the residue of the claim, notwithstanding that the second form of

Westin's cause of action in the forcible entry case and in

action is not identical with the first or different grounds for relief are

the suit for damages is the alleged illegal retaking of possession of

set for the second suit. This principle not only embraces what was

the leased premises by PDC from which all legal reliefs arise. Simply

actually determined, but also extends to every matter which the

stated, the restoration of possession and demand for actual

parties might have litigated in the case. This is why the legal basis

damages in the case before the MeTC and the demand for damages

upon which Westin anchored its second claim for damages, i.e., Art.

with the RTC both arise from the same cause of action, i.e., the

1659 in relation to Art. 1654 of the Civil Code, not otherwise raised

forcible entry by PDC into the least premises. The other claims for

and cited by Westin in the forcible entry case, cannot be used as

moral and exemplary damages cannot succeed considering that

justification for the second suit for damages.

these sprung from the main incident being heard before the MeTC.
Jurisprudence says that when a single delict or wrong is committed
like the unlawful taking or detention of the property of the

CGR CORP. V. TREYES

another there is but one single cause of action regardless of the

(522 SCRA 765, 2007)

number of rights that may have been violated, and all such rights
should be alleged in a single complaint as constituting one single
cause of action. In a forcible entry case, the real issue is the physical
possession of the real property. The question of damages is merely
secondary or incidental, so much so that the amount thereof does
not affect the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, the unlawful

Petitioners filing of an independent action for damages

grounded on the alleged destruction of CGRs property,
other than those sustained as a result of dispossession in
the Forcible Entry case could not be considered as
splitting of a cause of action.

act of a deforciant in taking possession of a piece of land by means of

force and intimidation against the rights of the party actually in
possession thereof is a delict or wrong, or a cause of action that gives

FACTS: CGR Corporation, Herman Benedicto and Alberto Benedicto,

rise to two (2) remedies, namely, the recovery of possession and

petitioners, claim to have occupied 37 ha. of public land in Negros

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

17

CIVIL PROCEDURE
18 REVIEWE

Occidental, pursuant to a lease agreement granted to them by the

(7 SCRA 265, 1963)

Secretary of Agriculture for a period of 25 years (to last October

2000 to December 2024). On November 2000, however, respondent
Treyes allegedly forcibly and unlawfully entered the leased premises
and barricaded the entrance to the fishponds of the petitioners.
Treyes and his men also harvested tons of milkfish and fingerlings
from the petitioners ponds.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for Forcible Entry with the
MTC. Another complaint to claim for damages was also filed by the
petitioners against the same respondent Treyes grounded on the
allegations that Treyes and his men also destroyed and ransacked
the Chapel built by petitioner CGR Corporation and decapitated the

An examination of the first complaint filed against

appellant in CFI showed that it was based on appellants'
having unlawfully stopped payment of the check for
P2,500.00 she had issued in favor of appellees; while the
complaint in the second and present action was for nonpayment of the balance of P96,000.00 guaranteed by the
mortgage. The claim for P2,500.00 was, therefore, a
distinct debt not covered by the security. The two causes
of action being different, section 4 of Rule 2 does not
apply.

heads of the religious figures.

ISSUE: Whether during the pendency of a separate complaint for

Forcible Entry, the petitioner can independently institute and maintain
an action for damages which they claim arose from incidents occurring
after the forcible entry of Treyes and his men
YES. The only recoverable damages in the forcible entry
and detainer cases instituted first by the petitioners with the MTC
are the rents or fair rental value of the property from the time of
dispossession by the respondent. Hence, other damages being
claimed by the petitioners must be claimed in another ordinary civil
action.
It is noteworthy that the second action instituted by the petitioners
(complaint for damages) have NO direct relation to their loss of
possession of the leased premises which is the main issue in the
first action they instituted. The second action for claim of damages
had to do with the harvesting and carting away of milkfish and other
marine products, as well as the ransacking of the chapel built by CGR
Corp. Clearly, the institution of the two cases is not a splitting of a
cause of action, since both are concerned with entirely different
issues.

FACTS: Rodrigo Enriquez and the Dizon spouses sold to Socorro

Ramos 11 parcels of land for P101,000. Ramos paid P5,000
downpayment, P2,500 in cash, and with a P2,500.00 check drawn
against PNB, and agreed to satisfy the balance of P96,000.00 within
90 days. To secure the said balance, Ramos, in the same deed of
sale, mortgaged the 11 parcels in favor of the vendors. Ramos
mortgaged a lot on Malinta Estate as additional security, as
attorney-in-fact of her four children and as judicial guardian of her
minor child.
Ramos failed to comply with the conditions of the mortgage, so an
action for foreclosure was filed by the vendors-mortgagees. Ramos
moved to dismiss, alleging that the plaintiffs previously had filed
action against her in the CFI of Manila for the recovery of P2,500.00
paid by check as part of the down payment on the price of the
mortgaged lands; that at the time this first suit was filed, the
mortgage debt was already accrued and demandable; that plaintiffs
were guilty of splitting a single cause of action, and under section 4
of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, the filing of the first action for
P2,500.00 was a defense that could be pleaded in abatement of the
second suit.

ENRIQUEZ v. RAMOS

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

18

CIVIL PROCEDURE
19 REVIEWE

CFI of Quezon City denied the motion to dismiss.

defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a

Defendant Ramos re-pleaded the averments as a special defense in

preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had

her answer. The CFI ruled against defendant Ramos; ordered her to

been filed.

pay P96,000.00, with 12% interest, attorney's fees, and the costs of
the suit; and further decreed the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged

NOTE: As to which action should be dismissed (the first or second

properties in case of non-payment within 90 days. Ramos appealed

one) would depend upon judicial discretion and the prevailing

directly to SC,

circumstances of the case.

ISSUE: Whether there was splitting of cause of action

NO, there is no splitting of cause of action in this case. An

Joinder of causes of action

examination of the first complaint filed against appellant in CFI

Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action

showed that it was based on appellants' having unlawfully stopped

as a party may have against another in one pleading. It is the process

payment of the check for P2,500.00 she had issued in favor of

of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action.

appellees, while the complaint in the second and present action was

This is merely permissive, NOT compulsory, because of the use of the

for non-payment of the balance of P96,000.00 guaranteed by the

word may in Sec. 5, Rule 2.

mortgage. The claim for P2,500.00 was, therefore, a distinct debt

not covered by the security. The two causes of action being
different, section 4 of Rule 2 does not apply.
It is subject to the following conditions:
Remedy against splitting a single cause of action

The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties;

Motion to dismiss (Sec 1 [e] or [f], Rule 16)

The right to relief should arise out of the same transaction or series

Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or

of transaction, and

pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any

There exists a common question of law or fact. (Sec. 6, Rule 3)

of the following grounds:

The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed

xxx

by special rules;

(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties

Example: An action for claim of money cannot be joined with an

for the same cause;

action for ejectment, or with an action for foreclosure.

(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the

Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain

statute of limitations

to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the

xxx

RTC provided
one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court,

Answer alleging affirmative defense (Sec. 6, Rule 16)

and

If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for

the venue lies therein; and

dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

19

CIVIL PROCEDURE
20 REVIEWE

Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for

Calion for P10, 212. Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss on the

recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test

ground of lack of jurisdiction since under Sec. 19(8) of BP129 RTC

of jurisdiction. (Sec. 5, Rule 2)

shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of the

demand is more than P20, 000, and that the claim against him is less

Misjoinder of causes of action

than that amount. He averred further that although Calion was also

Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for dismissal of an

indebted to Flores, his obligation was separate and distinct from the

action. A misjoined cause of action may be severed and proceeded

other, so the aggregate of the claims cannot be the basis of

with separately:

jurisdiction. Calion joined in moving for the dismissal of the

on motion of a party, or

complaint during the hearing of the motion. Petitioner opposed the

on the initiative of the court. (Sec. 6, Rule 2)

Motion to Dismiss. RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of

jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether RTC has jurisdiction over the case following the
Totality Rule
YES. The Totality Rule (under Sec. 33 of BP129 and Sec. 11
of the Interim Rules) applies not only to cases where two or more
plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in
a single complaint, but also to cases where a plaintiff has separate
causes of action against two or more defendants joined in a single
FLORES v. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS

complaint. However, the said causes of action should arise out of the

(144 SCRA 277, 1986)

same transaction or series of transactions and there should be a

common question of law or fact, as provided in Sec. 6 of Rule 3.

