I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. SUBSTANTIVE LAW vs. REMEDIAL LAW

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the
right and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the aw which courts are established to
administer.

Remedial law is one which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress for their
invasions.

JURISPRUDENCE

 In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure
of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the
rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or
infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a
right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as
a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.
(Estiopona vs. Judge Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, Augist 15, 2017)

B. RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial Power

Judicial power, as vested by the Supreme Court and all other courts established by law, has been
defined as the totality of powers a court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears and decides a
case. Under Section 1, Article VIII if the 1987 Constitution, it includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

JURISPRUDENCE
  The Court rules that when Congress passed the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 and, in so
doing, took away from the courts their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an
investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, it encroached upon this Court's constitutional rule-
making authority. Clearly, these issuances, which are, by nature, provisional reliefs and auxiliary
writs created under the provisions of the Rules of Court, are matters of procedure which belong
exclusively within the province of this Court. (Morales vs. CA, G.R. No. 217126-27)

 The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government cannot be thwarted
by rules of procedure to the contrary or for the sake of the convenience of one side. This is
because the Court has the bounden constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of discretion
whenever and wherever it is committed. Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character and
effect of the denial of the demurrers to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail
themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of
discretion. (Macapagal- Arroyo vs. People, G. R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016)

C. PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

The hierarchy of courts doctrine prohibits parties from directly resorting to this Court when relief may
be obtained before the lower courts. Nevertheless, this doctrine id not an iron- clad rule; it also admits
of exceptions, such as when the case involves matters of transcendental importance. Direct invocation
of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction should only be allowed when there are special, important and
compelling reasons clearly and spelled out in the petition.

The Supreme Court summarized other well- defined exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Immediate resort to the Supreme Court may be allowed when any of the following grounds are
present:

1. When genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed

immediately;

2. When the case involves transcendental importance;

3. When the case is novel;

4. When the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;

5. When time is of the essence;

6. When the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;

7. When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of law;
 8. When the petition incudes questions that may affect public welfare, public
policy or demanded by the broader interest of justice;

9. When the order complained of was a patent nullity; and

10. When the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy. (Rama vs.
Moises, 835 SCRA 222, August 8, 2017), Asla vs. Uy supra, citing the case
of Diocese of Bacolod vs. COMELEC, 747 SCRA 1, January 21, 2015)

JURISPRUDENCE

 The petitioners have unduly disregarded the hierarchy of courts by coming directly to the Court
with their petition for prohibition and mandamus. The petitioners appear to have forgotten that
the Supreme Court is a court of last resort, not a court of first instance. The hierarchy of courts
should serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for Rule 65 petitions. The
concurrence of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial
Courts to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction does not give the petitioners the unrestricted freedom of choice of forum.  By directly
filing Rule 65 petitions before us, the petitioners have unduly taxed the Court’s time and
attention which are better devoted to matters within our exclusive jurisdiction. Worse, the
petitioners only contributed to the overcrowding of the Court’s docket. We also wish to
emphasize that the trial court is better equipped to resolve cases of this nature since this Court
is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake an examination of the contending parties’
evidence. (Kalipunan ng damay ang mahihirap, Inc. vs. Jessie Robredo, G.R. No. 200903, July
22, 2014)

D. DOCTRINE OF NON- INTERFERENCE/JUDICIAL STABILITY

JURISPRUDENCE

 The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-
equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere by
injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the
power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment
therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment. (Atty. Cabiling vs. Judge Balindong,
AM No. RTJ-10-2225)

Does the Doctrine of Non-Interference apply to laws passed by Congress increasing the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court?
 Yes. In Carpio- Morales vs. CA, 774 SCRA 431, November 10, 2016, it was held that: Congress
cannot interfere with matters of procedure; hence, it cannot alter the scope of a Rule 45 appeal so as to
apply to interlocutory findings issued by the Ombudsman. More significantly, by confining the remedy to
a Rule 45 appeal, the provision takes away the remedy of certiorari, grounded on errors of jurisdiction,
in denigration of the judicial power constitutionally vested in courts. In this light, the second paragraph
of Section 27, RA 6770, which was invalidated in the case of Fabial vs. Desierto.

In Fabian, the Supreme Court struck down the fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770 as
unconstitutional in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

II. JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. Jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the
parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when the court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.

When can the Supreme Court exercise its Expanded Jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution?

In SPARK vs, Quezon City supra, the high court held that: It requires the presence of actual case or
controversy. Under the 1987 Constitution, this requirement is simplified by merely requiring a prima
facie showing of grave abuse of discretion in the assailed governmental act. An actual case or
controversy is one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims,
susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or
dispute. In other words, there must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. Corollary to the requirement of an actual case
or controversy is the requirement of ripeness. A question is the ripe of adjudication when the act being
challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.

A. CLASIIFICATION OF JURISDICTION

1. Original vs. Appellate

Original

- Those courts in which, under the law, actions or proceedings may be originally be
commenced.

Appellate
 - Those courts which have the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a
lower court.

2. General vs. Special

General

- Those competent to decide their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all kinds
of cases, unless otherwise provided by law or Rules,

(ex. RTC’s (Sec. 19, B.P. blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

Special or Limited

- Those which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction and can only try cases
permitted by statute.

(ex. MTC (Sec. 33, B.P. blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

3. Exclusive vs. Concurrent

Exclusive

- Or the power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts
at that stage.

Concurrent

- Sometimes referred to as confluent or coordinate jurisdiction, which is the power

conferred upon different courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take
cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the same or different judicial
territories.

B. DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS AND CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION

The hierarchy of courts doctrine prohibits parties from directly resorting to this Court when relief may
be obtained before the lower courts. Nevertheless, this doctrine id not an iron- clad rule; it also admits
of exceptions, such as when the case involves matters of transcendental importance. Direct invocation
of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction should only be allowed when there are special, important and
compelling reasons and specifically out in the petition.
C. ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction over the Parties

Jurisdiction over the Plaintiff or Petitioner

- This is acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before
the court by the plaintiff or petitioner and coupled with the payments of docket
fees. (Manchester and Sun Life Insurance vs. Asuncion)

Jurisdiction over the Defendant or Respondent

- This is acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or

respondent to the court or by coercive process issued by the court to him, by valid
service of summons.

