Civil Procedure1. Introduction
1.1. Applicability of rules to civil and criminal actions and
special proceedingsRule 1Section 2. In what courts applicable.
These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise
provided by the Supreme Court. (n)Section 4. In what case not
applicable. These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land
registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings,
and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
(R143a)- Definition of civil, criminal actions and special
proceedings.Section 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special
proceedings.(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another
for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)A civil action may either be ordinary
or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil
actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special
civil action. (n)(b) A criminal action is one by which the State
prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
(n)(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2) The
rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not penal laws and are not
to be given retroactive effect. (Bermejo vs. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764)
and are to govern cases brought after they take effect, and also
all further proceedings in cases then pending, except to the extent
that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be
feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former
procedure shall apply. (Rule 144, Rules of Court).
As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural
laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because
no vested rights may attach to nor arise therefrom.
1.2. Procedure and Practice Procedure is the method or means of
conducting litigation and judicial proceedings
Practice is the carrying on of actions according to the
procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court.
1.3. Courts and Jurisdiction1.3.1. Courts is an organ of
government belonging to the judicial department the function of
which is the application of the laws to controversies brought
before it as well as the public administration of justice. (Blacks
Law Dictionary, 5th Edition)
1.3.1.1. Supreme Court1.3.1.2. Court of Appeals1.3.1.3. Regional
Trial Court1.3.1.4. Sandiganbayan1.3.1.5. Court of Tax Appeals
1.3.2. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to
hear, try and decide a case (Cuena vs. PCGG, 535 SCRA 102).
1.3.3. B.P. 129 provides the jurisdiction of the RTC and the
Municipal Trial Courts.Section 19.Jurisdiction in civil cases.
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;(2) In all civil
actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the
property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty
thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;(3) In all actions
in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim
exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro
Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand
pesos (200,000.00);(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and
intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro
Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00);(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage
and marital relations;(6) In all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;(7) In all civil actions and
special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the
Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and(8) In all
other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by
R.A. No. 7691*)Section 21.Original jurisdiction in other cases.
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:(1) In
the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any
part of their respective regions; and(2) In actions affecting
ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.Section
23.Special jurisdiction to try special cases. The Supreme Court may
designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle
exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases,
agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the
jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such
other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the
interest of a speedy and efficient administration of
justice.Section 33.Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil
cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:(1) Exclusive
original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings,
testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies
in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate,
or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where
there are several claims or causes of action between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of
the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of
the same or different transactions;(2) Exclusive original
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.(3) Exclusive original
jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:Provided,That value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.(as amended by R.A. No. 7691)Section 34.Delegated
jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is
no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the where the value
of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00),
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one,
or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property.
Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.(as amended by
R.A. No. 7691)Section 35.Special jurisdiction in certain cases. In
the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city,
any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ
ofhabeas corpusor applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.Section
36.Summary procedures in special cases. In Metropolitan Trial
Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the
Supreme Court may designate one or more branches thereof to try
exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, those
involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations,
violations of the rental law, and such other cases requiring
summary disposition as the Supreme Court may determine. The Supreme
Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such
cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive
determination thereof without regard to technical rules. Such
simplified procedures may provide that affidavits and
counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and
that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.
1.4. How is jurisdiction obtained and exercised:1.4.1. Over the
persons1.4.1.1. Plaintiff by filing of the complaint in court
1.4.1.2. Defendant by valid service of summons or voluntary
appearance in court.
1.4.2. Over the subject matter - conferred by law or the
Constitution and determined in the allegations in the complaint
which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.
1.4.3. Over the res by actual or constructive seizure placing
the property under the orders of the court.
Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, i.e.,
that it is pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an
affirmative defense in an answer. Voluntary appearance shall be
deemed a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of
affirmative defenses shall not be constructed as an estoppel or as
a waiver of such defense (La Naval Drug Corp. vs. CA, 236 SCRA 78).
Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense
may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor the
parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to confer that
jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. Barring
highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, such as
hereinbefore exemplified, neither estoppel nor waiver shall apply.
