CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION

of evidence. Morning Star elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate

1 EDUARDO RAYO VS. METROBANK

GR No. 165142; December 10, 2007
court granted the petition for review filed by Morning Star, by ruling that V-Gent is
not the real party in interest because it merely acted as an agent of the passengers
who bought the tickets from Morning Star with their own money. Its motion for
reconsideration denied by the CA, V-Gent sought recourse with the Supreme Court. It
argues that since Morning Star did not appeal this specific finding with the RTC, then
FACTS: Midas Diversified Export obtained loans from Metrobank. To secure the
the MeTC’s ruling on this point had already become final and conclusive; therefore,
payment of the loan, a mortgage was executed in favor of Metrobank over three Morning Star can no longer revive the issue before the CA.
parcels of land. When Midas failed to pay, Metrobank extra-judicially foreclosed the
real estate mortgage. at the bidding, Metrobank acquired the property. Metrobank ISSUE: Whether or not V-Gent is a real party in interest in the case.
posted a bond required for issuance of a writ of possession. Rayo, a co-assignee of the
property filed an action for nullification of the sale. Metrobank opposed for the RULING: We disagree with V-Gent. The MeTC dismissed V-Gent’s complaint against
motion contending that he is not real party in interest. Morning Starrer for failure to prove its claim. This dismissal meant that the plaintiff
did not prove a violation of its right for which the defendant should be held liable.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has a legal personality in the suit. This ruling was plainly a judgment in Morning Star’s favor and one that it had no cause
to question. Indeed, it would be legally illogical for Morning Star to file an appeal to
HELD: Initially, it is recognized herein petitioner as the co-assignee of the Subject real
question a ruling of dismissal in its favor. V-Gent also argues that it is a real party-in-
properties. However, while petitioner would be injured by the judgment in this suit,
interest with legal standing to institute the complaint against Morning Star. In the
that the petitioner has no present substantial interest to institute the annulment of present petition, it states:
judgment proceedings and nullify the order granting the writ of possession. Rayo
would not be injured by the judgment. In ex parte application for a writ of possession The Court of Appeals chose to ignore the fact that while the plane tickets bore the
not strictly judicial process contemplated in the new Civil Code. It is a judicial names of the individual passengers, the respondent admitted that it was the
proceeding for the enforcement of one’s right of possession. petitioner that transacted business with it concerning the purchase of these plane
tickets. Both the purchase order and receipt of payments were under the name of the
DECISION: Wherefore the petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed resolutions
petitioner. Thus, since it was the petitioner who purchased these plane tickets on
of the Court of Appeals are hereby affirmed. Cost against the petitioner.
behalf of the passengers , the respondent voluntarily refunded to the former the value
of six (6) unused return tickets in the total amount of US$3,445.62. Though, for
reasons it did not reveal to petitioner, it refused to refund the rest. (Emphasis
supplied.)

2
V-GENT INCORPORATED VS. MORNING STAR TRAVEL &
TOURS V-Gent admits that it purchased the plane tickets on behalf of the passengers as the
GR No. 186305; July 22, 2015 latter’s agent.