Application of the Totality Rule under Sect. 33(l) BP129 and

In cases of permissive joinder of parties, the total of all the

Sect. 11 of the Interim Rules is subject to the requirements

claims shall be the first jurisdictional test. If instead of joining or

for the Permissive Joinder of Parties under Sec. 6 of Rule 3.

being joined in one complaint, separate actions are filed by or

In cases of permissive joinder of parties, the total of

all the claims shall be the first jurisdictional test. If instead of

against the parties, the amount demanded in each complaint shall

be the second jurisdictional test.

a joinder, separate actions are filed by or against the parties,

In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the

the amount demanded in each complaint shall be the second

jurisdictional test is subject to the Rules on Joinder of Parties

jurisdictional test.

pursuant to Sec. 5 of Rule 2 and Sec. 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

Moreover, after a careful scrutiny of the complaint, It appears that
there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against

FACTS: Binongcal and Calion, in separate transactions, purchased

truck tires on credit from Flores. The two allegedly refused to pay

Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which
falls within its jurisdiction.

their debts, so Flores filed a complaint where the first cause of action
was against Binongcal for P11, 643, and the second was against
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

20

CIVIL PROCEDURE
21 REVIEWE

UNIWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. v. CRUZ

(529 SCRA 664, 2007)

Cruz filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper

venue, invoking Article 27.5 of the agreement which reads:
27.5 Venue Stipulation The Franchisee consents to the

Exclusive venue stipulation embodied in a contract

exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Quezon City, the Franchisee

restricts or confines parties thereto when the suit relates to

waiving any other venue.

breach of said contract. But where the exclusivity clause

does not make it necessarily encompassing, such that even

Paraaque RTC granted Cruzs motion to dismiss. Hence,

the present petition.

those not related to the enforcement of the contract should

be subject to the exclusive venue, the stipulation

ISSUE: Whether a case based on several causes of action is dismissible

designating exclusive venues should be strictly confined to

on the ground of improper venue where only one of the causes of action

the specific undertaking or agreement.

arises from a contract with exclusive venue stipulation

NO. The general rule on venue of personal actions provides
actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of

FACTS: Uniwide Holdings, Inc. (UHI) granted Cruz, a 5yr. franchise to

adopt and use the "Uniwide Family Store System" for the
establishment and operation of a "Uniwide Family Store" in
Marikina. The agreement obliged Cruz to pay UHI a P50,000 monthly
service fee or 3% of gross monthly purchases, whichever is higher,
payable within 5 days after the end of each month without need of
formal billing or demand from UHI. In case of any delay in the
payment of the monthly service fee, Cruz would be liable to pay an
interest charge of 3% per month.
It appears that Cruz had purchased goods from UHIs
affiliated companies FPC and USWCI. FPC and USWCI assigned all
their rights and interests over Cruzs accounts to UHI. Cruz had
outstanding obligations with UHI, FPC, and USWCI in the total
amount of P1,358,531.89, which remained unsettled despite the
demands made.
Thus UHI filed a complaint for collection of sum of money before
RTC of Paraaque Cruz on the following causes of action: (1)
P1,327,669.832 in actual damages for failure to pay the monthly
service fee; (2) P64,165.96 of actual damages for failure to pay
receivables assigned by FPC to UHI; (3) P1,579,061.36 of actual
damages for failure to pay the receivables assigned by USWCI to
UHI; (4) P250,000.00 of attorneys fees.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the

principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident
defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
The parties may also validly agree in writing on an exclusive venue.
The forging of a written agreement on an exclusive venue of an
action does not, however, preclude parties from bringing a case to
other venues.
Where there is a joinder of causes of action between the same
parties and one action does not arise out of the contract where the
exclusive venue was stipulated upon, the complaint, as in the one at
bar, may be brought before other venues provided that such other
cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the court and the venue
lies therein.
Based on the allegations in petitioners complaint, the second and
third causes of action are based on the deeds of assignment
executed in its favor by FPC and USWCI. The deeds bear no exclusive
venue stipulation with respect to the causes of action thereunder.
Hence, the general rule on venue applies that the complaint may
be filed in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides.
It bears emphasis that the causes of action on the assigned accounts
are not based on a breach of the agreement between UHI and Cruz.
They are based on separate, distinct and independent contracts

21

CIVIL PROCEDURE
22 REVIEWE

deeds of assignment in which UHI is the assignee of Cruzs

obligations to the assignors FPC and USWCI. Thus, any action arising
from the deeds of assignment cannot be subjected to the exclusive
venue stipulation embodied in the agreement.
Exclusive venue stipulation embodied in a contract restricts or
confines parties thereto when the suit relates to breach of said
contract. But where the exclusivity clause does not make it
necessarily encompassing, such that even those not related to the
enforcement of the contract should be subject to the exclusive
venue, the stipulation designating exclusive venues should be strictly
confined to the specific undertaking or agreement. Otherwise, the

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3)

basic principles of freedom to contract might work to the great

disadvantage of a weak party-suitor who ought to be allowed free

Parties (Sec. 1, Rule 3)

access to courts of justice.

Plaintiff
What is the totality rule?

The plaintiff is the claiming party or the original claiming party and is

Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for

the one who files the complaint.

recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test

It may also apply to a defendant who files a counterclaim, a cross-

of jurisdiction. (Sec. 5, Rule 2)

claim or a third party complaint.

Defendant
The defendant refers to the original defending party, and also the
defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third party
defendant.
If a counterclaim is filed against the original plaintiff, the latter
becomes the defendant.

Who may be parties? (Sec. 1, Rule 3)

(1) Natural persons

(2) Juridical persons

The State and its political subdivisions;
Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or
purpose, created by law; and

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

22

CIVIL PROCEDURE
23 REVIEWE

Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest r

A person who has not taken part in a contract

purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and

Third party who has not taken part in a compromise agreement

distinct from each shareholder, partner or member. (Art. 44, Civil

Mere agent in a contract of sale

Code)

(3) Entities authorized by law, even if they lack juridical personality

Lack of personality to sue

Corporation by estoppel (Sec. 21, Corporation Code);

Partnership having a capital of P3,000 or more but fails to comply

EVANGELISTA v. SANTIAGO

with the registration requirements (Art. 1768, Civil Code);

(475 SCRA 744)

Estate of a deceased person

A legitimate labor organization (Art. 242 [e], Labor Code);
The Ramon Catholic Church;

The term "lack of capacity to sue" refers to a plaintiff's

general disability to sue, such as on account of minority,

A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend in suits which:

Occur within 3 years after dissolution; and
Are connected with the settlement and closure of its affairs (Sec.
122, Corporation Code)

insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any

other general disqualifications of a party. "Lack of
personality to sue refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not
the real party- in-interest. The first can be a ground for a
motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of legal

CLASSIFICATION OF PARTIES

capacity to sue; whereas the second can be used as a

ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the

Real party-in-interest

complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of

A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or

action.

injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must

FACTS: The Subject Property was part of a vast tract of land called

be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

Hacienda Quibiga which was awarded to Don Hermogenes

(Sec. 2, Rule 3)

Rodriguez by the Queen of Spain and evidenced by a Spanish

Real interesta present substantial interest as distinguished from a

title. Don Ismael Favila, claiming to be one of the heirs and

mere expectancy

contingent subordinate or

successors-in-interest of Rodriguez, and pursuant to an SPA

consequential interest. It is material and direct, as distinguished from

executed by his mga kapatid, assigned portions of the property to

a mere incidental interest.

the petitioners in exchange for the labor and work they and their

The owner of the right of violated is the real party in interest as

predecessors have done on the property.

plaintiff, and the person responsible for the violation is the real party

Petitioners were informed that Santiago was planning to evict them;

in interest as defendant.

two of them received notices to vacate. Their investigations

or a

future,

revealed that the property was included in TCTs which originated

Not real party in interest

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

from OCT No. 670, and is now in the name of respondent.

23

CIVIL PROCEDURE
24 REVIEWE

Petitioners filed an action for declaration of nullity of respondents

YES. Petitioners had no personality to file the said action,

certificates of title on the basis that OCT No. 670 was fake and

not being the parties-in-interest, and their Complaint should be

spurious.

dismissed for not stating a cause of action.