(Supra)
A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and
upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that jurisdiction is a
matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of
the parties... This doctrine has been qualified by recent
pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the
cited case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.It is to be regretted, however,
that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which
were obviously not contemplated therein. The exceptional
circumstances involved in Tijam v. Sibonghanoywhich justified the
departure from the accepted doctrine of non-waivability of
objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and instead a blanket
doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed
ruling [therein] not as the exception, but rather the general rule,
virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that
the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
(Atwel vs. Concepcion Progressive Assoc., G.R. No. 169370, April
14, 2008) The rule remains that estoppel does not confer
jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of action
or subject matter of the case. (Supra)
1.5. Procedure and Substantive Law1.5.1. Procedure is the
process for the enforcement of rights and obligations
1.5.2. Substantive law creates, defines, regulates and
extinguishes rights and obligations.
2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions2.1. It must be
based on a cause of action What is a cause of action? It is an act
or omission by which a party violates the rights of another.
No splitting of a cause of action (Rule 2, Sections 3 and
4)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.
(3a)Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action;effect of. If two
or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one
is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a)
Section 4 of Rule 2, above-quoted, is unmistakably clear as to the
effect of the splitting up of a cause of action. It says, "if
separate complaints are brought for different parts (reliefs) of a
single cause of action, the filing of the first (complaint) may be
pleaded in abatement of the others, and a judgment upon the merits
in either is available as a bar in the others." In other words,
whenever a plaintiff has filed more than one complaint for the same
violation of a right, the filing of the first complaint on any of
the reliefs born of the said violation constitutes a bar to any
action on any of the other possible reliefs arising from the same
violation, whether the first action is still pending, in which
event, the defense to the subsequent complaint would belitis
pendentia, or it has already been finally terminated, in which
case, the defense would beres adjudicata. Indeed,litis
pendentiaandres adjudicata, on the one hand, and splitting up a
cause of action on the other, are not separate and distinct
defenses, since either of the former is by law only the result or
effect of the latter, or, better said, the sanction for or behind
it. (City of Bacolod vs San Miguel, 29 SCRA 819)
As to the value of the plaintiff's share in the products of the
land during the time that the former action was pending (which are
the damages claimed under the second cause of action), their
recovery is now barred by the previous judgment. These damages are
but the result of the original cause of action, viz., the
continuing refusal by defendants in 1941 to recognize the
plaintiffs' right to an interest in the property. In the same way
that plaintiffs claimed for their share of the produce from 1941 to
1947, these later damages could have been claimed in the first
action, either in the original complaint (for their existence could
be anticipated when the first complaint was filed) or else by
supplemental plaeding. To allow them to be recovered by subsequent
suit would be a violation of the rule against multiplicity of
suits, and specifically of sections 3 and 4 of Rules 2 of the Rules
of Court, against the splitting of causes of action, since these
damages spring from the same cause of action that was pleading in
the former case No. 573 between the same parties. (Jalandoni vs
Martir-Guanzon, 102 SCRA 859)
Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action (Rule 2, Sections 5
and 6)
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. A party may in one
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of
action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but
pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue
lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the
test of jurisdiction. (5a)
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinder of causes
of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined
cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of
the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)
Test of single cause of actionA cause of action is understood to
be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the
defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.It is
true that a single act or omission can be violative of various
rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes juridically a
violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations.
However where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a
single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may
have been violated belonging to one person.The singleness of a
cause of action lies in the singleness of the- delict or wrong
violating the rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one
injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of
action arises.In the case at bar, there is no question that the
petitioner sustained a single injury on his person. That vested in
him a single cause of action, albeit with the correlative rights of
action against the different respondents through the appropriate
remedies allowed by law. (Joseph vs. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540)
2.2. Parties to a civil action
Who are parties in interest? RULE 3Parties to Civil Actions
Section 1. Who may be parties;plaintiff and defendant. Only
natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the
claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the
third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may
refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)
party defendant. (1a)
Section 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless
otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
(2a)
Section 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is
allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be
included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
real property in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name
and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued
without joining the principal except when the contract involves
things belonging to the principal. (3a)
Section 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or be
sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)
Competency of Parties
Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. A minor or a person
alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance
of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardianad
litem. (5a)
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
guardianad litem. (19a)
Indispensable and Necessary parties
Indispensable PartiesNecessary Parties
Those without whom no final determination can be had of an
action.Those who are not indispensable parties but ought to be
joined as parties 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.
If not impleaded, any judgment would have no effectivenessEven
if not included in the suit, the case may be finally determined in
court, but the judgment therein will not resolve the whole
controversy.