⁠The tickets were issued in the name of the passengers and paid for with the
THE CASE: After buying 26 two-way plane tickets from Morning Star Travel and passengers’ money. No dispute or conclusion in the lower courts’ minds on this point;
Tours, Inc (respondent), V-Gent Inc (petitioner) returned 15 unused tickets worth hence, both the MeTC and the CA commonly found that V-Gent acted as an agent of
$8,747.50 to the respondent, which refunded only the six tickets worth $3,445.63. thev passengers when it purchased the passengers’ plane tickets.
Despite demand, Morning Star refused to refund the nine remaining tickets, hence it
However, while the MeTC held that V-Gent could sue as an agent acting in his own
filed money claim against the respondent before the MeTC of Manila. Aside from
name on behalf of an undisclosed principal, the CA held that it could not because the
countering that V-Gent is not entitled to a refund, Morning Star questioned the
requirements for such a suit by the agent had not been satisfied. We agree with the
personality of V-Gent to file the action as it is the passengers who bought the tickets
Court of Appeals. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
who are the real parties in interest. Ruling, the MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack
party-in-interest - the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
of cause of action. While it declared V-Gent as agent of the ticket buyers, it failed to
the suit. In suits where an agent represents a party, the principal is the real party-in-
prove its case by preponderance of evidence. On appeal to the RTC, the latter court
interest; an agent cannot file a suit in his own name on behalf of the principal. Rule 3,
reversed the MeTC judgment, holding that V-Gent proved its case by preponderance
1| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides the exception when an agent may sue or be On the other hand, the filing of suits is an act of strict dominion. Under Article 1878
sued without joining the principal. (15) of the Civil Code, a duly appointed agent has no power to exercise any act of strict
dominion on behalf of the principal unless authorized by a special power of attorney.
Section 3. Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be An agent’s authority to file suit cannot be inferred from his authority to collect or
prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary receive payments; the grant of special powers cannot be presumed from the grant of
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be general powers. Moreover, the authority to exercise special powers must be duly
deemed to be the real party-in-interest. A representative may be a trustee of an established by evidence, even though it need not be in writing.
express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by
law or these Rules. ⁠By granting the initial refund, Morning Star recognized V-Gent’s authority to buy the
tickets and collect refunds on behalf of the passengers. However, Morning Star’s
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal recognition of V-Gent’s authority to collect a refund for the passengers is not
may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract equivalent to recognition of V-Gent’s authority to initiate a suit on behalf of the
involves things belonging to the principal. (Emphasis supplied.) passengers. Morning Star therefore, is not estopped from questioning V-Gent’s legal
Thus an agent may sue or be sued solely in its own name and without joining the standing to initiate the suit.
principal when the following elements concur: (1) the agent acted in his own name WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of merit. SO
during the transaction; (2) the agent acted for the benefit of an undisclosed principal; ORDERED.
and (3) the transaction did not involve the property of the principal. When these
elements are present, the agent becomes bound as if the transaction were its own.
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED
This rule is consistent with Article 1883 of the Civil Code which says: Art. 1883. If an SEASCAPE TANON STRAIT TOOTHED WHALES, DOLPHINS,

3
agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of action against the persons PORPOISES AND OTHE CETACEAN SPECIES by ATTY.
with whom the agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the principal. OSORIO AND ESTENZO-RAMOS vs. SECRETARY ANGELO
In such case, the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with whom he REYES