As an affirmative defense, respondent claimed that the petitioners

The action is really one for the removal of a cloud on or

had no legal capacity to file the Complaint, and thus, the Complaint

quieting of title and according to Article 477 of the Civil Code, the

stated no cause of action. He averred that since OCT No. 670 was

plaintiff in such an action must have legal or equitable title to, or

genuine and authentic on its face, then the OCT and all land titles

interest in, the real property which is the subject matter of the

derived therefrom, are incontrovertible, indefeasible and conclusive

action. Petitioners failed to establish any legal or equitable title to, or

against the petitioners and the whole world.

legitimate interest in, the Subject Property so as to justify their right

RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action filed was

to file an action to remove a cloud on or to quiet title.

in effect an action for reversion, and therefore should have been

Also, the title to and possession of the Subject Property by

initiated by the OSG, not private individuals. In the end, it concluded

petitioners predecessors-in-interest could be traced only as far back

that the petitioners were not the owners of the subject property.

as the Spanish title of Rodriguez. Petitioners, having acquired

CA affirmed the RTC, and likewise dismissed the complaint.

portions of the Subject Property by assignment, could acquire no

better title to the said portions than their predecessors-in-interest.

ISSUE: Whether the respondents action is properly based on

petitioners lack of legal capacity to sue

Standing to sue

NO. The term "lack of capacity to sue" should not be

confused with the term "lack of personality to sue." The former

DOMINGO v. CARAGUE

refers to a plaintiff's general disability to sue, such as on account of

(456 SCRA 744, 2005)

minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any

other general disqualifications of a party, while the latter refers to
the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party- in-interest. The first
can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack
of legal capacity to sue; whereas the second can be used as a ground
for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint, on the
face thereof, evidently states no cause of action. In the present case,
this Court may assume that the respondent is raising the affirmative
defense that the Complaint filed by the petitioners before the trial
court stated no cause of action because the petitioners lacked the
personality to sue, not being the real party-in-interest.

Judicial power is the power to hear and decide cases pending

between parties who have the right to sue in courts of law
and equity. Corollary to this dictum is the principle of locus
standi of a litigant. He who is directly affected and whose
interest is immediate and substantial has the standing to sue.
Thus, a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of
the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a
favorable decision in order to warrant an invocation of the
courts jurisdiction and justify the exercise of judicial power
on his behalf.
FACTS: Petitioners Domingo, Gangan and Banaria are retired

ISSUE: Whether the complaint stated no cause of action since

petitioners had no personality to sue

Chairmen, while Ursal and Cruz are retired Commissioners of COA

(Commission on Audit) and the other petitioners are incumbent
officers or employees of COA. All claim to maintain a deep-seated
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

24

CIVIL PROCEDURE
25 REVIEWE

abiding interest in the affairs of COA, especially in its

Organizational Restructuring Plan, as concerned taxpayers.

NO. The Petitioners have not shown any direct and

personal interest in the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan.

These petitioners claim that they were divested of their

There is no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent

designations/ranks upon implementation of the COA Organizational

danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its

Restructuring Plan without just cause and without due process, in

implementation. In fact, they admitted that they do not seek any

violation of Civil Service Law. Moreover, they were deprived of their

affirmative relief nor impute any improper or improvident act

respective Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA),

against the respondents and are not motivated by any desire to

thus causing them undue financial prejudice.

seek affirmative relief from COA or from respondents that would

Petitioners now invoke this Courts judicial power to strike

down the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan for being
unconstitutional or illegal.

redound to their personal benefit or gain. Clearly, they do not have

any legal standing to file the instant suit.
Judicial power is the power to hear and decide cases

Petitioners invoke Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, Agan,

pending between parties who have the right to sue in courts of law

Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. and Information

and equity. Corollary to this dictum is the principle of locus standi of

Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections

a litigant. He who is directly affected and whose interest is

where the court ruled that where the subject matter of a case is a

immediate and substantial has the standing to sue. Thus, a party

matter of public concern and imbued with public interest, then this

must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to

fact alone gives them legal standing to institute the instant petition.

himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision in order to

Petitioners contend that the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan

warrant an invocation of the courts jurisdiction and justify the

is not just a mere reorganization but a revamp or overhaul of the

exercise of judicial power on his behalf.

COA, which will have an impact upon the rest of the government

In Chavez V. PEA, the Court ruled that the petitioner has

bodies subject to its audit supervision, thus, should be treated as a

legal standing since he is a taxpayer and his purpose in filing the

matter of transcendental importance. Consequently, petitioners

petition is to compel the Public Estate Authority (PEA) to perform its

legal standing should be recognized and upheld.

constitutional duties with respect to: (a) the right of the citizens to

The respondents, through the OSG assail the standing of

information on matters of public concern; and (b) the application of a

the petitioners to file the present case. Among others, they allege

constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution

that the petitioners: (1) have not shown "a personal stake in the

of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens - such

outcome of the case or an actual or potential injury that can be

were matters of transcendental importance.

redressed by a favorable decision of the Court, (2) failed to show any

In Agan,Jr. V. PIATCO, the Court held that petitioners have

"present substantial interest" in teh outcome of the case, nor (3) may

legal standing as they have a direct and substantial interest to

the petitioenrs claim that as taxpayers they have legal standing

protect. By the implementation of the PIATCO contracts, they stand

because nowhere in the petition do they claim that public funds are

to lose their source of livelihood, a property right zealously protected

spent in violation of law.

by the Constitution and such financial prejudice on their part is

sufficient to confer upon them the requisite locus standi.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners have standing to sue

In Information Technology Foundation V. COMELEC, there

were two reasons why petitioners standing was recognized (1) the

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

25

CIVIL PROCEDURE
26 REVIEWE

award for the automation of the electoral process was a matter of

FACTS: The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the Supreme

public concern, imbued with public interest, and (2) the individual

Court to order the respondent, then Secretary of DENR, to cancel all

petitioners, as taxpayers, asserted a material interest in seeing to it

existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to

that public funds are properly used.

cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or

approving new TLAs. They alleged that the massive commercial

Representative parties

logging in the country is causing vast abuses on rainforest.

Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a

They furthered the rights of their generation and the rights of the

representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the

generations yet unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology.

beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be

deemed to be the real party in interest.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have a locus standi

YES. Locus standi means the right of the litigant to act or

A representative may be

to be heard. Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution: The

a trustee of an express trust,

state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced

a guardian,

and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of

an executor or administrator, or

nature.

a party authorized by law or these Rules.

Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as

well as generation yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that

An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an

they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the

undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the

succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in

principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the

behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the

principal. (Sec. 3, Rule 3)

concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a

balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as
hereinafter expounded considers the rhythm and harmony of

OPOSA v. FACTORAN

nature. Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm

(224 SCRA 792, 1993)

and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious

disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of

Petitioners personality to sue in behalf of the

succeeding generations can only be based on the
concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar
as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned, since the subject matter of the
complaint is of common and general interest to all
citizens of the Philippines.

the countrys forest, mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to
the

present

as

well

as

future

generations.

Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to

preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a
balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors
assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

26

CIVIL PROCEDURE
27 REVIEWE

protection

of

that

right

for

the

generations

to

come.

This landmark case has been ruled as a class suit because the subject
matter of the complaint is of common and general interest, not just
for several but for all citizens of the Philippines.

The joinder of indispensable parties under Sec 7, Rule 3 is

mandatory. Without presence of indispensable parties to the
suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality.
Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered
by the court. The absence of an indispensable party renders

Indispensable parties

all subsequent actions of the court null and void. There is a

An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final

determination can be had of an action.

lack of authority to act not only as to the absent party but

also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading all

They shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (Sec. 7, Rule 3)

The presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non
for the exercise of judicial power.

the indispensable parties rest on the petitioner/plaintiff.

However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
ground for dismissal of an action.

When an indispensable party is not before the court, the action

should

be

dismissed.
FACTS: Vice Consul Jutta Hippelein informed the Philippine

NOTE: The failure to join an indispensable party does not result in the

Ambassador to Bonn, Germany that respondent Emil Scheer had

outright dismissal of the action. Non-joinder or misjoinder of parties

police records and financial liabilities in Germany. The Board of

is not a ground for dismissal of an action.

Commissioners (BOC) therefore cancelled respondents permanent

It is when the order of the court to implead the indispensable party

residence visa, and ordered his summary deportation and permanent

goes unheeded may the case be dismissed.

exclusion from the Philippines and inclusion of his name on the

Remedy: Parties may be dropped or added by the court on motion of

Bureaus Blacklist.

any party, or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on

Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the order,

such terms as are just. (Sec. 11, Rule 3)

but the BOC did not resolve the respondents motion. The
respondent was neither arrested nor deported.