JURISPRUDENCE

 “Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding
on persons.” De Perdo vs. Romasan Development Corporation, GR No. 194751, November 26,
2014.

-Plaintiff

 “An appearance in whatever form without expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant
or respondent..” Cezar vs Hon. Ricafort-Bautista, GR No. 136415, October 31, 2006

-Defendant

(by voluntary appearance)

 “The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by service of the complaint
and summons on him, either by personal service or by substituted service or by extra-territorial
service thereof or by his voluntary personal appearance before the court or through counsel.”
Herrera-Felix vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 143746, August 11, 2006

(by service of summons)

 “Summons must be served personally upon the defendant or respondent whatever he or she
may be found. If the defendant or respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be
tendered to him or her.” De Pedro vs. Ramasan Development Corporation, GR No. 194751,
November 26, 2014

2. Jurisdiction over the Subject matter

Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations in
the complaint, the law in effect when the action is filed, and the character of the relief sought
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted.
JURISPRUDENCE

 “In order to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action, an examination of the
complaint is essential. Basic as hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of
a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a
concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.” Padlan vs
Dinglasan, GR No. 180321, March 20, 2013

 “It is the duty of the court to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Tagalog vs. Lim Vda de Gonzales, GR No. 201286, July 18,
2014

3. Jurisdiction over the Issues

This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by their agreement
in a pre- trial or stipulation or, at times, by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings provided by Section 5, Rule 10, Rules of Court.

JURISPRUDENCE

 “It is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties.”
Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil 484, 487

 “The test of whether a question is one in law or in fact is whether the court can determine the
issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence. If there is no need for such
evaluation, the issue is one in law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.” National Association of
Electricity Consumers for Reforms vs. Manila Electric Company, GR No. 191150, October 10,
2016

4. Jurisdiction over the Res

This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus placing it
in custodial egis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision of law which recognizes in the court
the power to deal with the property or subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land
registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real property in the Philippines of a non-
resident defendant.

JURISPRUDENCE

 “... jurisprudence holds that if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is not required. What is required is jurisdiction over the res although summons
 must also be served upon the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due process.”
Gomez vs Court of Appeals, 425 SCRA 98, 104

 “A relief granted in rem or in quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court
cannot lawfully render judgment against the defendant.” Banco do Brasil vs. Court of Appeals,
333 SCRA 545, 558

C. Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause- the right to act in a case. Since it is the
power to hear and determine, it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that
power or upon the rightfulness of the decisions made. Jurisdiction should therefore be distinguished
from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered
therein, is what makes up jurisdiction.

Where the court has jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, the decision of all other questions
arising in the case is but EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. (Herrera vs. Barretto, G.R. Np. 8692, September
10, 1913)

JURISPRUDENCE

 Jurisdiction is not the same as the experience of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise
of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. Jurisdiction is the power or authority
of the court.” Arranza vs BF Homes, Inc., 333 SCRA 799, 812

 “The exercise of this power or authority is called the exercise of jurisdiction and where there is
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in
the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction.” Tolentino vs Leviste, 443 SCRA 274

D. Jurisdiction vs. Venue

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a case. In
addition to being conferred by the Constitution and the law, the rule is settled that a court’s jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined by the relevant allegations in the complaint, the law in effect
when the action is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
entitiled to all or some of the claims asserted. Whereas, venue, pertains to the geographical location
where a case is filed.

JURISPRUDENCE

 “Jurisdiction, being a matter of substantive law, cannot be waived by the parties; venue may be
waived if not invoked either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.” City of Lapu-lapu vs.
Philippine Economic Zone Authority

 “Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by
the act or agreement of the parties. Nocum vs. Tan, 470 SCRA 639, 645

E. Jurisdiction over cases covered by barangay conciliation, small claims cases, and cases
covered summary procedure

CIRCULAR No.14- 93, 15 JULY 1993, KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEDURE

I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised

Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now
replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book
IV, R.A 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991), and
prior recourse thereto is a pre- condition before filing a complaint in court or
any government offices, except in the following disputes:

1. When one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality

thereof;

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;

3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
 4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since
only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as
complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);

5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or

municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;

6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment

exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000);

7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being
committed or further continued, specifically the following;

a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention ;

b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful

custody over another person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf;

c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,

attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency
of the action; and

d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

9. Any class of disputes when the President may be determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;

10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
(Sec. 46&47, R.A. 6657);

11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer- employee relations

(Montoya vs. Escayo, et. al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended,
which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation
of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the DOLE.

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in
court. (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz)

II. SMALL CLAIMS, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, February 1, 2016 (As amended, in
accordance with the February 26, 2019 en banc resolution to take effect on
April 1, 2019)
Section. 2. Scope- These Rules shall govern in an actions before Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs),
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
(MTCTs) for payment of money where the calue of the claim does not exceed the jurisdictional amount
of these courts under Republic Act. No. (RA) 7691 (Four hundred thousand pesos [P400,000.00] and
Three hundred thousand pesos [P300,000.00] for the MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs), exclusive of interest
and costs.

x-x-x-x-x

Section 5. Applicability- the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions that are purely civil in
nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of
sum of money.

The claim or demand may be;

a. For money owed under any of the following:

1. Contract of Lease;

2. Contract of Loan;

3. Contract of Services;

4. Contract of Sale; or

5. Contract of mortgage

b. For liquidated damages arising from contracts;

c. The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an

arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule
pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160. Otherwise known as The
Local Government of1991.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Section 8. Joinder of Claims. Plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or one separate small
claims against a defendant that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not
exceed the jurisdictional amount of the concerned court under R.A. 7691 (Four hundred thousand
pesos [P400,000.00] for the MeTCs and Three Hundred Thousand Pesos [P300,000.00] for the MTCCs,
MTCs, and MCTCs). x-x-x (In accordance with the February 26, 2019 En Banc rsolution, to take effect
April 1, 2019 per OCA Circular No. 45- 2019 dated March 21, 2019)
III. 1991 REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (CASES COVERED)

A. Civil Cases:

1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty
thousand pesos (P20, 000.00).

2. All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does
not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10, 000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

B. Criminal Cases:

1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

2. Violations of the rental law;

3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;

4. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment
not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding (P1, 000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the
imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).