has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except when the contract involves GR No. 181527; April 21, 2015
things belonging to the principal. The provisions of this article shall be understood to
be without prejudice to the actions between the principal and agent. In the present
case, only the first element is present; the purchase order and the receipt were in the FACTS: This is a consolidated petition filed by two different petitioners. This is an
name of V-Gent. However, the remaining elements are absent because: (1) V-Gent original petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing the validity of
disclosed the names of the passengers to Morning Star — in fact the tickets were in Service Contract No. 46 SC-46), which allowed the exploration, development, and
their names; and (2) the transaction was paid using the passengers’ money. exploitation of petroleum resources within Tañon Strait, a narrow passage of water
situated between the islands of Negros and Cebu. SC-46 originated from a Geophysical
Therefore, Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court cannot apply. To define the actual
Survey and Exploration Contract-102 (GSEC-102) entered by DOE with JAPEX. This
factual situation, V-Gent, the agent, is suing to recover the money of its principals —
contract involved geological and geophysical studies of the Tañon Strait. The studies
the passengers — who are the real parties-in-interest because they stand to be
included surface geology, sample analysis, and reprocessing of seismic and magnetic
injured or benefited in case Morning Star refuses or agrees to grant the refund
data. JAPEX, assisted by DOE, also conducted geophysical and satellite surveys, as well
because the money belongs to them. From this perspective, V-Gent evidently does not
as oil and gas sampling in Tañon Strait.
have a legal standing to file the complaint.
JAPEX committed to drill one exploration well during the second sub-phase of the
Finally, V-Gent argues that by making a partial refund, Morning Star was already
project. Since the well was to be drilled in the marine waters of Aloguinsan and
estopped from refusing to make a full refund on the ground that V-Gent is not the real
Pinamungajan, where the Tañon Strait was declared a protected seascape in 1988,
party-in-interest to demand reimbursement.
JAPEX agreed to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements
⁠We find no merit in this argument. The power to collect and receive payments on pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586.
behalf of the principal is an ordinary act of administration covered by the general
This was approved by the Protected Area Management Board of the Tañon Strait
powers of an agent.
(PAMB-Tañon Strait), and an ECC was subsequently released to JAPEX for the
2| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
offshore oil and gas exploration project in Tañon Strait. From 16 November 2007 to 2. WON President Arroyo may be impleaded as unwilling co-petitioner.
8 February 2008, JAPEX drilled an exploratory well with a depth of 3,150 meters near 3. WON SC-46 is unconstitutional
Pinamungajan town. Being adversely affected by the activities, this petition was filed.
RULING:
PARTIES: The petitioners in G.R. No. 180771 are the “Resident Marine Mammals”
1. YES. In our jurisdiction, locus standi in environmental cases has been given a
which inhibit the waters in and around the Tañon Strait, joined by “Stewards” Gloria more liberalized approach. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio as their legal guardians and friends allow for a “citizen suit,” and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before
seeking their protection. Also impleaded as unwilling co-petitioner is former
our courts for violation of our environmental laws on the principle that humans
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
are stewards of nature:
In G.R. No. 181527, the petitioners are the Central Visayas Fisherfolk Development
Center (FIDEC), a non-stock, non-profit, non-governmental organization established “Section 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation of others,
for the welfare of the marginal fisherfolk in Region VII and representatives of the including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights
subsistence fisherfolk of the municipalities of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, Cebu. or obligations under environmental laws.