Those with such an interest that a final decree would
necessarily affect either right so that the court cannot proceed
without their presence.Those whose presence is necessary to
adjudicate the whole controversy but whose interest are so far
separable that a final decree can be made in their absence without
affecting them.
Failure to comply with the order of the court to implead an
indispensable party warrants dismissal of the complaint.Failure to
comply with the order of the court to include a necessary party,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed waiver of the claim
against such party.
Joinder and Misjoinder of Parties
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties
in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (7)
Section 8. Necessary party. A necessary party 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. (8a)
Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary
party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if
known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the
reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion
of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may
be obtained.
The 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. (8a, 9a)
Death of a Party
Consequence of death of partySection 20. Action and contractual
money claims. When the action is for recovery of money arising from
contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry
of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at
the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead
be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable
judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)
Strictly speaking, the rule on substitution by heirs is not a
matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. The rule
on substitution was crafted to protect every party's right to due
process. It was designed to ensure that the deceased party would
continue to be properly represented in the suit through his heirs
or the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. Moreover,
non-compliance with the Rules results in the denial of the right to
due process for the heirs who, though not duly notified of the
proceedings, would be substantially affected by the decision
rendered therein. Thus, it is only when there is a denial of due
process, as when the deceased is not represented by any legal
representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial
proceedings and the resulting judgment therein. (Sarsaba vs. Vda de
Te, 594 SCRA 410) The question as to whether an action survives or
not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. If
the causes of action which survive the wrong complained [of]
affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the
injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes
of action which do not survive the injury complained of is to the
person the property and rights of property affected being
incidental.(Supra) the proper remedy here is the Substitution of
Heirs and not the dismissal of this case which would work injustice
to the plaintiff. (Supra) In claiming standing to bring the instant
suit, Gonzales necessarily asserted "apersonaland substantial
interest in the case" such that he "has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged." A reading of the allegations in the petition readily
shows that Gonzales alleged interest does not involve any claim to
money or property which he could have assigned to another or
transmitted to his heirs. Rather, he claimed to be vindicating his
rights as a citizen, taxpayer and member of the bar. Being personal
and non-transferable in nature, any interest that he might have had
in the outcome of this case cannot be deemed to have survived his
death. (Gonzales vs. PAGCOR, 429 SCRA 533) As such, the more proper
procedure would have been for them to file a Motion for
Intervention as expressly provided for in Section 12, Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court, and not a Motion for Substitution under Section 17
of the same rule. Ideally, such a Motion for Intervention should be
filed before the possibility of abatement is raised by the death of
the named/representative party (or parties) to the class suit; or
where such is not possible, within a reasonable time from the death
of the named or representative party. (Supra)
What counsel should do on death of partySection 16. Death of
party;duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies,
and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of
his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such
death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his
legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for
the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardianad litemfor the
minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of
thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within
the specified period, the court may order the opposing party,
within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor
or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter
shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The
court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)
2.3. Venue of Actions Real and Personal actions Real actions one
which affects title to or possession of real property or an
interest therein. All other actions are personal actions (Riano,
Vol. 1, p. 181) Real action is local, its venue depends upon the
location of the property (Supra). Where the subject matter of the
action involves various parcels of land situated in different
provinces, the venue is determined by the singularity or plurality
of the transactions involving the said parcels of land. Thus: Where
the parcels of land are the objects of one and the same
transaction, the venue is in the court of any of the provinces
wherein the parcel of land is situated; OR If subjects of separate
and distinct transactions, there is no common venue and separate
actions should be laid in the court of the province wherein each
parcel of land is situated (Regalado, Vol 1, p. 118). A personal
action is transitory. The venue is either: Where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs resides; or Where the defendant or
any of the principal defendants resides.