This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs’ cause of action is pleaded in the same
complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where
the offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure.

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS (RULE 1)

Section 1: Title of the Rules of Court

 “Rules of court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law; and rules of
court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken,
are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention, of needless delays and to the orderly
and speedy discharge of judicial business.” Alvero vs dela Rosa, GR No. L-286, March 29, 1946
  “Procedural laws are adjective laws which prescribe rules and forms of procedure of enforcing
rights or obtaining redress for their invasion; they refer to rules of procedure by which courts
applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice.” Primicias vs Ocampo, GR No. L-6120,
June 30, 1953

Section 3: In what case not applicable

 “It provides that the rules can be applied in a suppletory character. Suppletory is defined as
supplying deficiencies. It means that the provisions in the Rules of Court will be made to apply
only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable rule.” GSIS vs Villaviza, GR No.180291, July
27, 2010

 “.. petitioners claim that the subject landholding forms part of the retained area awarded, the
Court notes that there was no sufficient evidence to substantiate petitioners claim, only the
Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has the exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to a retention area.. the
exercise of the right of retention by the landowner is under the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the Office of the Secretary of the DAR.” Reyes vs Barrios, GR No. 172841,
December 15, 2010

Section 3: Cases Governed

Kinds of Actions in the Rules of Court

a. Civil Action

 A civil action “is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right,
or the prevention or redress of a wrong.” (Sec.3 [a], Rule 1, Rules of Court)

b. Criminal Action

 A criminal action “is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.” (Sec.3 [b], Rule 1, Rules of Court)

c. Special Proceedings

 “The purpose of special proceeding is to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.” (Sec.3,
Rule 1, Rules of Court)

Kinds of Civil Actions in the Rules of Court

a. Ordinary Civil Action

b. Special Civil Action

  “...upon the withdrawal of a petition in a special civil action before the answer or comment
thereto has been filed, the case shall stand as though no appeal has been taken, so that the
judgment or order of the lower court being questioned becomes immediately final and
executory. Thus, a resolution granting the withdrawal of such petition is with prejudice and
petitioner is precluded from bringing a second action based on the same subject matter.”
Amberti vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 79981, April 2, 1991

Kinds of Civil Actions as to Cause

a. Real Actions

 “An action is ‘real’ when it affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein.”
BPI Family Savings Bank vs. Yujuico, GR No. 175796, July 22, 2015)

 “Real actions or actions affecting title to, or for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or
condemnation of, for foreclosure of mortgage on real property, must be instituted in the Court
of First Instance of the province where the property or any part thereof lies.” Enriquez v.
Macadaeg, 84 Phil. 674, 1949; Garchitorena v. Register of Deeds, 101 Phil. 1207, 1957

 “In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property... a real action is an action
affecting title to real property, or for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property.” Comments on the Rules of
Court by Moran, Vol. I, p. 122

b. Personal Actions

 “…well – settled is the rule that an action to annul a contract of loan and its accessory real estate
mortgage is a personal action. In personal action the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal
property.” Chua vs TOP, GR No 152808, September 30, 2005

 “An action for specific performance with damages is a personal action as long as it does not
involve a claim of recovery of ownership of or title to real property.”Siasoco vs. Court of
Appeals, 303 SCRA 186,196

KINDS OF CIVIL ACTIONS AS TO OBJECT

a. Action in Personam

 “Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they seek to impose
personal responsibility or liability upon a person.” De Pedro vs. Romasan Development
Corporation, GR No. 194751, November 26, 2014

 “An action for specific performance is an action in personam.” Jose vs. Boyon, 414 SCRA 216,
225
 b. Action in Rem

 ”A petition directed against the ‘thing’ itself or the res, which concerns the status of a person is
an action in rem.” Lucas vs. Lucas, 650 SCRA 667

 “Traditional jurisprudence has referred to an action in rem as one brought against the whole
world.” Ronualdez-Licaros vs. Licaros, 401 SCRA 762, 770

c. Action Quasi in Rem

 “An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of
the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the
property.” Asiavest Limited vs. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 539, 552

 “The object of a quasi in rem is the sale or disposition of the property whether by attachment,
foreclosure or any other form of remedy.” Banco-Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921, 928

d. Mixed Action

Section 5: Commencement of Action

 “The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket
fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the
Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended
pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is
overturned and reversed.”Manchester Development vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 75919, May
7, 1987

 “It was held that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but
the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglamentary period.” Sun
Insurance vs. Asuncion, GR No. 79937-38, February 13, 1989

Section 6: Construction

 “The notice requirement is not a ritual to be followed blindly. Procedural due process is not
based solely on a mechanical and literal application that renders any deviation inexorably fatal.
Instead, procedural rules are liberally construed to promote their objective and to assist in
obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of any action and proceeding.” Anama
vs. Phil. Savings Bank, GR No. 187021, January 25, 2012
  “A liberal construction of the rules had likewise been invoked in situations where there exist
formal deficiencies or errors in a party’s pleadings... such errors were overlooked provided there
was no supervision of the essence of the proceedings and the pleadings connote a reasonable
attempt to comply with the rules.” Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 495, 506

B. CAUSE OF ACTION (RULE 2)

Section 1: Ordinary Civil Actions, basis of

 “Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.” Turner vs. Lorenzo Shipping
Corporation, 636 SCRA 13,30

 “A cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the
right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.” Turner
vs. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, 636 SCRA 13,30

Section 2: Cause of Action, defined

 “A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another.” Sec. 2,
Rule 2, Rules of Court; Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Bautista, GR No. 168406, January 14, 2015

 “The sufficiency of the statement of the cause of action must appear on the face of the
complaint and its existence may be determined only by allegations in the complaint,
consideration of the other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove extraneous
circumstances not being allowed.” Viewmaster Construction Corporation vs. Roxas, 335 SCRA
540, 546

Section 3: One suit for a single cause of action

 “A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.” Sec.3, Rule 2, Rules
of Court; Riviera Golf Club, Inc. vs. CCA Holdings, BV, GR No. 173783, June 17, 2015

Section 4: Splitting a single cause of action

 “It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part the
subject of a separate complaint.” Bachrach vs. Icaringal, 68 SCRA 287

 “In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into
two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for
another separate action. It also occurs when a party brings a suit for each part of the same
action that was split.” Quadra vs. CA, GR 147593, July 31, 2006