The respondents in both petitions are: the late Angelo T. Reyes, DOE Secretary; Jose Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain
L. Atienza, DENR Secretary; Leonardo Sibbaluca, DENR-Region VII Director and a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all
Chairman of Tañon Strait PAMB; JAPEX, a Japanese company; and Supply Oilfield interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen
Services, Inc. (SOS) as the alleged Philippine agent of JAPEX. (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected
ARGUMENTS: barangays copies of said order. Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A.
Petitioners: A study made after the seismic survey showed that there is a drastic No. 9003 shall be governed by their respective provisions. (Emphasis supplied)”
reduce in fish catch by 50-70% attributable to the destruction of the “payao” or the
Although the petition was filed in 2007, years before the effectivity of the Rules
artificial reef (from 15-20 kls. per day to 1-2 kls.).
of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held that rules of
The ECC obtained by the respondents is invalid because there is no public procedure may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at
consultations and discussions prior to its issuance. the time of their passage and will not violate any right of a person who may feel
that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of
SC-46 is null and void for having violated Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 procedure.
Constitution, considering that there is no general law prescribing the standard or
uniform terms, conditions, and requirements for service contracts involving oil Moreover, even before the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases became
exploration and extraction FIDEC alleges that it was barred from entering and fishing effective, the SC had already taken a permissive position on the issue of locus
within a 7-kilometer radius from the point where the oilrig was located, an area standi in environmental cases. In Oposa, the SC allowed the suit to be brought
grated than the 1.5-kilometer radius exclusion zone stated in the Initial in the name of generations yet unborn “based on the concept of
Environmental Examination intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned.”
Respondents: The “Resident Marine Mammals” and “Stewards” have no legal
standing to file the petition. SC-46 is constitutional. In light of the foregoing, the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal
standing has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a
The ECC was legally issued. The case is moot and academic since SC-46 is mutually steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. It is worth
terminated on 21 June 2008. noting here that the Stewards are joined as real parties in the Petition and not
just in representation of the named cetacean species. The Stewards, Ramos and
ISSUES
Eisma-Osorio, having shown in their petition that there may be possible
1. WON Petitioners have a legal standing violations of laws concerning the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals, are
3| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file this petition.c (in a way, But note must be made at this point that while Presidential Decree No. 87
wala gyud ni rule ang Court if tagaan ba legal standing ang animals). may serve as the general law upon which a service contract for petroleum
exploration and extraction may be authorized, as will be discussed below,
2. NO. Under the Rules, if the consent of a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he or she the exploitation and utilization of this energy resource in the present case
shall be impleaded as a defendant. In this case, we cannot implead the president may be allowed only through a law passed by Congress, since the Tañon
as defendant because her functions as President need her full devotion. This will Strait is a NIPAS area.
put the unwilling party under the jurisdiction of the Court, which can properly
implead him or her through its processes. The unwilling party's name cannot be (b) The President shall be the signatory for the government because,
simply included in a petition, without his or her knowledge and consent, as such supposedly before an agreement is presented to the President for signature,
would be a denial of due process. Moreover, the reason cited by the petitioners it will have been vetted several times over at different levels to ensure that
Stewards for including former President Macapagal-Arroyo in their petition, is it conforms to law and can withstand public scrutiny. - Not met. Paragraph
not sufficient to implead her as an unwilling co-petitioner. Impleading the 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution requires that the President
former President as an unwilling co-petitioner, for an act she made in the himself enter into any service contract for the exploration of petroleum. SC-
performance of the functions of her office, is contrary to the public policy against 46 appeared to have been entered into and signed only by the DOE through
embroiling the President in suits, "to assure the exercise of Presidential duties its then Secretary, Vicente S. Perez, Jr., contrary to the said constitutional
and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the requirement. Moreover, public respondents have neither shown nor alleged
Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the that Congress was subsequently notified of the execution of such contract.
office holder's time, also demands undivided attention.
Cannot fall under the alter-ego doctrine, because in cases where the Chief
3. YES. Petitioners maintain that SC-46 transgresses the Jura Regalia Provision or Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the
paragraph 1, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution because JAPEX is exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the alter ego
100% Japanese-owned. Furthermore, the FIDEC asserts that SC-46 cannot be doctrine cannot apply. In this case, the public respondents have failed to
considered as a technical and financial assistance agreement validly executed show that the President had any participation in SC-46. Their argument
under paragraph 4 of the same provision. It is petitioner’s position that service that their acts are actually the acts of then President Macapagal-Arroyo,
contracts involving foreign corporations or entities have been banned by the absent proof of her disapproval, must fail as the requirement that the
1987 Constitution. The Court went back to discuss the case of La Bugal, and President herself enter into these kinds of contracts is embodied not just
explained that par.4 of Sec.2 Article XII of the Constitution is the exception to the in any ordinary statute, but in the Constitution itself. These service
general rule in par.1 of the same provision (in short, pwede ra mo enter into contracts involving the exploitation, development, and utilization of our
service contracts subject to certain conditions). The following are the safeguards natural resources are of paramount interest to the present and future
this Court enumerated in La Bugal: generations. Hence, safeguards were put in place to insure that the
guidelines set by law are meticulously observed and likewise to eradicate
Such service contracts may be entered into only with respect to minerals, the corruption that may easily penetrate departments and agencies by
petroleum and other mineral oils. The grant thereof is subject to several ensuring that the President has authorized or approved of these service
safeguards, among which are these requirements: contracts herself.