- "Where the subject matter of the action involves various
parcels of land situated in different provinces, the venue is
determined by the singularity or plurality of the transactions
involving said parcels of land. Thus, where said parcels are the
objects of one and the same transaction, the venue was in the then
CFI of any of the provinces wherein a parcel of land is situated"
(Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, p. 105). As enunciated
by the Supreme Court inEl Hogar Filipino v. Seva (G.R. No. 36627,
19 November 1932),it is only "when various parcels of land or real
property situated in different provinces, are included in one
mortgage contract, (that) the Court of First Instance of the
province wherein they are situated or a part thereof is situated,
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action for the
foreclosure of said mortgage, and the judgment therein rendered may
be executed in all the other provinces wherever the mortgaged real
property may be found." (United Overseas Bank Phils. vs. Rosemoore
Mining, 518 SCRA 123)
Actions against non-residents Where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides; or Where the non-resident may be
found. Non-residents found in the Philippines Personal actions
where the plaintiff resides; Real actions where the property is
located. Non-residents not found in the Philippines Personal status
of the plaintiff where the plaintiff resides; and Any property of
the said defendant located in the Philippineswhere the property or
any portion thereof is situated or found.
Agreement on venue In writing; Made before the filing of the
action; and Exclusive as to the venue.
2.4. Commencement of Actions (Rule 1, Section 5) How and when
deemed commenced? A civil action is commenced by filing of the
complaint and payment of prescribed docket fees.
Section 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is commenced
by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional
defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced
with regard to him on the dated of the filing of such later
pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if
necessary, is denied by the court. (6a)
When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case? In Sun
Insurance vs. Asuncion (G.R. No. 79937-38, February 13, 1989) the
Supreme Court laid down the following rules:a. It is not simply the
filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but also
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 docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
within the reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive period.b. The same rule applies to permissive
counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings which shall
not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee
within reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive period or reglementary period.c. Where the trial court
acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee, but
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, or specified, the same has been left for determination by
the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a
lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk
of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and
assess and collect additional fee.
Docket fee to be paid by the complainant/petitioner should be
based on their amended complaint, if an amendment has been made.
(Magaspi vs. Remolete, 115 SCRA 193) the basis of assessment of the
docket fee should be the amount of damages sought in the original
complaint and not in the amended complaint. (Manchester Development
Corp. vs. CA, 149 SCRA 562)
To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints,
petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the
amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the
pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be
considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any
pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib
accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the
record 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 case14in
so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is overturned
and reversed. (Supra)
The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the
prescribed period is mandatory.8InManchester v. Court of Appeals,it
was held that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon
the payment of the prescribed docket fee. The strict application of
this rule was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case
ofSun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, wherein the Court decreed
that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. This ruling was
made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated his
willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket
fees required.Thus, in the more recent case ofUnited Overseas Bank
v. Ros,the Court explained that where the party does not
deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees,
and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying
additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal
doctrine enunciated inSun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the
strict regulations set inManchester, will apply. It has been on
record that the Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation
of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the
parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the
merits. In the case ofLa Salette College v. Pilotin,the Court
stated:
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of
payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict
application is qualified by the following:first, failure to pay
those fees within the reglementary period allows only
discretionary, not automatic, dismissal;second,such power should be
used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound
discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play,
as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of
all attendant circumstances. (Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso vs.
CA, G.R. No. 116121, July 18, 2011)
Effect of underpayment of docket fees Rule is payment may be
allowed within reasonable time but within reglementary period but
in several cases, both the CA and SC have caused the dismissal of
cases for non-payment of docket fees.
3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts3.1. Applicable also to
Municipal Trial Courts3.2. Pleadings in general Kinds of Pleadings
Formal requirements of pleadings Parts of a pleading Verification
when required Formal, not jurisdictional Kilusan-Olalia vs. CA, 528
SCRA 45 Verification by counsel In-N-Out Burger, Inc. vs. Schwani
Inc., 575 SCRA 535 Certification against forum-shopping in
initiatory pleadings Definition of Forum Shopping Counsel cannot
sign certification Co-owner or co-party may sign in behalf of
co-owners or co-parties Cavila vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 400
SCRA 255 Distinction between non-compliance of verification and
certification against non-forum shopping requirement Sari-sari
Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Piglas Kamao, 561 SCRA 569 Median
Container Corp. vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., 561 SCRA 622
Substantial requirements of pleadings Sufficiency of allegations
Ultimate Facts only Remitere vs. Yulo 16 SCRA 251 Philippine Stock
Exchange vs. Manila Banking Corp., 559 SCRA 352 Tests of
sufficiency of complaint: Can judgment be rendered if admitted?