Section 5: Joinder causes of action

 “It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action.” Unicapital,
Inc. vs. Consing, Jr., GR No. 192073, September 11, 2013
  “…when there are two or more defendants, two or more plaintiffs, the causes of action against
the defendants can only be joined if there is a compliance with the rules on joinder of parties.”
Flores vs. Mallare-Philipps, 144 SCRA 377,379

Section 6: Misjoinder of causes of Action

 “…misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal. Indeed, the courts have the
power, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the severance of
the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded with separately; if there is no objection to the
improper joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there exists no bar
in the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes of action.” Ada vs. Baylon,
GR No. 182435, August 13, 2012

C. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3)

Section 1: Who may be parties; Plaintiff and Defendant

 “The rule gives two main categories of parties to a civil action namely, the plaintiff and the
defendant.” Sec.1, Rule 3, Rules of Court

 “…it is at once obvious that the complaint is defective because the defendant is not a natural or
juridical person. However, that defect was cured by the compromise agreement executed
between the plaintiff and the one who in effect substituted himself for defendant.” Ventanilla
Enterprises vs. Hon. Lazaro, GR No. L-53856, August 21, 1980

Section 2: Parties in Interest

 “.. Natural persons, juridical persons, and entities authorized by law may be parties to a civil
action.” Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules of Court; Association of flood Victims vs. Commission on Elections,
GR No. 203775, August 5, 2014

 “…Rules of Court requires that unless otherwise authorized by law or of every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest...a real party in interest is one
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or one who is entitled to the
avails of the suit. A person , to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be
prosecuted, should appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced, that
is, his interest must be a present substantial interest, not a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.” Stronghold Insurance vs. Cuenca, GR No.
173297, March 6, 2013

Section 3: Representatives as Parties

 “The Court has recognized that a stockholder’s right to institute a derivative suit is not based on
any express provision, but is impliedly recognized when the said laws make corporate directors
or officers liable for damages suffered by the corporation and its stockholders for violation of
their fiduciary duties…the suit is an action for specific performance of an obligation owed by the
corporation to the stockholders to assist its rights of action when the corporation has been put
 in default by the wrongful refusal of the directors or management to make suitable measures
for its protection. The basis of a stockholder’s suit is always one in equity. However, it cannot
prosper without first complying with the legal requisites for its institution.” Ang vs. Ang, GR No.
186993, August 22, 2012

Section 4: Spouses as Parties

 “… insofar as it held that when the spouses are sued for the enforcement of the obligation
entered into by them, they are being impleaded in their capacity as representatives of the
conjugal partnership and not as independent debtors, either of them may be sued for the whole
amount, similar to that of a solidary liability, although the amount is chargeable against their
conjugal partnership property.” Carandang vs. Heirs of de Guzman, GR No. 160347, November
29, 2006

Section 5: Minor or Incompetent Persons

Section 6: Permissive joinder of parties

 “The sole purpose of the rule of joinder of parties is to save unnecessary work, trouble and
expense, consistent with the liberal spirit of the mining or destroying the constituted
government or of violating any law of the Philippines.” Soriano y Cia vs. Jose et al., Supra

Section 7: Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable Parties

 “The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and the courts cannot proceed without their
presence.” De Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 384 SCRA 607, 613

 “The joinder of party becomes compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party, the
rule directs a compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.” Crisologo vs. JEWN Agro-Industrial
Corporation, GR No. 196894, March 3, 2014

Section 8: Necessary Party

 “…a necessary party, which is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a
party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.” Caradang vs. Heirs of de
Guzman, GR No. 160347, November 29, 2006

 “An indispensable party must be joined under any and all conditions while a necessary party
should be joined whenever possible.” Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345, 348

Section 9: Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded

 “.. the non-joinder of necessary parties do not result in the dismissal of the case, failure to
comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of
the claim against such party. The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court
from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to
the rights of such necessary party.” Caradang vs. Heirs of de Guzman, GR No. 160347,
November 29, 2006
Section 10: Unwilling co-plaintiff

 “…an unwilling party must be a real party in interest, but whose consent to be joined as a
plaintiff cannot be obtained as when he refuses to be a party in action.” Emata vs. IAC, GR No.
L-72714, June 29, 1989

Section 11: Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

 “Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may
be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be
severed and proceeded with separately.” Sec.11, Rule 3, Rules of Court; Almendras vs. Court of
Appeals, 293 SCRA 540, 544

Section 12: Class suit

 “An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings.
Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attendant facts.” Mathay vs.
Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, 58 SCRA 559

Section 13: Alternative Defendants

 “… just as the rule allows a suit against defendants in the alternative, the rule also allows
alternative causes of action and alternative defenses.” Sec.2, Rule 8, Rules of Court

 “Plaintiff may sue the shipping company and the arrastre operator alternatively for the recovery
of damages to goods shipped through a maritime vessel.” Rizal Surety and Insurance Company
vs. Manila Railroad Corporation, 70 SCRA 187

Section 16: Death of the party; duty of counsel

 “The death of the client extinguishes the attorney-client relationship and divests the counsel of
his authority to represent the client. A dead client has no personality and cannot be represented
by an attorne.” Laviña vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 691

Section 17: Death or separation of a party who is a public officer

 “… a well-settled rule that failure to make a substitution is a ground for the dismissal of an
action.For the valid substitution of a public officer who has sued or has been sued in his or her
official capacity, the following requisites must be satisfied: 1. satisfactory proof by any party that
there is substantial need for continuing or maintaining the action; 2. the successor adopts or
continues or threatens to adopt or continue the acts of his or her predecessor; 3. the
substitution must be effected within 30 days after the successor assumes office or within the
time granted by the court; and, 4. notice of the application to the other party.” Commissioner
vs. Jardin, GR No. 141834, July 30, 2007

Section 18: Incompetency or incapacity

  “If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may
allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted
by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.” Sec. 18, Rule 3, Rules of Court

Section 19: Transfer of Interest

 “…it is recognized that the trial court is given discretion and enough leeway to determine who
may be joined in a proceeding, or whether a party may properly be substituted by another due
toa transfer of interest.” Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. vs. Chua, GR No.
191170, September 14, 2016