DOMINGO v. SCHEER

Meanwhile, the District Court of Straubing dismissed the criminal

(421 SCRA 792, 1993)

case against the respondent for physical injuries. The German

Embassy in Manila, thereafter, issued a temporary passport to the
respondent.
Respondent informed Commissioner Verceles that his passport had
been renewed following the dismissal of the said criminal case. He
reiterated his request for the cancellation of the Summary
Deportation Order and the restoration of his permanent resident
status. The BOC still failed to resolve the respondents Urgent Motion
for Reconsideration.
In the meantime, petitioner Immigration Commissioner Andrea T.
Domingo assumed office, and inquired with German Embassy if the

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

27

CIVIL PROCEDURE
28 REVIEWE

respondent was wanted by the German police. The German Embassy

court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by

replied in the negative.

the judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an

At about midnight on June 6, 2002, Marine operatives and Bureau of

indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null

Immigration and Deportation (BID) agents apprehended the

and void. Lack of authority to act not only of the absent party but

respondent in his residence on orders of the petitioner and was held

also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading all the

in custody in the BID Manila Office while awaiting his deportation.

indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff.

Respondents counsel filed with the BID a motion for bail to

However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for

secure the respondents temporary liberty and filed with the Court of

the dismissal of an action. Parties may be added by order of the

Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a

court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of

prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary

the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff

injunction, to enjoin the petitioner from proceeding with the

refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the

respondents deportation. The CA issued a TRO. Petitioner argues

court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the

that the respondents petition with the CA should have been

petitioner/plaintiffs failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to

dismissed for failure to implead the real party-in-interest, which is

implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.

the BOC.

The Court may be curing the defect in this case by adding

the BOC as party petitioner. Indeed, it may no longer be necessary

ISSUE: Whether the BOC was an indispensable party to the petition

to do so taking into account the unique backdrop in this case,

YES. The BOC was an indispensable party to the petition,

involving as it does an issue of public interest. After all, the Office of

BUT the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for

the solicitor General has represented the petitioner in the instant

dismissal of the action.

proceedings, as well as the appellate court, and maintained the

The respondent was arrested and detained on the basis of

validity of the deportation order and of the BOCs Omnibus

the Summary Deportation Order of the BOC. The petitioner caused

Resolution. It cannot, thus, be claimed by the State that the BOC

the arrest of the respondent in obedience to the said Deportation

was not afforded its day in court, simply because only the petitioner,

Order. The respondent, in his Memorandum, prayed that the CA

the chairperson of the BOC, was the respondent in the CA, and the

annul not only the Summary Deportation Order of the BOC but also

petitioner in the instant recourse.

the latters Omnibus Resolution, and order the respondents

immediate release.

UY v. CA

The respondent also prayed that the CA issue a writ of mandamus

(494 SCRA 535, 2006)

for

the immediate resolution

of

his Urgent Motion

for

Reconsideration. The said motion had to be resolved by the BOC as

the order sought to be resolved and reconsidered was issued by it
and not by the petitioner alone. The powers and duties of the BOC
may not be exercised by the individual members of the Commission.
The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without
the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

28

CIVIL PROCEDURE
29 REVIEWE

An indispensable party is one whose interest will be

affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without
whom no final determination of the case can be had. The
party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the
relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other
parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding
is an absolute necessity.

ISSUE: Whether HPMC is a real party in interest or an indispensable

party
YES. An indispensable party is one whose interest will be
affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no
final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the
subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably
intertwined with the other parties' that his legal presence as a party
to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.

FACTS: The Heritage Memorial Park is a flagship project of the Bases

Based on the Construction Agreement, PEA entered into it in its

Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) in Fort Bonifacio. To

capacity as Project Manager, pursuant to the PFTA. According to the

implement the project, the BCDA entered into Pool Formation Trust

provisions of the PFTA, upon the formation of the HPMC, the PEA

Agreement (PFTA) with the PNB and the PEA. BCDA was designated

would turn over to the HPMC all the contracts relating to the

as Project Owner; PEA, the Project Manager; and PNB as the

Heritage Park. At the time of the filing of the CIAC Case, PEA ceased

Trustee.

to be the Project Manager. Through a Deed of Assignment, PEA

PEA, as project manager, is tasked to implement and complete the

assigned its interests in all the existing contracts it entered into as

various engineering works and improvements of Heritage Park.

the Project Manager for Heritage Park to HPMC.

PEA and petitioner Uy, a single proprietorship doing business under

PEA officially turned over to HPMC all the documents and

the name of Edison Development and Construction, executed a

equipment in its possession related to the Heritage Park Project, and

Landscaping and Construction Agreement whereby the petitioner

petitioner was duly informed of these incidents. Apparently, as of

undertook to do all the landscaping, including the construction of a

the date of the filing of the CIAC Case, PEA is no longer a party-in-

terrasoleum of the Heritage Park.

interest. Instead, it is now private respondent HPMC, as the

Subsequently, the certificate holders of the project organized

assignee, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in

themselves into a non-stock, non-profit corporation, the Heritage

the suit. In its absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of

Park Management Corporation (HPMC), now the private respondent

the parties before the court which is effective, complete or equitable.

herein.
The Heritage Park Executive Committee, however, terminated the

Necessary party or proper party

construction contracts due to delays and discrepancies. PEA then

A necessary party is not indispensable to the action since a final

assumed the duties of the terminated party. Petitioner filed a

determination of the case can be had even when a necessary party is

complaint against the PEA before the Construction Industry

not joined.

Arbitration Commission (CIAC) where it sought to recover payment

for its progress billings on the said projects. CIAC ruled in favor of

BUT a necessary party ought to be joined if complete relief

is to be accorded to those already parties. (Sec. 8, Rule 3)

petitioner. Respondent appealed to the CA on the ground that CIAC

had no jurisdiction over the subject matter since HPMC was not

Non-joinder of necessary party

impleaded as a party, thereby depriving it of its right to be heard. CA

ruled in favor of respondent. Hence this petition
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

29

CIVIL PROCEDURE
30 REVIEWE

Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary

coordinate court. It held that the issue was cognizable by the CA.

party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth

Moreover, it was held that the Compromise Agreement already

his name, if known, and

covered the plaintiffs professional services in the questioned cases.

shall state why he is omitted.

The CA affirmed the RTC on the issue of jurisdiction, but held Atty.
Banzon entitled to attorneys fees from Sunbeams Inc. since it was

Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it

not subject to the compromise agreement which waived all money

may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction

claims against defendants named therein, having been referred to

over his person may be obtained. (Sec. 9, Rule 3)

only as Mr. Laperals corporation.

LAPERAL DEVT. CORP. v. CA

ISSUE: Whether Sunbeams Inc., is liable to pay attorneys fees

(223 SCRA 261, 1993)

NO. Sunbeams Inc., which was referred to in the complaint

as Mr. Laperals Corp. was not named as a party defendant. The

A proper party is one which ought to be a party if complete

relief is to be accorded as between those already parties. A
party is indispensable if no final determination can be had
of an action unless it is joined either as plaintiff or

private respondent believed that Laperal, being the President of the

said company, was directly obligated to him for attorneys fees due
him for his handling of the case for Sunbeams. However, there is no
evidence that Sunbeams and Laperal are one and the same person.
Sunbeams should have been joined as party defendant in order that

defendant.

the judgment of the lower court could legally affect it. But even if it
was not impleaded, the court could still validly proceed with the case
FACTS: Atty. Banzon sought to recover attorneys fees for

because Sunbeams was not an indispensable party but only a proper

professional services rendered in several pending and past cases

party. A proper party is one which ought to be a party if complete

from Laperal, Laperal Devt Corp., and Imperial Devt Corp., referring

relief is to be accorded as between those already parties. A party is

to Sunbeams Inc. only as Mr. Laperals Corporation. This particular

indispensable if no final determination can be had of an action unless

civil case was decided on the basis of a Compromise Agreement

it is joined either as plaintiff or defendant.

where Banzon waived all other money claims against the

The Compromise Agreement upon which the decision of the court

defendants.

Subsequently, Banzon filed a complaint against

was based was between plaintiff Atty. Banzon and the defendants

Laperal, Laperal Devt, Imperial Devt, Sunbeams Convenience

represented by Laperal. Thus, since Sunbeams was not a party to

Foods, Inc., and Acsay for (1) annulment of a portion of the

this agreement, it could not be affected by it. However, Banzons

Compromise Agreement; (2) collection of attorneys fees for services

claim for attorneys fees pertaining to Sunbeams was waived by him

in the cases rendered for Imperial, Sunbeams, and Laperal Devt.; (3)

not by virtue of the Compromise Agreement, whereby Sunbeams

recovery of P10k adjudged to be payable to him as attorneys fees by

was not a defendant.