Always reckon against grounds for dismissal Is bill of particulars
applicable? (Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Trazo, 500 SCRA
242) Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading Not susceptible to
summary judgment Does not amount to confession of judgment MUST
tender an issue Must specifically deny material allegation lest
they be deemed admitted Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or answer, else waived Alternative
causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even if inconsistent
with each other Purpose of rule is to allow for complete
adjudication of any controversy Counterclaims Rule on permissive
and compulsory counterclaims Test to determine nature of
counterclaim In the case of Namarco vs. Federation of United
Namarco Distributors Inc., 49 SCRA 273, the Supreme Court stated
the tests for compulsory counterclaim: First: Identity of Issues.
Second: If it would be barred by res judicata Third: Same evidence
or substantial identityin the evidence relating to the claim and
counterclaim Fourth: A counterclaim has been held to be compulsory
if there is a logical relationship between it and the main claim.
We have indicated that a counterclaim is compulsory if it bears a
"logical relationship" to an opposing party's claim.(Namarco vs.
Federation of Namarco) The phrase "logical relationship" is given
meaning by the purpose of the rule which it was designed to
implement. Thus, a counterclaim is logically related to the
opposing party's claim where separate trials of each of their
respective claims would involve a substantial duplication of effort
and time by the parties and the courts. Where multiple claims
involve many of the same factual issues, or the same factual and
legal issues, or where they are off-shoots of the same basic
controversy between the parties, fairness and considerations of
convenience and of economy require that the counterclaimant be
permitted to maintain his cause ofaction. (Supra) a compulsory
counterclaim cannot be made the subject of a separate action but
should be asserted in the same suit involving the same transaction
or occurrence giving rise to it. Where the counterclaim is made the
subject of a separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea ofauter
action pendantorlitis pendentia,and/or dismissed on the ground
ofres judicata. (Metals Engineering vs CA, 203 SCRA 273)
For all intents and purposes, such proposition runs counter to
the nature of a compulsory counterclaim in that it cannot remain
pending for independent adjudication by the court.This is because a
compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the
original suitand derives its jurisdictional support
therefrom,inasmuch as it arises out of or is necessarily connected
with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of
the complaint. It follows that if the court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain the main action of the case and dismisses
the same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary to the
principal controversy, must likewise be dismissedsince no
jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the
counterclaim.(Supra) Furthermore, it has been held that a
counterclaim presupposes the existence of a claim against the party
filing the counterclaim. Where there is no claim against the
counterclaimant, then the counterclaim is improper and should be
dismissed.The complaint filed by herein petitioner was dismissed on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction for non-payment of docket fees.
By reason of said dismissal, it is as if no claim was filed against
herein private respondent, hence the counterclaim has no leg to
stand on. In addition, it was at the instance of private respondent
that the complaint was dismissed. In the words of Justice Abad
Santos, "(private respondent) does not object to the dismissal of
the civil case but nonetheless wants (his) counterclaim therein to
subsist. Impossible. A person cannot eat his cake and have it at
the same time. If the civil case is dismissed, so also is the
counterclaim filed therein." (Supra) The dismissal of the complaint
on defendant's own motion operated likewise to dismiss the
counterclaim questioning the complaintThe Rules of Court provides a
remedy to recover on defendant's counterclaim if plaintiff moves to
dismiss the case. Under Sec. 2, Rule 17, defendant may raise
objection to the dismissal of the complaint; in such case, the
trial curt may not dismiss the main action. (BA Finance vs Co, 224
SCRA 163) If any of the grounds to dismiss under Sec. 3, Rule 17,
of the Rules of Court arises,8the proper recourse for a defendant
who desires to pursue his compulsory counterclaim in the same
proceeding is not to move for the dismissal of the complaint;
instead, he should only move to have plaintiff declarednon-suitedon
the complaint so that the latter can no longer present his evidence
thereon, and simultaneously move that he be declaredas in defaulton
the compulsory counterclaim, and reserve the right to present
evidenceex parteon his counterclaim. This will enable defendant who
was unjustly haled to court to prove his compulsory counterclaim,
which is intertwined with the complaint, because the trial court
retains jurisdiction over the complaint and of the whole case. The
non-dismissal of the complaint, the non-suit notwithstanding,
provides the basis for the compulsory counterclaim to remain active
and subsisting. (Supra)
3.3. Effect of failure to plead Order of default Consequence of
order of default Judgment by default, extent thereof limited by
relief prayed for Need for presentation of evidence Rationale for
order of default
3.4. Amended/Supplemental pleadings Amendment a matter of right
before responsive pleading filed No limitation on extent of
amendment, even changing cause of action set out in original
pleading Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion
for summary judgment or even motion for judgment on the pleadings
which are not considered responsive pleading Rule when some but not
all defendants file responsive pleading
When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and
subject to the rule that the cause of action is not substantially
changed or the theory altered The purpose of the supplemental
pleading is to bring into the records new facts which will enlarge
or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled;
hence, any supplemental facts which further develop the original
right of action, or extend to vary the relief, are available by way
of supplemental complaint even though they themselves constitute a
right of action. (Planters Development Bank vs. LZK Holdings &
Development Co., 456 SCRA 366) The parties may file supplemental
pleadings only to supply deficiencies in aid of an original
pleading, but not to introduce new and independent causes of
action. InLeobrera v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that when
the cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint is
different from the causes of action mentioned in the original
complaint, the court should not admit the supplemental complaint.