(c) Within thirty days of the executed agreement, the President shall report it
(a) The service contract shall be crafted in accordance with a general law that to Congress to give that branch of government an opportunity to look over
will set standard or uniform terms, conditions and requirements, the agreement and interpose timely objections, if any. Not complied as well.
presumably to attain a certain uniformity in provisions and avoid the Adhering to the aforementioned guidelines, this Court finds that SC-46 is
possible insertion of terms disadvantageous to the country. indeed null and void for noncompliance with the requirements of the 1987
Constitution.
The Court finds that there was a law. PD 87 (The Oil Exploration and
Development Act of 1972). This law has not been repealed, and so is an The Tanon strait. The Strait is considered as a protected area under the NIPAS Act.
existing valid law governing oil explorations. Under Section 4 of the NIPAS Act, a protected area refers to portions of land and

4| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
water, set aside due to their unique physical and biological significance, managed to CFI dismissed the case. The instant case should have been dismissed without
enhance biological diversity and protected against human exploitation. Under prejudice a long time ago for lack of cause of action as the plaintiffs spouses Marcos
Proclamation No. 2146, the Tañon Strait is an environmentally critical area, having Malazarte and Nieves Plasabas Malazarte have no complete legal personality to sue
been declared as a protected area in 1998; therefore, any activity outside the scope of by themselves alone without joining the brothers and sisters of Nieves who are as
its management plan may only be implemented pursuant to an ECC secured after INDISPENSABLE as the latter in the final determination of the case. Not impleading
undergoing an EIA to determine the effects of such activity on its ecological system. It them, any judgment would have no effectiveness.
is true that the restrictions found under the NIPAS Act are not without exceptions.
Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA. CA affirmed the ruling of the CFI. CA
However, while an exploration done for the purpose of surveying for energy
declared that the non-joinder of the indispensable parties would violate the principle
resources is allowed under Section 14 of the NIPAS Act, this does not mean that it is of due process, and that Article 487 of the Civil Code could not be applied considering
exempt from the requirement to undergo an EIA under Section 12. Surveying for that the complaint was not for ejectment, but for recovery of title or a reivindicatory
energy resources under Section 14 is not an exemption from complying with the EIA action.
requirement in Section 12; instead, Section 14 provides for additional
HELD: With a motion to reconsider, SC grants the petition and remands the case to
requisites before any exploration for energy resources may be done in protected the CFI for disposition on the merits, citing Article 487 that provides any one of the
areas. While Presidential Decree No. 87 may serve as the general law upon which a co-owners may bring an action for ejectment.
service contract for petroleum exploration and extraction may be authorized, the
exploitation and utilization of this energy resource in the present case may be allowed In any event, the trial and appellate courts committed reversible error when they
only through a law passed by Congress, since the Tañon Strait is a NIPAS area. summarily dismissed the case, after both parties had rested their cases following a
protracted trial commencing in 1974, on the sole ground of failure to implead
Since there is no such law specifically allowing oil exploration and/or extraction in indispensable parties. The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties
the Tañon Strait, no energy resource exploitation and utilization may be done in said is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party
protected seascape. claimed to be indispensable.

WHEREFORE, the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 180771 and 181527 are GRANTED, Service
Contract No. 46 is hereby declared NULL AND VOID for violating the 1987
Constitution, Republic Act No. 7586, and Presidential Decree No. 1586.
5 KILOSBAYAN INC. ET AL. VS. TEOFISTO GUINGONA ET.AL.
GR No. 113375; May 5, 1994

4
NIEVES PLASABAS AND MARCOS MALAZARTE VS. COURT OF
APPEALS, DOMINADOR LUMEN AND AURORA AUNZO
GR No. 166519, March 31, 2009 FACTS: Pursuant to Section 1 of the charter of the PCSO (R.A. No. 1169, as amended
by B.P. Blg. 42) which grants it the authority to hold and conduct "charity sweepstakes
races, lotteries and other similar activities," the PCSO decided to establish an on- line
FACTS: In 1074, Plasabas and Malazarte filed a complaint for recovery of title to
lottery system for the purpose of increasing its revenue base and diversifying its
property with damages before CFI Maasin, Leyte. The subject property was a parcel
sources of funds. After learning that the PCSO was interested in operating an on-line
of coconut land declared in the name of Plasabas. They pray for their rights over the
land be confirmed and for Lumen and Aunzo to vacate the land. lottery system, the Berjaya Group Berhad, "a multinational company and one of the
ten largest public companies in Malaysia, and who has been long engaged in lottery
Aunzo and Lumen interposed that they inherited the land from their common operations in Asia, became interested to offer its services and resources to PCSO. As
ancestor, Francisco Plasabas. In the course of trial, it was found out that Nieves was an initial step, Berjaya Group Berhad (through its individual nominees) organized
not the absolute owner of the land. with some Filipino investors in March 1993 a Philippine corporation known as the
Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC), which was intended to be the
Aunzo and Lumen then raised the argument that the case should have been medium through which the technical and management services required for the
terminated at inception for petitioner's failure to implead indispensable parties (Jose, project would be offered and delivered to PCSO.
Victor and Victoria).

5| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
Before August 1993, the PCSO formally issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the provided for in paragraph B, Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42,
Lease Contract of an on-line lottery system for the PCSO. The bids submitted by PGMC and is, therefore, invalid for being contrary to law.
were evaluated by the Special Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee (SPBAC)
for the on-line lottery and its Bid Report was thereafter submitted to the Office of the

6
SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL VS. SENATE COMMITTEE OF
President. On 21 October 1993, the Office of the President announced that respondent
THE WHOLE
PGMC may finally operate the country's on-line lottery system and that the
GR No. 187714, March 8, 2011
corresponding implementing contract would be submitted for final clearance and
approval by the Chief Executive.