Section 20: Actions on contractual and money claims

 “The action need not literally arise from contracts. The term ‘implied’, may mean a claim arising
from law or a quasi-contract.” Leung Ben vs. O’Brien, 38 Phil. 182

Section 21: Indigent Party

 “…the party declared as an indigent if a person has no money, sufficient income and property.”
Heirs of Veneracion vs. Hon. Sorongon, GR No. 184827, February 11, 2015

Section 22: Notice to the Solicitor General

 “… only the Solicitor General can bring and defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines and that actions filed in the name of the Republic or its agencies and
instrumentalities, if not initiated by the Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed.”
Cooperative Development Authority vs. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative,
382 SCRA 552, 565

D. VENUE (RULE 4)

 It relates to the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be
brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court. (Phil. Banking Corp. v. Tensuan, et al, 48 SCAD
598, G.R. No. 104649, Feb. 28, 1994)

 Venue is intended to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the
courts. The rules on venue are simply arranged for the convenient and effective transaction of
business in the courts and so do not relate to their power, authority or jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action. (Westmont Pharmacuticals, Inc. v. Samaniego, et al, G.R. No.
146653; 147407-08, Feb. 2, 2006)

 If the parties agree in writing before the filing of the action that the same shall be filed
exclusively in a certain place, it cannot be filed in another place even if that other place is the
 residence of the parties or the location of the real property involved. (Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco,
30 SCRA 187).

 Resides in the rules of venue on personal actions means the place of abode, where permanent
or temporary, of the plaintiff or defendants as distinguished from domicile which denotes a
fixed permanent residence. (Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-22795,
Jan. 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 124)

E. PLEADINGS

1. Kinds of Pleadings (Rule 6)

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected
with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and
does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction. A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up in the same action. Any other claim is
permissive. (Calibre Traders, Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc., 633 SCRA 34, 13 October 2010).

A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the subject
matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately
in another case.

The nature of a counterclaim is determinative of whether or not the counterclaimant is required to pay
docket fees.

The rule in permissive counterclaims is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the
counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees.

On the other hand, the prevailing rule with respect to compulsory counterclaims is that no filing fees
are required for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.

In Spouses Mendiola vs. CA, the Court had devised tests in determining whether or not a counterclaim
is compulsory or permissive:
The four tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not are the following, to wit:

(a) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?

(b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?

(c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as the defendant's
counterclaim?

(d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and
time by the parties and the court?

The fourth test is the compelling test of compulsoriness‘. (Calibre, Traders Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines,
Inc., supra.)

NON- PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES FOR COUNTERCLAIMS NOT A GROUND FOR ITS DISMISSAL

The counterclaim should not be dismissed for nonpayment of docket fees. Instead, the docket fees
required shall constitute a judgment lien on the monetary awards in respondents' favor. In
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. Legasto, citing Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,
the Court held that: In instances where a litigant's non-payment of docket fees was made in good faith
and without any intention of defrauding the government, the clerk of court of the court a quo should be
ordered to assess the amount of deficient docket fees due from such litigant, which will constitute a
judgment lien on the amount awarded to him, and enforce such lien.

ELEMENTS OF A COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

A counterclaim is compulsory and is considered barred if not set up where the following
circumstances are present:

1) that it arises out of the, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing party‘s claim,

2) That it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction, and

3) That the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.60 (Calibre, Traders Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines,
Inc., supra.)

 The filing of a motion to dismiss and setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible
remedies. In the event that a defending party has a ground for dismissal and a compulsory
counterclaim at the same time, he must choose only one remedy. If he decides to file a motion
 to dismiss, he loses his compulsory counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his compulsory
counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for dismissal as an affirmatively defense in his
answer. (Financial Building Corporation v. Forbes Park Association Inc., G.R. No. 133119, Aug.
17, 2000).

2. Parts of Pleadings (Rule 7)

What is controlling in the pleading submitted to court?

It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that are controlling. (Genato vs. Viola,
611 SCRA 677, 5 February 2010.)

Does the provision of Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as regards to the
responsibility of counsel and party to inform the court of its new address apply to quasi-judicial
bodies like the COA?

Yes. It is the responsibility of a party to inform the court of the change of his address to enable him to
receive the said resolution or order in the event the court orders that an order or resolution be served
on him. This is recognized in Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. In the case of quasi- judicial
proceedings before the COA, the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (COA
Rules) does not have a direct provision regarding a party's obligation to inform the Commission of any
change in address. Nonetheless, pursuant to the suppletory character of the Rules of Court to the COA
Rules, the duty of the party or counsel pertaining to changes of address is applicable to COA's quasi-
judicial proceedings. (Layug vs. COMELEC (667 SCRA, February 28, 2012)

What is the purpose of the verification in a pleading?

The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition are
true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of
pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The
verification of a pleading is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement.Torres- Gomez vs. Codilla,
Jr., 668 SCRA 600, March 20, 2012)

What is Forum Shopping?

The act of a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or
already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable
decision if not in one court, then in another. More particularly, forum shopping can be committed in
three ways, namely:
 a. by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer,
the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is
litis pendentia);

b. by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer,
the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res
judicata); and

c. by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis
pendentia or res judicata)

Forum shopping is treated as an act of malpractice and, in this accord, constitutes a ground for the
summary dismissal of the actions involved. The rule against forum shopping seeks to prevent the
vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the
same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates
the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.

What are the guidelines with respect to the non-compliance with the requirements or submission of a
defective verification and certification against forum shopping?

A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of

defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping:

1) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not

necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.

2) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has

ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint
or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition
have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

3) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a

defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
relax the Rule on the ground of ―substantial compliance‖ or presence of
―special circumstances or compelling reasons.

4) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the

plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
 circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping
substantially complies with the Rule.

5) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the

party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

Is there a difference between proscription against forum shopping and violation of the certification
requirement?

Separate from the proscription against forum shopping is the violation of the certification requirement
against forum shopping. The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the
certification requirement should by now be too elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate,
compliance with the certification against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the
avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself. There is a difference in the treatment between failure to
comply with the certification requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not
only in terms of imposable sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes
sufficient cause for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or initiatory pleading
upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and for
direct contempt.

Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false entries in a certification against
forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. (Crisostomo vs. Nazareno, 726 SCRA 1, June 10,
2014)

Is a Board Resolution necessary to be attached to a Notice of Appeal instituted by a juridical person

through its representative?