Ascario Tuason; and (4) payment to him of nominal damages and

judicial admission that he had waived his attorneys fees for the

attorneys fees.

cases he had handled from 1974-1981 for Laperal and his

RTC dismissed the case on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to

corporations, including those not impleaded in his complaint.

What militates against his claim is his own

annul the Compromise Agreement, as approved by an equal and

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

30

CIVIL PROCEDURE
31 REVIEWE

Permissive joinder of parties

A class suit is an action where one or more may sue for the benefit of

Parties may be joined in as plaintiffs or defendants in a single

all.

complaint when

An action does not become a class suit merely because it is

Any right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of

designated as such in the pleadings. It depends upon the attendant

transactions;

facts.

There is a question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to

all such defendants;

Requisites

Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the Rules on jurisdiction

The subject matter of the controversy is one of the common or

and venue.

general interest to many persons

The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as

BUT the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any

parties,

plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in

The parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous and

connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest.

representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned.

(Sec. 6, Rule 3)

The representative sues or defends for the benefit of all.

Effects of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

NOTE: Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to

A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the action although

protect his individual interest. (Sec. 12, Rule 3)

he should not be impleaded.

A party is not joined when is supposed to be joined but is
not impleaded in the actions.

MATHAY v. CONSOLIDATED BANK

(58 SCRA 559, 1974)

Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for

Requirements of a class suit: 1. That the subject
dismissal. Parties may be dropped or added
matter of the controversy be one of common or
by order of the court
general interest to many persons, and 2. That such
on motion of any party or on its own initiative
persons be so numerous as to make it impracticable
at any stage of the action and
to bring them all to the court.
on such terms as are just.

Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded

FACTS: Mathay, Reyes and Dionisio, plaintiffs-appellants and

with separately. (Sec. 11, Rule 3)

stockholders in the Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) alleged that the

latter passed a resolution to organize Consolidated Bank & Trust Co.

NOTE: Failure to obey the order of the court to drop or add a party is

(CBTC), providing that all CMI stockholders are entitled to subscribe

a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. (Sec. 3, Rule 17)

to the capital stock of the proposed bank at par value, and to the
same extent and amount as their shareholdings in CMI. Circular

Class suits

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

letters with Pre-Incorporation Agreements to subscribe were sent to

31

CIVIL PROCEDURE
32 REVIEWE

CMI stockholders. Plaintiffs-apellants and other stockholders

complaint, or other pleading initiating the class action should allege

accomplished

pre-incorporation

the existence of the necessary facts, to wit, the existence of a subject

agreements and paid the subscription. However, after some months,

matter of common interest, and the existence of a class and the

the Board of Organizers executed the Articles of Incorporation of the

number of persons in the alleged class, in order that the court might

CBTC which reflected that only the six (6) individual defendants paid

be enabled to determine whether the members of the class are so

and subscribed to the initial 50,000 shares. When the paid-in capital

numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the

stock was increased, the plaintiff-appellants and other CMI

court, to contrast the number appearing on the record with the

stockholders were again excluded. The plaintiffs-appellants filed this

number in the class and to determine whether claimants on record

complaint as a class suit to annul and transfer the subscription and

adequately represent the class and the subject matter of general or

shareholdings of the defendants to them and other stockholders

common interest.

who had been denied the right to subscribe.

The complaint in the instant case explicitly declared that the

They alleged as well that some of the defendants falsely certified to

plaintiffs- appellants instituted the "present class suit under Section

the calling of a special stockholders' meeting, when plaintiffs-

12, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court in. behalf of CMI subscribing

appellants and other CMI stockholders were not notified thereof.

stockholders" but did not state the number of said CMI subscribing

Further, the defendants increased the number of Directors, illegally

stockholders so that the trial court could not infer, much less make

creating the Position of Director filled up by a defendant, who was

sure as explicitly required by the sufficiently numerous and

incompetent.

representative in order that all statutory provision.

and

filed

their

respective

Sevilla, one of the original plaintiffs, withdrew. Four CMI

The interest that ppellants, plaintiffs and intervenors, and the CMI

stockholders filed a motion to intervene, and to join the plaintiffs-

stockholders had in the subject matter of this suit the portion of

appellants on record, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the

stocks offering of the Bank left unsubscribed by CMI stockholders

ground that the plaintiffs had no legal standing or capacity to

who failed to exercise their right to subscribe on or before January

institute the alleged class suit.

15, 1963 was several, not common or general in the sense required

Some subscribers to the capital stock of the Bank filed separate

by the statute. Each one of the appellants and the CMI stockholders

manifestations that they were opposing and disauthorizing the suit

had determinable interest; each one had a right, if any, only to his

of plaintiffs-appellants.

respective portion of the stocks. No one of them had any right to, or

The defendants-appellee filed a supplemental ground for their

any interest in, the stock to which another was entitled.

motion to dismiss for the reason that the stockholders who had

Even if it be assumed, for the sake of argument, that the appellants

abstained at their regular annual meeting unanimously ratified and

and the CMI stockholders suffered wrongs that had been committed

confirmed all the actuations of the organizers. CFI granted the

by similar means and even pursuant to a single plan of the Interim

motion to dismiss, hence the appeal.

Board of Organizers of the Bank, the wrong suffered by each of them

would constitute a wrong separate from those suffered by the other

ISSUE: Whether the instant action could be maintained as a class suit

stockholders, and those wrongs alone would not create that

NO. An action does not become a class suit merely

common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy

because it is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the suit is

as would entitle any one of them to bring a class suit on behalf of the

or is not a class quit depends upon the attending facts, and the

others.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

32

CIVIL PROCEDURE
33 REVIEWE

The right to preemption, it has been said, is personal to each

Service may, by leave of court, be effected by publication in a

stockholder. By analogy, the right of each of the appellants to

newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time

subscribe to the waived stocks was personal, and no one of them

as the court may order in any action where

could maintain on behalf of others similarly situated a representative

the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or

suit.

whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained

Defendants

by diligent inquiry. (Sec. 14, Rule 14)

(1) Unwilling co-plaintiff

(4) Entity without juridical personality as defendant

An unwilling co-plaintiff is a party who is supposed to be a plaintiff

When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical

but whose consent to be joined as a plaintiff cannot be obtained, as

personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the

when he refuses to be a party to the action. In that case,

name by which they are generally or commonly known.

he may be made a defendant and

the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. (Sec. 10, Rule 3)

In the answer of such defendant the names and addresses

of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. (Sec. 15,
Rule 3)

(2) Alternative defendant

Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is

Service upon entity without juridical personality. Service may be

entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the

effected upon all the defendants by serving upon

alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent

any one of them, or

with a right of relief against the other. (Sec. 13, Rule 3)

upon the person in charge of the office or place of business

maintained in such name.

Example:
A pedestrian injured in the collision of two vehicles may sue the

BUT such service shall not bind individually any person whose

vehicle owners or drivers in the alternative if he is uncertain whose

connection with the entity has, upon due notice, been severed before

vehicle caused the injury.

the action was brought. (Sec. 8, Rule 14)

(3) Unknown defendant

Death of party; duty of counsel

Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may

be sued

(1) If plaintiff dies during pendency of the case

as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or

Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not

by such other designation as the case may require;

thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel

to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact

When his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be

thereof, and

amended accordingly. (Sec. 14, Rule 3)

to give the name and address of his legal representative or

representatives.

Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

33

CIVIL PROCEDURE
34 REVIEWE

NOTE: This duty is mandatory. Failure of counsel to comply with this

Actions to enforce a lien on property

duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

Actions to quieting of title with damages

Ejectment case

Upon notice of death, action of court

Actions for recovery of money

Upon receipt of notice of death, the court shall determine whether

the claim is extinguished by the death. If the claim does not survive,

(2) If defendant dies, effect of his death depends upon the nature

the court shall dismiss the case.

of the pending action

If the claim survives, substitution

When action will not be dismissed

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or

The action will be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment

representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty

when:

(30) days from notice.

the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the

implied, and

deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or

the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in

administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the

which the action was pending at the time of such death

minor heirs.
NOTE: The heirs do not need to first secure the appointment of an

A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be

administrator.

enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for

The court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to

prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (Sec. 20,

procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the

Rule 3)

estate of the deceased if:

no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased

Effect of non-substitution of deceased party

party or

Non-compliance with the rules on substitution of a deceased party

if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period,

renders the proceedings of the trial court infirm because it acquired

The latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the

no jurisdiction over the person of the legal representative of heirs of

deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if

the deceased.

defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (Sec. 16,

However, in an ejectment case, non-substitution of the deceased

Rule 3)

does not deprive the court of jurisdiction (Florendo Jr. v. Colona)

HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG v. MELICOR

Examples of actions which survive the partys death

(455 SCRA 460, 2005)

Actions arising from delict

Actions based on tortuous conduct of the defendant
Actions to recover real and personal property

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

34

CIVIL PROCEDURE
35 REVIEWE

Non-compliance with the rule on substitution would

When due process is not violated, as when the right of the

render the proceedings and judgment of the trial court

representative or heir is recognized and protected,

infirm because the court acquires no jurisdiction over the

noncompliance or belated formal compliance with the Rules

persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs on

cannot affect the validity of a promulgated decision. Mere

whom the trial and the judgment would be binding.

failure to substitute for a deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient

ground to nullify a trial court's decision. The alleging party
must prove that there was an undeniable violation of due

FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint against Bertuldo for recovery

process.

of ownership of the premises leased by the latter. Bertuldo alleged

ownership of the property by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale.
FACTS: Pedro Joaquin alleged that he had obtained a P9,000 loan,
Bertuldo died without completing his evidence during the direct
payable after five (5) years, from petitioners, the spouses De la Cruz.
examination. Atty. Petalcorin replaced the original counsel and filed
To secure the payment of the obligation, he executed a Deed of Sale
a

motion

to

expunge

the

complaint

from

the
for a parcel of land in favor of petitioners. The parties also executed

record and nullify all court proceedings on the ground that private
another document entitled Kasunduan which allegedly showed the
respondents failed to specify in the complaint the amount of
Deed of Sale to be actually an equitable mortgage. Spouses De la
damages claimed as needed to pay the correct docket fees, and that
Cruz contended that this document was merely an accommodation
under Manchester doctrine, non-payment of the correct docket fee is
to allow the repurchase of the property, a right that he failed to
jurisdictional.
exercise.
The RTC issued a Decision in Joaquins favor, declaring that the
ISSUE: Whether the proceedings in the trial court are infirm
parties had entered into a sale with a right of repurchase. It held that
YES. No formal substitution of the parties was effected
respondent had made a valid tender of payment on two separate
within thirty (30) days from date of death of Bertuldo, as required by
occasions to exercise his right of repurchase. Accordingly, petitioners
Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Needless to stress, the purpose
were required to reconvey the property upon his payment. CA
behind the rule on substitution is the protection of the right of every
sustained the ruling of the trial court, and denied reconsideration. It
party to due process. It is to ensure that the deceased would
further ordered the substitution by legal representatives, in view of
continue to be properly represented in the suit through the duly
Joaquins death. Petitioners assert the RTC lacked jurisdiction since
appointed legal representative of his estate. Non-compliance with
the respondent died during the pendency of the case and no
the rule on substitution would render the proceedings and judgment
substitution was made.
of the trial court infirm because the court acquires no jurisdiction
over the persons of the legal representatives or of the heirs on whom
the trial and the judgment would be binding.
ISSUES: Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case upon the
DE LA CRUZ v. JOAQUIN
death of Pedro Joaquin
(464 SCRA 576, 2005)
NO. Strictly speaking, the rule on the substitution by heirs
is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process.
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

35

CIVIL PROCEDURE
36 REVIEWE

Thus, when due process is not violated, as when the right of the

right to collect rentals therefrom. Hence the suit was never

representative or heir is recognized and protected, noncompliance

continued.

or belated formal compliance with the Rules cannot affect the

Eight years later, the government converted the parcel of land in

validity of a promulgated decision. Mere failure to substitute for a

which the premises in dispute are included into residential land.

deceased plaintiff is not a sufficient ground to nullify a trial court's

Respondent then revived his previous suit of unlawful detainer

decision. The alleging party must prove that there was an undeniable

against petitioner. Unfortunately, Acosta died while the case was

violation of due process.

still on appeal to the CA. Petitioner avers that the case has become

The records of the present case contain a Motion for Substitution of

moot and academic since he was not informed of the death of

Party Plaintiff filed before the CA. It was deemed granted and the

respondent and no proper substitution of parties was instituted.

heirs, to have substituted for the deceased, Pedro Joaquin. There

being no violation of due process, the issue of substitution cannot be

ISSUE: Whether the case has become moot and academic due to the

held as a ground of nullify the courts decision.

death of respondent and the failure to substitute his heirs as parties to

the case

LIMBAUAN v. ACOSTA
(2006)

NO. It is well settled that the failure of counsel to comply

with his duty under Section 16 to inform the court of the death of his
client and no substitution of such party is effected, will not invalidate

The instant action for unlawful detainer, like any action

the proceedings and the judgment thereon if the action survives the

for recovery of real property, is a real action and as such

death of such party. Moreover, the decision rendered shall bind his

survives the death of Faustino Acosta.

successor-in-interest. The instant action for unlawful detainer, like

any action for recovery of real property, is a real action and as such
survives the death of Faustino Acosta. His heirs have taken his place

FACTS: Faustino Acosta took possession of a parcel of government

and now represent his interests in the instant petition. Hence, the
land which was originally intended to be used as a site for a
present case cannot be rendered moot despite the death of
leprosarium. He subsequently registered the land and built a fence
respondent.
around it.
Paulino Calanday intruded upon Acostas land without the formers
Death or separation of party who is a public officer
permission and built a beerhouse on it. Acosta remonstrated so
An action may be continued by or against the successor of the
Calanday filed a criminal case for Unjust Vexation and Malicious
deceased public officer when
Mischief; it was however, dismissed.
a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and
Calanday then conveyed the beerhouse to Juanita Roces who agreed
dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office during its pendency,
to pay a P60 monthly rental to Acosta. She then conveyed the
it is shown within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or
premises to Charles Limbauan, petitioner in the present case. A few
such time as the court may grant, that there is a substantial need for
months later, petitioner stopped paying rentals so respondent filed a
continuing or maintaining the action, and that
case for unlawful detainer against respondent. Petitioner reasoned
the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue
that since the land belonged to the government, respondent had no
the action of his predecessor.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

36

CIVIL PROCEDURE
37 REVIEWE

the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting

in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise

thereto, has been given reasonable notice of the application therefor

provides.

and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (Sec. 17, Rule 3)

Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any
Incompetency or incapacity

time before judgment is rendered by the trial court.

If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court,

upon motion

If the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as

with notice,

an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the

may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent

proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected

or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad

by the clerk of court. If the payment is not made within the time

litem. (Sec. 18, Rule 3)

fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the payment thereof,

without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
(Sec. 21, Rule 3)

Transfer of interest
In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or

Notice to Solicitor General

against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the

The court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the

person to whom the interest is transferred

Solicitor General in any action involving the validity of any

to be substituted in the action or

treaty,

joined with the original party. (Sec. 19, Rule 3)

law,
ordinance,

Indigent party

executive order,

A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as

presidential decree,

an indigent if the court,

rules

upon an ex parte application

or regulations,

and hearing,
is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property

He may be heard in person or through a representative duly

sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for

designated by him. (Sec. 22, Rule 3)

himself and his family.

NOTE: Actions filed in the name of the Republic or its agencies and
Such authority shall include

instrumentalities, if not initiated by the Solicitor General shall be

an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and

summarily dismissed.

of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be

furnished him.
The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent
was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

37

CIVIL PROCEDURE
38 REVIEWE

between

plaintiff

and

defendant, or petitioner

the court and the subject

matter

and respondent
May be conferred by the
act or agreement of the

Fixed by law and cannot be

conferred by agreement of the
parties

parties
Not a ground for motu
proprio dismissal, except in
summary procedure

Lack of jurisdiction over the

subject matter is a ground for a
motu proprio dismissal

Venue of real actions

Real actionaction affecting title to or possession of real property,
or interest therein.
Real actions shall be commenced and tried in the proper
court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

VENUE OF ACTIONS (RULE 4)

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in

the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real

Venue defined

property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)

Venue is the place or the geographical area where an action is to be

filed and tried. It relates only to the place of the suit and not to the

Venue of personal actions

jurisdiction of the court.

Personal actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or

Venue becomes jurisdiction only in a criminal case.

any of the principal plaintiffs, or where the defendant or any of the

The parties can waive the venue of a case.

principal defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff.