On 4 November 1993, KILOSBAYAN sent an open letter to Presidential Fidel V. Ramos FACTS: On 8 October 2008, Senator Madrigal introduced P.S. Resolution 706, which
strongly opposing the setting up to the on-line lottery system on the basis of serious directed the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the alleged double insertion of
moral and ethical considerations. Petitioners also submit that the PCSO cannot validly P200 million by Senator Manny Villar into the C5 Extension Project. After the election
enter into the assailed Contract of Lease with the PGMC because it is an arrangement of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile as Senate President, the Ethics Committee was
wherein the PCSO would hold and conduct the on-line lottery system in reorganized, but the Minority failed to name its representatives to the Committee,
"collaboration" or "association" with the PGMC, in violation of Section 1(B) of R.A. No. prompting a delay in the investigation. Thereafter, the Senate adopted the Rules of
1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, which prohibits the PCSO from holding and the Ethics Committee.
conducting charity sweepstakes races, lotteries, and other similar activities "in
In another privilege speech, Senator Villar stated he will answer the accusations
collaboration, association or joint venture with any person, association, company or
before the Senate, and not with the Ethics Committee. Senator Lacson, then
entity, foreign or domestic." Petitioner seeks to prohibit and restrain the
chairperson of the Ethics Committee, then moved that the responsibility of the Ethics
implementation of the "Contract of Lease" executed by the Philippine Charity Committee be transferred to the Senate as a Committee of the Whole, which was
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the Philippine Gaming Management Corporation approved by the majority. In the hearings of such Committee, petitioners objected to
(PGMC) in connection with the on- line lottery system, also known as "lotto." the application of the Rules of the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the
Whole. They also questioned the quorum, and proposed amendments to the Rules.
ISSUE: Whether or not the oppositions made by the petitioner was valid. Senator Pimentel raised the issue on the need to publish the rules of the Senate
HELD: The Court agrees with the petitioners and the challenged Contract of Lease Committee of the Whole.
executed by respondent PCSO and respondent PGMC is declared to be contrary to law
ISSUES:
and invalid. The preliminary issue on the locus standi of the petitioners which was
1. Is Senator Madrigal, who filed the complaint against Senator Villar, an
raised by the respondents should be resolved in their favor. The Court finds this indispensable party in this petition?
petition to be of transcendental importance to the public. The issues it raised are of 2. Is the petition premature for failure to observe the doctrine of primary
paramount public interest and of a category even higher than those involved in many jurisdiction or prior resort?
of the aforecited cases. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the 3. Is the transfer of the complaint against Senator Villar from the Ethics Committee
social, economic, and moral well-being of the people even in the remotest barangays to the Senate Committee of the Whole violative of Senator Villar's right to equal
of the country and the counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned protection?
on-line lottery system are as staggering as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. 4. Is the adoption of the Rules of the Ethics Committee as Rules of the Senate
The legal standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition and, in the exercise of Committee of the Whole violative of Senator Villar's right to due process and of
its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the the majority quorum requirement under Art. VI, Section 16(2) of the
respondents tried to take advantage of. Constitution?
5. Is publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole required
On the substantive issue regarding the provision in Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as for their effectivity?
amending by B.P. Blg. 42, is indisputably clear with respect to its franchise or privilege
HELD: [1] An indispensable party is a party who has an interest in the controversy or
"to hold and conduct charity sweepstakes races, lotteries and other similar activities." subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without
Meaning, the PCSO cannot exercise it "in collaboration, association or joint venture" injuring or affecting that interest. In this case, Senator Madrigal is not an
with any other party. Thus, the challenged Contract of Lease violates the exception indispensable party to the petition before the Court. While it may be true that she has

6| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
an interest in the outcome of this case as the author of P.S. Resolution 706, the issues 2011 to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) that the Philippines should accede
in this case are matters of jurisdiction and procedure on the part of the Senate to the Madrid Protocol.
Committee of the Whole which can be resolved without affecting Senator Madrigal's
interest. After its own review, the DFA endorsed to the President the country's accession to
the Madrid Protocol.
[2] The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply to this case. The issues
presented here do not require the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of
The DFA determined that the Madrid Protocol was an executive agreement. The
respondent for their resolution. On the contrary, the issues here are purely legal
IPOPHL, the Department of Science and Technology, and the Department of Trade and
questions which are within the competence and jurisdiction of the Court.
Industry concurred in the recommendation of the DFA.
[3] While ordinarily an investigation about one of its members alleged irregular or
unethical conduct is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee, the Minority President Benigno C. Aquino III ratified the Madrid Protocol through an instrument
effectively prevented it from pursuing the investigation when they refused to of accession. The instrument of accession was deposited with the Director General of
nominate their members to the Ethics Committee. The referral of the investigation to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on April 25, 2012, The Madrid
the Committee of the Whole was an extraordinary remedy undertaken by the Ethics Protocol entered into force in the Philippines on July 25, 2012
Committee and approved by a majority of the members of the Senate, and not
violative of the right to equal protection. IPAP, an association of more than 100 law firms and individual practitioners in
Intellectual Property Law has commenced this special civil action for certiorari and
[4] The adoption by the Senate Committee of the Whole of the Rules of the Ethics prohibition, to challenge the validity of the President's accession to the Madrid
Committee does not violate Senator Villar's right to due process. The Constitutional Protocol without the concurrence of the Senate.
right of the Senate to promulgate its own rules of proceedings has been recognized
and affirmed by this Court in Section 16(3), Article VI of the Philippine Constitution, According to the IPAP, the Madrid Protocol is a treaty, not an executive agreement;
which states: "Each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings." hence, respondent DFA Secretary Albert Del Rosario acted with grave abuse of
discretion in determining the Madrid Protocol as an executive agreement.
[5] The Constitution does not require publication of the internal rules of the House or
Senate. Since rules of the House or the Senate that affect only their members are
The IPAP has argued that the implementation of the Madrid Protocol in the
internal to the House or Senate, such rules need not be published,unless such rules
Philippines, specifically the processing of foreign trademark applications, conflicts
expressly provide for their publication before the rules can take effect. Hence, in this
with the IP Code, whose Section 125 states.
particular case, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole itself provide that the
Rules must be published before the Rules can take effect. Thus, even if publication is
not required under the Constitution, publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee The IPAP has insisted that Article 2 of the Madrid Protocol means that foreign
of the Whole is required because the Rules expressly mandate their trademark applicants may file their applications through the International Bureau or
publication. PARTIALLY GRANTED. the WIPO, and their applications will be automatically granted trademark protection
without the need for designating their resident agents in the country.

The IPAP has prayed that the implementation of the Madrid Protocol in the
Philippines be restrained in order to prevent future wrongs considering that the IPAP

7
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE and its constituency have a clear and unmistakable right not to be deprived of the
PHILIPPINES VS. PAQUITO OCHOA rights granted them by the IP Code and existing local laws.
GR No. 204605; July 19, 2016
ISSUES:

FACTS: The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) ultimately

1. Whether or not the President's ratification of the Madrid Protocol is valid
arrived at the conclusion that accession would benefit the country and help raise the
and constitutional;
level of competitiveness for Filipino brands. Hence, it recommended in September
2. Whether or not the Madrid Protocol is in conflict with the IP Code.

7| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
RULING: Accession to the Madrid Protocol was constitutional. International examined according to the relevant national law. In that regard, the IPOPHL will only
agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those grant protection to a mark that meets the local registration requirements.
involving international arrangements of a permanent character usually take the form
of treaties. But international agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying PRINCIPLES: The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks {Madrid
out well-established national policies and traditions and those involving System), which is the centralized system providing a one-stop solution for registering
arrangements of a more or less temporary nature usually take the form of executive and managing marks worldwide, allows the trademark owner to file one application
agreements. in one language, and to pay one set of fees to protect his mark in the territories of up
to 97 member-states. The Madrid System is governed by the Madrid Agreement,
In view of the expression of state policy having been made by the Congress itself, the concluded in 1891, and the Madrid Protocol, concluded in 1989.
IPAP is plainly mistaken in asserting that "there was no Congressional act that
authorized the accession of the Philippines to the Madrid Protocol." The Madrid Protocol, which was adopted in order to remove the challenges deterring
some countries from acceding to the Madrid Agreement, has two objectives, namely:
Accordingly, DFA Secretary Del Rosario's determination and treatment of the Madrid (1) to facilitate securing protection for marks; and (2) to make the management of the
Protocol as an executive agreement, being in apparent contemplation of the express registered marks easier in different countries.
state policies on intellectual property as well as within his power under Executive
Order No. 459, are upheld.