No. In the case of United Interior Manggahan Homeowners Association vs. De Luna 845 SCRA 213, 20
November 2010), The High Court ruled that a notice of appeal is not a pleading, initiatory or otherwise,
that, when required by the law or the rules, must contain, among others, a verification and certification
against forum shopping to be signed by the party or his/her representative, and, in the case of a
representative, proof of his/her authority to file the action, i.e., power of attorney or secretary's
certificate with copy of the board resolution.

Can a party be held liable for violation of the rule on Non-Forum Shopping if he filed an appeal and
petition for certiorari at the same time?

Yes. In Philippine Postal Corporation vs. CA, 711 SCRA 632, 9 December 2013, it was held that:
Respondent Crisanto De Guzman is liable for violation of Non- Forum Shopping by pursuing two (2)
separate remedies – petition for certiorari and appeal – that have long been held to be mutually
exclusive, and not alternative or cumulative remedies. Evidently, the ultimate relief sought by said
remedies which De Guzman filed only within a few months from each other is one and the same – the
setting aside of the resolution dismissing him from the service. As illumined in the case of Sps. Zosa v.
Judge Estrella wherein several precedents have been cited on the subject matter:

The successive filing of a notice of appeal and a petition for certiorari both to assail the trial court‘s
dismissal order for non–suit constitutes forum shopping. Thus, Forum shopping consists of filing
multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.

What is the rationale of the rule on non-forum shopping in this jurisdiction?

In Vicente vs. Acil Corporation, 763 SCRA 1, 15 July 2015, it was held that: While a litigant‘s right to
initiate an action in court is fully respected, once his case has been adjudicated by a competent court in
a valid final judgment, he should not be permitted to initiate similar suits hoping to secure a favorable
ruling, for this will result to endless litigations detrimental to the administration of justice.80 After all,
the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the
execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which is the life of the law,81 as in this case.

Is there forum shopping if cases for unlawful detainer and action for recovery of ownership are both
pending?

There is none. The causes of action in the two cases are not identical or similar.

In the summary action of unlawful detainer, the question to be resolved is which party has the better
or superior right to the physical/material possession (or de facto possession) of the disputed premises.
Whereas, in the action for recovery of ownership, the question to be resolved is which party has the
lawful title or dominical right (i.e., owner's right) to the disputed premises.

Thus, in Malabanan vs. Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc., where the petitioner therein asserted, among
others, that the complaint for unlawful detainer against him must be dismissed on grounds of litis
pendencia and forum-shopping in view of the pending case for annulment of an action for dacion en
pago and for the transfer certificate of title in another case, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-
settled rule that a pending action involving ownership neither suspends nor bars the proceedings in
the summary action for ejectment pertaining to the same property, in view of the dissimilarities or
differences in the reliefs prayed for. (Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc. vs. Ando, supra.)

Is the subsequent filing of verification and certification of non-forum shopping by the party considered
as substantial compliance?

Yes. The subsequent filing of the certification duly signed by the petitioner himself should thus be
deemed substantial compliance, pro hac vice (Anderson vs. Ho, supra.)
  The certificate of non-forum shopping may be signed for an in behalf of a corporation,
specifically by a lawyer who had personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in
such documents. Unlike natural persons, corporations may perform physical actions only
through properly delegated individuals like its officers or agents. The resolution was sufficient to
vest such lawyer with the authority to bind the corporation and was specific enough as to the
acts he was empowered to do. (BA Savings Bank v. Sia, et al., G.R.No. 131214 July 27, 2000)

Res Judicata explained.

Res judicata (meaning, a matter adjudged) is a fundamental principle of law which precludes parties
from re-litigating issues actually litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment. It means that a
final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of
the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit. Res
judicata has two (2) concepts:

The first is bar by prior judgment in which the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction
on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar
to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or other tribunal;

While the second concept is conclusiveness of judgment in which any right, fact or matter in issue
directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court
in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot
again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or
subject matter of the two actions is the same.

There is a bar by prior judgment where there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action
between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be
barred. There is conclusiveness of judgment, on the other hand, where there is identity of parties in the
first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action.

ELEMENTS IN ORDER FOR A CASE TO BE BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT OR RES JUDICATA

The elements are as follows:

a. the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;

b. the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties;

c. the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and

d. there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes
of action.

Concept of litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil case explained.
Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, refers to that situation wherein another
action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action
becomes unnecessary and vexatious. For the bar of litis pendentia to be invoked, the following
requisites must concur:

a. identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions;

b.. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and

c.. the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other.

3. Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings (Rule 8)

 Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party relies for his claim or defense, as the case
may be, containing the statement of mere evidentiary facts. (Sec 1 Rule 8; Metropolitan Bank v.
Quilts and All, Inc., 41 SCAD 656, 228 SRCA 486).

Will the use of the word ―specifically" deny in the Answer constitute compliance with the
requirement of specific denial under the Rules of Court?

No. In the case of Go Tong Electrical Supply Co., Inc. vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (760 SCRA 486,
29 June 2015), it was held that: The mere statement in the answer, i.e., that they specifically deny the
pertinent allegations of the Complaint for being self-serving and pure conclusions intended to suit
plaintiffs purposes, does not constitute an effective specific denial as contemplated by law. Verily, a
denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. Stated otherwise, a general
denial does not become specific by the use of the word ―specifically. Neither does it become so by the
simple expedient of coupling the same with a broad conclusion of law that the allegations contested are
self-serving or are intended to suit plaintiffs’ purposes.

In Permanent Savings & Loan Bank v. Velarde, citing the earlier case of Songco v. Sellner,the Court
expounded on how to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, viz:

This means that the defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that it is
otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the statement of the answer to the effect that the
instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its genuineness or due
execution. On the contrary such a plea is an admission both of the genuineness and due execution
thereof, since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either. To add, Section 8,
Rule 8 of the Rules further requires that the defendant sets forth what he claims to be the facts, which
requirement, likewise, remains absent from the Answer in this case.