Distinguished from jurisdiction

In the case of a non-resident defendant it may be commenced and

tried where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. (Sec. 2,

JURISDICTION

VENUE
The place where the case is

Venue of actions against non-residents

If any of the defendants

A matter of procedural law

a

The authority to hear and

determine a case

to be heard or tried

Establishes

Rule 4)

relation

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

Matter of substantive law

does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and

Establishes a relation between

38

CIVIL PROCEDURE
39 REVIEWE

the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property
of said defendant located in the Philippines,

FACTS: The Mindanao Kris, a newspaper of general circulation in

the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place

Cotabato City, published in its front page the news article captioned

where the plaintiff resides, or

6-Point Complaint Filed vs. Macumbal, and in its Publishers Notes

where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.

the editorial, Toll of Corruption, which exposed alleged anomalies

by key officials in the Regional Office of the DENR. Subsequently,

Quasi in rem

the public officers alluded to instituted separate criminal and civil

Actions which affect the personal status of the plaintiff are to be filed

complaints in the City Prosecutors Office and RTC in Marawi City.

at the residence of the plaintiff.

Diaz, publisher-editor, and Pagandaman, who executed a sworn

statement

attesting

the

alleged

corruption

were

named

respondents. The City Prosecutors Office dismissed the criminal

case.
In rem

Thereafter, a civil complaint for damages was filed. Diaz filed an

Actions affecting the property of the defendant in the Philippines

answer, then later moved for the dismissal of the action for damages

shall be filed where the property is located.

on the ground that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter. He vehemently argued that the complaint should

When rule not applicable

have been filed in Cotabato City and not in Marawi City. The

This Rule shall not apply

respondent judge denied petitioners Motion to Dismiss for lack of

In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or

merit.

Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of
the action on the exclusive venue thereof. (Sec. 4, Rule 4)

ISSUE: Whether the venue was improperly laid

NO, petitioner is not correct. Petition is dismissed for lack

(a) Where a specific rule or law provides otherwise

of merit. The case is remanded to the court of origin for further

proceedings.

DIAZ v. ADIONG

Not one of the respondents held office in Cotabato City nor they

(219 SCRA 631, 1993)

held their principal office in that province. It is clear that an offended

party who is at the same time a public official can only institute an

An offended party who is at the same time a public official

can only institute an action arising from libel in 2 venues: (1)
the place where he holds office; or (2) the place where the
alleged libelous articles were printed and first published
Venue in an action arising from libel is only
mandatory if it is not waived by defendant. Thus, objections
to venue in civil actions arising from libel may be waived; it
does not, after all, involve a question of jurisdiction.
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

action arising from libel in 2 venues: (1) the place where he holds
office; or (2) the place where the alleged libelous articles were
printed and first published. (Art. 360, RPC)
Venue was indeed improperly laid. However, unless and until the
defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss prior to a
responsive pleading, the venue in a motion to dismiss cannot truly be
said to have been improperly laid since, for all practical intents and
purposes, the venue though technically wrong may yet be

39

CIVIL PROCEDURE
40 REVIEWE

considered acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules

on venue had been devised. Diaz, then, as defendant should have
timely challenged the venue laid in Marawi City in a motion to
dismiss, pursuant to Rule 4, Sec. 4, of the Rules of Court.
Unfortunately, he had already submitted himself to the jurisdiction
of trial court when he filed his Answer. Well-settled is the rule that

LEGASPI v. REPUBLIC

improper venue may be waived and such waiver may occur by

(559 SCRA 410, 2008)

laches. Moreover, venue in an action arising from libel is only

mandatory if it is not waived by defendant. Thus, objections to
It must be shown that such stipulation as to venue is
venue in civil actions arising from libel may be waived; it does not,
exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words,
after all, involve a question of jurisdiction. The laying of venue is
such as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other
procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction
venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue, "to
of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. Venue
the exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar
relates to trial and not jurisdiction.
import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an
Furthermore, Rule 16, Sec. 1, provides that objections to improper
agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to
venue must be made in a motion to dismiss before any responsive
the specified place.
pleading is filed.

Responsive pleadings are those which seek

affirmative relief and set up defenses. Having already submitted his

person to the jurisdiction of the court, petitioner may no longer
object to the venue which, although mandatory in the instant case, is
nevertheless waivable. As such, improper venue must be seasonably
raised. Otherwise, it may be deemed waived.

FACTS: Jesusito D. Legaspi, as owner and manager of petitioner J.D.

Legaspi Construction, entered into a Construction Agreement with
respondent Social Security System (SSS) for the construction of a
four-storey building in Baguio City which will serve as respondent's
(b) Where parties have validly agreed in writing on the exclusive
venue thereof before the filing of the action
The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in a place
where neither of them resides, as long as the agreement is:
In writing;
Made before the filing of the action; and
Exclusive as to the venue.

branch office.
The Philippine peso collapsed as against the U.S. Dollar in
1997, thus the cost of imported materials which petitioner
contracted to use and install on the project shot up, and petitioner
incurred expenses more than the original contract price. Petitioner
had several meetings with respondent's representatives during
which he informed them of his difficulty in meeting his obligations
under the contract due to the peso devaluation. After several failed
meetings, petitioner sent a letter to respondent requesting an
adjustment in the contract price, which was denied by respondent.
Hence, petitioner filed a civil action with the RTC. Instead
of filing an answer, respondent, represented by the OSG, filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that venue was improperly laid
MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

40

CIVIL PROCEDURE
41 REVIEWE

and petitioner had no cause of action. It was respondent's argument

(2) Implied waiver

that the Construction Agreement provided that all actions may be

Made through failure to seasonably object to improper venue in a

brought before the proper court in Quezon City and that petitioner

motion to dismiss or in the answer

waived any other venue. The RTC denied respondent's Motion to

Dismiss. Respondent moved to reconsider the Order but this was

DACOYCOY v. IAC

denied by the RTC. The petition for certiorari with the Court of

(195 SCRA 641, 1993)

Appeals was granted. Hence, the present petition for review on

certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Where defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a

motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the

ISSUE: Whether the stipulation as to venue in this case is controlling

YES. As regards restrictive stipulations on venue,
jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown that such stipulation is
exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as

Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a decision

to be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be
permitted to challenge belatedly the wrong venue, which is
deemed waived.

"exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other venue," "shall only"
preceding the designation of venue, "to the exclusion of the other
courts," or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed

FACTS: Petitioner Jesus Dacoycoy, filed before the RTC, Antipolo,

as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting

Rizal, a complaint against private respondent Rufino de Guzman for

venue to the specified place.

the annulment of two deeds of sale involving a parcel of riceland

In the Construction Agreement, petitioner agreed to file any action

situated in Barrio Estanza, Lingayen, Pangasinan, the surrender of

in Quezon City expressly waiving any other venue. This connotes

the produce thereof, and damages due to private respondent's

exclusivity of the designated venue. The terms clearly stipulate

refusal to have said deeds of sale set aside upon petitioner's demand.

exclusively the venue where actions arising from the Construction

Before summons could be served on private respondent as

Agreement should be filed.

defendant therein, the RTC issued an order requiring counsel for

Petitioner, however, contends that the case does not arise from the

petitioner to confer with respondent trial judge on the matter of

Construction Agreement; hence, it may be filed in Makati City, which

venue.

is his place of residence. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the

After said conference, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the

allegations in his complaint indubitably show that his cause of action

ground of improper venue. It found, based on the allegations of the

arose from the Construction Agreement.

complaint, that petitioner's action is a real action as it sought not

only the annulment of the deeds of sale but also the recovery of
ownership of the subject parcel of riceland located in Estanza,

Waiver of improper venue

Lingayen, Pangasinan, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of

the trial court.

(1) Express waiver

Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court

Made through written agreement

of Appeals, which in its decision of April 11, 1986, affirmed the order
of dismissal of his complaint.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

41

CIVIL PROCEDURE
42 REVIEWE

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court can pre-empt the defendants
prerogative to object to improper venue by motu propio dismissing the

(2) Affirmative defense in answer

case

By impleading improper venue as an affirmative defense in the

NO. The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner's complaint

answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16)

by respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain

error, obviously attributable to its inability to distinguish between
jurisdiction and venue.

PLEADINGS

Venue is procedural rather than substantive. It relates to the

(Substantial Requirements)

jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject
matter. Provisions relating to venue establish a relation between the

In general

plaintiff and the defendant and not between the court and the
subject matter. Venue relates to trial not to jurisdiction, touches

Pleadings defined

more of the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of

Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and

the case. Jurisdiction treats of the power of the court to decide a

defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate

case on the merits; while venue deals on the locality, the place where

judgment. (Sec. 1, Rule 6)

the suit may be had.