There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code. The IPAP also rests
its challenge on the supposed conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code,
contending that the Madrid Protocol does away with the requirement of a resident
8 MARIANO VELARDE VS. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
GR No. 159357, April 28, 2004

agent under Section 125 of the IP Code; and that the Madrid Protocol is
unconstitutional for being in conflict with the local law, which it cannot modify, FACTS: SJS, a registered political party, sought the interpretation of several
constitutional provisions, specifically on the separation of church and state; and a
The IPAP's contentions stand on a faulty premise. The method of registration through declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders
the IPOPHL, as laid down by the IP Code, is distinct and separate from the method of endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or urging or requiring the members of
registration through the WIPO, as set in the Madrid Protocol. Comparing the two their flock to vote for a specified candidate.
methods of registration despite their being governed by two separate systems of
registration is thus misplaced. The subsequent proceedings were recounted in the challenged Decision in these
words:
In arguing that the Madrid Protocol conflicts with Section 125 of the IP Code, the IPAP
highlights the importance of the requirement for the designation of a resident agent, “x x x. Bro. Eddie Villanueva submitted, within the original period [to file an Answer],
It underscores that the requirement is intended to ensure that non-resident entities a Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, Executive Minister Eraño Manalo and Bro. Mike
seeking protection or privileges under Philippine Intellectual Property Laws will be Velarde, filed their Motions to Dismiss. While His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, filed
subjected to the country's jurisdiction. It submits that without such resident agent, a Comment and Bro. Eli Soriano, filed an Answer within the extended period and
there will be a need to resort to costly, time consuming and cumbersome extra- similarly prayed for the dismissal of the Petition. All sought the dismissal of the
territorial service of writs and processes. The IPAP misapprehends the procedure for Petition on the common grounds that it does not state a cause of action and that there
examination under the Madrid Protocol. The difficulty, which the IPAP illustrates, is is no justiciable controversy. They were ordered to submit a pleading by way of
minimal, if not altogether inexistent. The IPOPHL actually requires the designation of advisement, which was closely followed by another Order denying all the Motions to
the resident agent when it refuses the registration of a mark. Local representation is Dismiss. Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive Minister Eraño
further required in the submission of the Declaration of Actual Use, as well as in the Manalo moved to reconsider the denial. His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, asked for
submission of the license contract. The Madrid Protocol accords with the intent and extension to file memorandum. Only Bro. Eli Soriano complied with the first Order
spirit of the IP Code, particularly on the subject of the registration of trademarks. The by submitting his Memorandum.
Madrid Protocol does not amend or modify the IP Code on the acquisition of
trademark rights considering that the applications under the Madrid Protocol are still

8| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020
 CIVIL PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss, and the Motions for Reconsideration filed and distinctly the facts on which it was based. Thus, the trial court clearly
by Velarde, Villanueva and Manalo, which raised no new arguments other than those transgressed the constitutional directive.
already considered in the motions to dismiss.

The trial court said that it had jurisdiction over the Petition, because “in praying for a
determination as to whether the actions imputed to the respondents are violative of
Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution, [the Petition] has raised only a question of
law.” It then proceeded to a lengthy discussion of the issue raised in the Petition – the
separation of church and state – even tracing, to some extent, the historical
background of the principle. Through its discourse, the court a quo opined at some
point that the “endorsement of specific candidates in an election to any public office
is a clear violation of the separation clause.”

After its essay on the legal issue, however, the trial court failed to include a dispositive
portion in its assailed Decision. Thus, Velarde and Soriano filed separate Motions for
Reconsideration which, as mentioned earlier, were denied by the lower court.

ISSUE: What is the standard form of a Decision? Did the challenged Decision comply
with the aforesaid form?

RULING:No. The challenged Decision did not comply with the proper form of a
Decision.

In general, the essential parts of a good decision consist of the following:

(1) statement of the case;

(2) statement of facts;
(3) issues or assignment of errors;
(4) court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and
resolved; and, finally,
(5) dispositive portion.

The ponente may also opt to include an introduction or a prologue as well as an

epilogue, especially in cases in which controversial or novel issues are involved.

Indeed, the assailed Decision was rendered in clear violation of the Constitution,
because it made no findings of facts and final disposition. Hence, it is void and deemed
legally inexistent. Consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review, affirm,
reverse or even just modify.

Failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions or orders issued in careless
disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be struck down
as void. Indeed, the RTC’s Decision cannot be upheld for its failure to express clearly

9| Elixir C. Langanlangan
Civil Procedure – Justice Biton
XU – College of Law, 2019-2020