Thus, with said pleading failing to comply with the specific denial under oath" requirement under
Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules, the proper conclusion, as arrived at by the CA, is that petitioners had
impliedly admitted the due execution and genuineness of the documents evidencing their loan
obligation to respondent. To this, case law enlightens that the admission of the genuineness and due
execution of a document means that the party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily
signed the document or it was signed by another for him and with his authority; that at the time it
was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it;
that the document was delivered; and that any formalities required by law, such as a seal, an
acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him. Also, it effectively eliminated
any defense relating to the authenticity and due execution of the document, e.g., that the document
was spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face as the one executed by the parties; or that
the signatures appearing thereon were forgeries; or that the signatures were unauthorized.

NEGATIVE PREGNANT AND ITS EFFECT.

A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an
implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or
modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has
been held that the qualifying circumstance alone is denied while the fact itself is admitted. A denial in
the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it cannot be ascertained whether it is
the fact or only the qualification that is intended to be denied. Profession of ignorance about a fact
which is patently and necessarily within the pleader's knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual, is
no denial at all. (Venzon vs. Rural Bank of Buenavista (Agusan Del Norte), Inc. (704 SCRA 138, August
28, 2013

4. Effect of Failure to Plead (Rule 9)

What are the instances when the court may dismiss the claim motu proprio?

Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the court may motu proprio dismiss the claim,
namely:

(a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(b) litis pendentia:

(c) res judicata; and

(d) prescription of action (Moreno vs. Khan et al, G.R. No. 217744, July 30, 2018)

Distinguish Section 1, Rule 9 from Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 16 treats the grounds for a motion to dismiss the complaint. Whereas, Section l, Rule specifically
deals with dismissal of the claim by the court motu proprio. Otherwise stated, if a defendant fails to
raise a defense not specifically excepted in Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer, such defense shall be deemed waived, and consequently, defendant is already
estopped from relying upon the same in further proceedings.

Can defense of lack of jurisdiction be raised even for the first time on appeal?

Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court, defenses not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia,
res judicata, and prescription, which must be apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record. In
other words, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. In fact, the court may motu proprio dismiss a complaint
at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that lack of jurisdiction exists.
(Heirs of Telesforo Julao vs. De Jesus, 736 SCRA 596, 29 September 2014.)

JURISPRUDENCE

 An answer should be admitted where it has been filed before the defendant was declared in
default and no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff. (Indiana Aerospace Univ. v. CHED,
G.R.No. 139371 April 4, 2001)

 Default orders should be avoided, even if there is late filing of an answer. A declaration of
default should not issue unless the claiming party asked for it, for the court cannot motu proprio
declare a party in default. (Trajano v. Cruz, 80 SCRA 712)

 There must be a motion for a declaration of default by the plaintiff with proof of failure by the
defendant to file his responsive pleading despite due notice. (Ernestina Crisologo-Jose v. LBP,
G.R.No. 167399, June 22, 2006)

 Having been declared in default, a party is considered to have waived not only his opportunity
to contest the evidence presented by the plaintiff but also to present evidence in support of a
valid defense. It does not mean, however that the relief prayed for is automatically granted. The
court has to weigh the evidence presented and apply relevant law in its judgment. (L and L
Lawrence Footwear, Inc., et al., v. PCI Leasing and Finance Corp. G.R. No. 160531, Aug. 30,
2005)

5. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings (Rule 10)

 Amendments should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the real
controversies between the parties are presented and the case decided on the merits without
unnecessary delays. (Calabitv. Villanueva, March 15, 1985)

 The fact that the other defendants have filed their answers to the complaint does not bar the
plaintiff from amending the complaint. Where some but not all the defendants have answered,
the plaintiff may still amend its complaint once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims
asserted solely against the non-answering defendant, but not as to claims asserted against the
other defendants. (Remington Industrial Sales Corp. v. C.A. et al., GR. No. 133657, March 29,
2002)

 Leave of court to amend the pleading may be refused if: a) the motion is made to delay the
action; or b) the cause of action or defense is substantially altered. (Guiang v. Nadayag, 214
SCRA 355 [1992])

 The defense of prescription is not deemed waived even if not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or
in the answer, if plaintiff's allegation in the complaint or the evidence he presents shows clearly
that the action has prescribed. (Aznar III v. Bernard, 161 SCRA 276).

 In determining whether a different cause of action is introduced by amendments to the

complaint, the court must ascertain if the defendant shall be required to answer for a liability or
legal obligation wholly different from that which was stated in the original complaint. An
amendment will not be considered as stating a new cause of action if the facts allege in the
amended complaint show substantially the same wrong with respect to the same transaction, or
if what are allege refer to the same matter but are more fully and differently stated, or where
averments which were implied are made in express terms, and the subject of the controversy or
the liability sought to be enforced remains the same. (Shaffer v. Palma 22 SCRA 934).

 A supplemental pleading does not extinguished the existence of the original pleading, while an
amended pleading takes the place of the original pleading. A supplemental pleading exist side by
side with the original; it does not replace that which it supplements; it does not supersede the
original but assumes that the original pleading is to stand and the issues joined under the
original pleading remain as issues to be tried in the action. A supplemental pleading supplies the
deficiencies in aid of an original pleading not to entirely substitute the latter. (Sps. Rodolfo and
Imelda Caoili v. CA, et al., 112 SCAD 326, G.R. No. 128325, September 14, 1999).
Can the plaintiff be allowed to amend his complaint for the third time?

Yes. In the case of Tatlonghari vs. banko Kabayan-Ibaan Rural Bank Inc. (799 SCRA 516, 3 August
2016), it was held that: Jurisprudence states that bona fide amendments to pleadings should be
allowed in the interest of justice so that every case may, so far as possible, be determined on its real
facts and the multiplicity of suits thus be prevented. Hence, as long as it does not appear that the
motion for leave was made with bad faith or with intent to delay the proceedings, courts are justified
to grant leave and allow the filing of an amended pleading. Once a court grants leave to file an
amended pleading, the same becomes binding and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that
the court had abused its discretion. As a matter of judicial policy, courts are impelled to treat motions
for leave to file amended pleadings with liberality. This is especially true when a motion for leave is
filed during the early stages of proceedings or, at least, before trial.

6. When to File Responsive Pleading (Rule 11)

 Within fifteen (15) days after service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer and serve
a copy thereof upon the plaintiff, unless a different period is fixed by the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 11).

7. Bill of Particulars (Rule 12)

 Under the Rules, before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by
the rules, within ten (10) days after service of the pleading upon him, a party may move for a
definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any matter which is not averred with sufficient
definiteness or particularity to enable him properly to prepare his responsive pleading. Such
motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. (Sec. 1, Rule 12, Rules
of Court; Tan v. SB, G.R.No. 84195, December 11, 1989).

F. FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS, AND RESOLUTIONS (Rule
13)

JURISPRUDENCE

 When a party is represented by counsel, notice of court processes should be made upon such
counsel. Notice upon party himself is not considered in law unless service upon the party is
ordered by the court. Court's dismissal order of a case does not become final without notice to
counsel of record. (Jalorar v. Ytoriaga, 80 SCRA)
 Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. If he fails to claim
the mail from the post office within 5 days from the date of first notice of the post master,
service shall take effect at the expiration of such time. (Sec. 10 Mata v. Legarda, 7 SCRA 227)

 The general rule is that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt thereof by the
addressee. The exception is where the addressee does not claim his mail within 5 days from the
date of the first notice of the post master, in which case, the service takes effect upon the
expiration of such period. Inasmuch as the exception only refers to constructive and not actual
service, such exception must be applied upon conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent
by the postmaster to the addressee. (Johnson and Johnson [Phils.], Inc. v. CA, 201 SCRA 768)

 Not only is it required that notice of the registered mail be sent but that it should be delivered
to and received by the addressee. (Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz, et al., 160 SCRA 361)

 Notably, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is not applicable. It is
incumbent upon a party who relies on constructive service to prove that the first notice was
sent and delivered to the addressee. (Sps. Jose and Evangeline Aguilar, et al. v. CA, et al., 109
SCAD 108, G.R.No. 120972, July 19, 1999

 Knowledge by the lawyer of the existence of an order of execution during his telephone
conversation with the sheriff does not amount to service under Rule 13, Section 13. Service
upon him took place only when he, in fact, received the said order thru registered mail. (Phil.
Radiant Products, Inc. v. Metrobank, G.R.No. 163569, December 9, 2005)

 The rule is that in the service of pleadings, motions or any papers, the same must be done by
personal service. The reason for the law is that personal service would contribute to the faster
dispensation of cases. If personal service cannot be resorted to, then, it can be done by mail but
with an explanation why service by mail was resorted to. The explanation must be satisfactory
and acceptable to the court. Otherwise, the court has the discretion to consider the pleading,
etc., as never having been filed. It is on the basis of the explanation that the court exercises the
discretion to determine whether the pleading should be expunged or not from the record.
Without such explanation, there is no basis for the court to exercise that discretion. (Solar Team
Enterprise, Inc. v. Judge Ricafort, et al., 293 SCRA 661)
Lis pendens meaning.

Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control
which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and
until final judgment. Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the
properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent
the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. (Dela Merced vs. Government Service
Insurance System, 661 SCRA 83, 23 November 2011.)

What is the procedure in the cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens?

The notice of lis pendens may be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper showing that the
notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights
of the party who caused it to be recorded.

In what cases will the Notice of Lis Pendens be applicable?

In the case of Gagoomal vs. Villacorta (663 SCRA 444, 18 January 2012), it was held that: A notice of lis
pendens is proper in the following actions and their concomitant proceedings:

a. an action to recover possession of real estate;

b. an action to quiet title thereto;

c. an action to remove clouds thereon;

d. an action for partition; and

e. any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or
occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.

Thus, a notice of lis pendens is only valid and effective when it affects title over or right of possession of
a real property.

What is the effect of the annotation of lis pendens on future transactions over the subject property?

In Dela Merced vs. Government Service Insurance System supra, the Supreme Court cited the
discussion of an authority on land titles and registration, in this wise:
Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any cancellation or issuance of the title of the
land involved as well as any subsequent transaction affecting the same, would have to be subject to the
outcome of the litigation. In other words, upon the termination of the litigation there can be no risk of
losing the property or any part thereof as a result of any conveyance of the land or any encumbrance
that may be made thereon posterior to the filing of the notice of lis pendens.Thus, the filing of a notice
of lis pendens has a twofold effect:

1. to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final j
judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and

2. to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree
that the court will promulgate subsequently.

G. SUMMONS

 The service of summons enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. If there is no service of summons, any judgment rendered or proceedings had in a
case are null and void, except in case of voluntary appearance. (Echevarria v. Parsons
Hardware, 51 Phil. 980)

How can the court acquire jurisdiction if the defendant is a foreign entity?

In Pioneer International, Ltd. vs. Guadiz, Jr., the Supreme Court held that when the defendant is a
foreign juridical entity, service of summons may be made upon:

1. its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose;

2. the government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not
have a resident agent; or

3. any of the corporation‘s officers or agents within the Philippines.

Thus, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant foreign private
juridical entity under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be prior valid service of
summons upon the agent of such defendant. (Atiko Trans, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee and
Assurance, Inc., supra.)

 Service of summons may be made at night as well as during the day or even on a Sunday or
Holiday because of its ministerial character. ( Laus v. CA, 219 SCRA 688)
 It is well-established that summons upon a respondent or a defendant must be served by
handing a copy thereof to him in person or, if he refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him.
Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that the notice desired under the
constitutional requirement of due process is accomplished. The essence of personal service is
the handing or tendering of a copy of the summons to the defendant himself, whatever he
maybe be found; that is, wherever he may be, provided he is in the Philippines. (Cohen & Cohen
v. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd., 34 Phil. 526)

 If there is no valid substituted service of summons, the trial court would not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant. Service of summons is not only required to give the court
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also to afford the latter an opportunity to be
heard on the claim made against him. Thus compliance with the rules regarding the service of
summons is as much an issue of due process as of jurisdiction. The essence of due process is to
be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in
support of his defense. It is elementary that before a person can be derived of his property, he
should first be informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is
premised. (Ang Ping v. CA, 310 SCRA 343)

 In an action strictly in personam, personal service of summons within the forum is essential to
the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who does not voluntarily submit
himself to the authority of the court. Summons by publication cannot consistently, with due
process clause of the bill of rights, confer upon the court, jurisdiction over the defendants. The
proper recourse for the creditor in actions in personam is to locate properties, real or personal,
of the defendant with an unknown address or is abroad, and caused them to be attached under
Rule 57 in which case, attachment converts the action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem
and summons by publication may be deemed valid and effective. (Citizens Surety v. Herrera, 38
SCRA 369)