Pleadings are not supposed to allege conclusions. It must only aver

Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is

ultimate facts, or the facts essential to a partys cause of action or

certainly not the appropriate course of action at this stage of the

defense.

proceeding, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the

Evidentiary matters are to be presented during the trial of the case,

courts of first instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or

not in the pleadings. These and conclusions may be subject of a

impliedly. Where defendant fails to challenge timely the venue in a

motion to strike.

motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of

All pleadings shall be liberally construed.

Court, and allows the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered,

The intention of the pleader is the controlling factor in construing a

he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to challenge

pleading and should be read in accordance with its substance, not its

belatedly the wrong venue, which is deemed waived.

form.

Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to have taken a

Parties are strictly by the allegations, statements or admissions

procedural short-cut by dismissing motu proprio the complaint on the

made in his pleadings and cannot be permitted to take a

ground of improper venue without first allowing the procedure

contradictory position.

outlined in the Rules of Court to take its proper course.

Distinguished from motion
How to question improper venue

A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading. (Sec. 1,

Rule 15)

(1) Motion to dismiss

What allowed

By filing a motion to dismiss before a responsive pleading (answer)

The claims of a party are asserted in a

on the ground of improper venue (Sec. 1[c], Rule 16)

complaint,

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

42

CIVIL PROCEDURE
43 REVIEWE

counterclaim,

side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other

cross-claim,

parties.

third (fourth, etc.)party complaint, or

Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.

complaint-in-intervention.

The docket number if assigned.

The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading

NOTE: It is NOT the caption, but the allegations which determine

asserting a claim against him.

the nature of the action.

An answer may be responded to by a reply. (Sec.2, Rule 6)

(2) The Body

The body of the pleading sets forth

Pleadings allowed under Summary Procedure

its designation,

The only pleadings under the Rules on Summary Procedure are:

the allegations of the partys claims or defenses,

complaint;

the relief prayed for, and

compulsory counterclaim;

the date of the pleading.

cross-claim pleaded in the answer; and

answers.

(a) [Link] allegations in the body of a pleading shall be

divided into paragraphs so numbered as to be readily identified,

Pleadings not allowed in a petition for writ of amparo or habeas data

each of which shall contain a statement of a single set of

The following are prohibited motions in the mentioned petitions:

circumstances so far as that can be done with convenience.

counterclaim;

A paragraph may be referred to by its number in all succeeding

cross-claim;

pleadings.

third-party complaint;
reply; and

(b) Headings

pleadings in intervention

For joined actions: The statement of the first shall be prefaced by the
words first cause of action, of the second by second cause of

Parts of a pleading

action, and so on for the others.

(1) Caption

Paragraphs in the answer addressed to one of several causes of

The caption sets forth

action in the complaint shall be prefaced by the words

The name of the court;

answer to the first cause of action or answer to the second cause

The title of the action;

of action and so on;

The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall
all be named in the original complaint or petition; but in subsequent

Paragraphs of the answer addressed to several causes of action, they

pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each

shall be prefaced by words to that effect.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

43

CIVIL PROCEDURE
44 REVIEWE

(c) [Link] pleading shall specify the relief sought, BUT it may

NOTE: Counsels authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal

add a general prayer for such further or other relief as may be

to him. Hence, he MAY NOT delegate it to just any person. A blanket

deemed just or equitable.

authority entrusted to just anyone is void since it will amount to

The relief or prayer does not constitute a part of the statement of the

signing by unqualified persons.

cause of action.
The court may grant a relief not prayed for as long as the relief is

(4) Verification

warranted by the allegations of the complaint and the proof.

General Rule:

Pleadings NEED NOT be under oath, verified or

accompanied by affidavit.
(d) [Link] pleading shall be dated. (Sec. 2, Rule 7)

Exception: when otherwise specifically required by law or

rule. The follow pleadings must be verified:

(3) Signature and address

Petition to take deposition before action;

Every pleading must be

Petition for relief from judgment;

signed by the party or counsel representing him, and

Appeal by Certiorari from CA to SC;

state in either case his address which should not be a post office box.

Application for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining

Order;

The signature of counsel constitutes a certification

Application for Appointment of a Receiver;

that he has read the pleading;

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, or Mandamus;

that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is

All pleadings of forcible entry and unlawful detainer;

good ground to support it; and

Petition for appointment of general guardian;

that it is not interposed for delay.

Petition of guardian for leave to sell or encumber property of estate;

Petition to declare competency of ward;

An unsigned pleading produces NO legal effect.

Application for Writ of habeas corpus;

However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be

Petition for change of name;

remedied if

Petition for voluntary dissolution of corporation;

it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and

Petition to correct entries in civil registry;

not intended for delay.

Pleadings in Summary Procedure.

Counsel shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action if:

The following need not be verified but must be under oath:

he deliberately files an unsigned pleading,

Denial of genuineness and dues execution of actionable document;

signs a pleading in violation of this Rule,

Denial of allegations of usury;

alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or

Motion to set aside order of default;

fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address. (Sec 3,

Answer to written interrogatories;

Rule 7)

Answer to request for admission.

Affidavit of merit or supporting affidavit is required in the following:

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

44

CIVIL PROCEDURE
45 REVIEWE

Motion for summary judgment or opposition thereto;

courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same

Motion for new trial;

or substantially the same relief.

Affidavit of third-party claim on levied property;

It is an act of malpractice

Proof required of redemptioner;

The same shall constitute direct contempt, a cause for

Complaint with prayer for preliminary attachment;

administrative sanctions, as well as a ground for the summary

Affidavit of third-party claim on attached property;

dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Motion to dissolve preliminary injunction on ground of irreparable

damage to movant while adverse party can be fully compensated

The certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement by the

Complaint for replevin:

plaintiff or principal party certifying in an initiatory pleading:

Claim against estate of decedent.

that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving
the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to

How pleading is verified

the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending

A pleading is verified by an affidavit

therein;

that the affiant has read the pleading and

if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement

that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal

of the present status thereof; and

knowledge or based on authentic records.

if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim

has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5)

NOTE: A pleading required to be verified shall be treated as an

days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or

unsigned pleading if it contains a verification

initiatory pleading has been filed.

based on information and belief,

upon knowledge, information and belief, or

NOTE: The certification must be executed by the party NOT the

lacks a proper verification

counsel, unless the latter is authorized specifically to do so. A

certification signed by the counsel is a defective certification and is a

Remedies

valid cause for dismissal. BUT This rule must be liberally interpreted:

The court may order the correction of the pleading if lacking

Failure of parties to sign because they were abroad may be a

verification

reasonable cause to exempt the parties from compliance with the

The court may also acct on the pleading despite failure to properly

requirement

verify if under the circumstances, strict compliance with the rules

Signing by one of the petitioners was held to be substantial

may be dispensed with

compliance

The absence of verification may be corrected by requiring an oath.

When plaintiff is a juridical personthis may be signed by the

properly authorized persons.

(5) Certification against forum shopping

Forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits in different courts, either

This requirement is mandatory in the filing of a complaint and other

simultaneously or successively, involving the same parties, to ask the

initiatory pleading, but it is NOT jurisdictional. The rule applies also

to special civil actions.

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

45

CIVIL PROCEDURE
46 REVIEWE

identity of reliefs sought.

Initiatory pleadings include
Original complaint;
Permissive counterclaim;

HOW ALLEGATIONS MADE

Cross-claim;
Third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint;

In general

Complaint in intervention; and

Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,

Petition or application wherein the party asserts his claim or relief.

concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting

NOTE: No certification required for a compulsory counterclaim since

the statement of mere evidentiary facts.

it is NOT an initiatory pleading.

If a defense relief on is based on law,
Effect of failure to comply

the pertinent provisions thereof and

It shall NOT be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or

their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. (Sec. 1,

other initiatory pleading.

Rule 8)

BUT it shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
Effect of the submission of a false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings therein:
Indirect contempt;
Administrative and criminal actions.
Effect of willful and deliberate forum shopping by the party or his
counsel:
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice
direct contempt, and
a cause for administrative sanctions. (Sec. 5, Rule 7)

How to determine existence of forum shopping

The most important question is whether the elements of litis
pendentia are present OR whether a final judgment in one case will
result to res judicata.
The TEST is whether in the two or more cases pending,
there is:
identity of parties;
identity of rights or causes of action, and

MENDEZ, IVAN VIKTOR (2D, 13)

46