CivPro Cases(July8).doc

BPI VS. HONG Facts: Eyco fled a petition or suspending its payent and re!a"ilita tion "eore t!e SE#. But t!e SE# disappro$es t!e petition and order its li%uidation o t!eir corporation. E&#O raised t!e decision to t!e #' "ut #' up!eld t!e decision ade "y SE#. on No$e"er( BPI fled to t!e )* # V alen+uela a petition or e,tra- /012134 56782469/78 67;3;80 <= E#O> 9 P76?87= 3 0 B4/8 937 S37 @a!ogany. *!en it Aas su"se%uently sc!eduled on ece"er CD( . Eduardo Hong( #laiing t!at t!e udicial oreclosure fled "y BPI Aas illegal( !e fled an action or inunction and daages against BPI at t!e sae court. He alleged t!e olloAing: @'#O di a-$ieA tong portion na Jto. Hi!i!iK 'ter t!e !earing t!e trial court issues a *)O. Petitioner fled a otion to disiss arguing t!at "y plaintiL oAn allegation in t!e coplaint( urisdic tion o$er t!e relies prayed or "elong to t!e SE#. 'nd t!at t!e plaintiL is actually resorting to a oru s!opping since !e fled a clai to t!e sec and t!e designated li%uidator in t!e li%uidation o t!e E&#O G)OMP. *!e respondent said t!at t!e )*# !as urisdictio n on t!e issue o propriety and $alidity o t!e oreclosure "y petitioner in accordance Ait! Sec. C )ule . *!e suit "eing in nature o a real action. ISSME: ON t!e case or oreclosure is Ait!in t!e urisdiction o t!e )*#. HE: It !eld t!at %ues tions r elating t o t!e $alidity o r legal ity o t!e oreclosure proceedings( including an action to enoin t!e sae( ust necessarily "e cogni+a"le "y t!e )*#( notAit!standing t!at t!e SE# lieAise possesses t!e poAer to issue inunction in all cases in A!ic! it !as urisdiction as pro$ided in Sec. Q aK o Presidential ecree P..K No. D-'. Furt!er( t!e #' stated t!at an action or oreclosure o ortgage and all incidents relati$e t!ereto including its $alidity or in$alidity is Ait!in t!e urisdiction o t!e )*# and is not aong t!ose cases o$er A!ic! t!e SE# e,ercises e,clusi$e and original urisdiction under Sec. R o P.. No. D-'. ARMAND NOCUM and THE PHILIPPINE DAIL Y INQUIRER, INC., Petitioners, vs. LUCIO TAN, Respondent octrine: urisdicti on is conerred "y laA "ased on t!e acts alleged in t!e coplaint since t!e latter coprises a concise stateent o t!e ultiate acts constituted in t!e plaintiLTs cause o action. O"ections to $enue in ci$il actions arising ro li"el ay"e Aai$ed since t!ey do not in$ol$e a %uestion o urisdictio n. *!e laying o $enue is procedural rat!er t!an su"stanti$e. Venue relates to trial and not urisdictio n. In contrast( in criinal actions( it is undaental t!at $enue is urisdictional it "eing an essential eleent o urisdictio n. F '#* SU /216 *3fled a coplaint or daages oral and e,eplaryK or alleged alicious and deaatory iputations against !i in articles o t!e P!ilippine aily In%uirer. Petitioners In%uirer and reporter Nocu ( and 'P'P and #apt. Mali( in t!eir respecti$e oint ansAers all eged t!at t!e coplai nt stated no cause o action. 'P'P and #apt. Mali also alleged t!at t!e $enue Aas iproperly laid. *!e coplaint ailed to state t!e residence o coplainant ucio * an at t!e tie o t!e allege d coission o t!e oLense and t!e place A!ere t!e li"elous article Aas printed and frst pu"lis!ed. )*# 65 @3 31U #6 ?431 39 019 19980 1W6/ ?78/0128 6 W8 ground o iproper $enue /216 *3 51480 3 6 1</9 616 seeing reconsideration and adission o t!e aended coplaint noA alleging t!at X*!i s article Aas printed and frst pu"lis!ed in t!e #ity o @aatiX and t!at X *!is caricatur e Aas printed and frst pu"lis!ed in t!e #ity o @aati.X )*# W8 98 39108 W8 ?78Y16/9 6708 7 65 disissal stat ing t!at t!e deect in t !e original coplaint !as already "een cured in t!e

CivPro Cases(July8).doc

Documents