However, a broad definition of causes of action should be applied.
As the United States Supreme Court ruled inSmith v. Biggs Boiler
Works Co.:
While a matter stated in a supplemental complaint should have
some relation to the cause of action set forth in the original
pleading, the fact that the supplemental pleading technically
states a new cause of action should not be a bar to its allowance
but only a factor can be considered by the court in the exercise of
its discretion; and of course, a broad definition of "cause of
action" should be applied here as elsewhere. (Supra)
Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented
during trial is allowed: When issues not raised by the pleadings
are tried with the consent of the parties When, even if objected
to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will befall the objecting
party
Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right A supplemental
complaint should, as the name implies, supply only deficiencies in
aid of an original complaint. It should contain only causes of
action relevant and material to the plaintiff's right and which
help or aid the plaintiff's right or defense. The supplemental
complaint must be based on matters arising subsequent to the
original complaint related to the claim or defense presented
therein, and founded on the same cause of action. It cannot be used
to try a new matter or a new cause of action. (Leobrera vs. CA, 170
SCRA 711) In the case of Leobrera vs. CA, the supplemental
complaint alleged acts of harassment committed by BPI in
unreasonably opting to declare petitioner in default and in
demanding full liquidation of the 1985 three-year term loan. This
three-year term loan, as previously mentioned, was entirely
distinct and separate from the two promissory notes. It was
independent of the 1980 amicable settlement between petitioner and
BPI which gave rise to the credit facility subject of the original
complaint. Although there is Identity in the remedies asked for in
the original and supplemental complaints, i.e. injunction,
petitioner's subsequent cause of action giving rise to the claim
for damages in the supplemental complaint is unrelated to the
amicable settlement which brought about the grant of the credit
facilities, the breach of which settlement is alleged to be the
basis of the original complaint. Petitioner himself in his
supplemental complaint admits this As the allegations reveal, the P
500,000.00 three-year term loan is a transaction independent of the
P 800,000.00 credit facility and BPI's questioned act of
threatening to foreclose the properties securing said loan was the
result of an alleged default by petitioner in the payment of the
amortization due for 9 February 1987 and not because of any
circumstance related to the 1980 amicable settlement The two causes
of action being entirely different, the latter one could not be
successfully pleaded by supplemental complaint. (Supra)
Effect of amended pleadings Supersedes original pleading As a
consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need to
be offered in evidence The Court of Appeals also correctly
overruled the petitioner's contention that the averment in the
original application for registration attributing the origin of the
land to the action of the sea, which averment, with leave of court,
was later superseded by an amendment to the effect that the land
was formed by the action of rivers, was binding on the private
respondent as a judicial admission. Pleadings that have been
amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings
and cease to be judicial admissions. While they may nonetheless be
utilized against the pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they
must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in
evidence. (Director of Lands vs. CA, 196 SCRA 94 [1991])
3.5. Filing of responsive pleading3.6. Filing and service of
pleadings and judicial papers3.7. Summons3.8. Dismissal of
actions3.9. Pre-trial3.10. Discovery3.11. Trial3.12.
Consolidation3.13. Demurrer to Evidence3.14. Judgment on the
pleadings3.15. Summary Judgments3.16. Judgments3.17. Remedies from
judgments (same court, same case)3.18. Execution of judgments only
a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to
execution final judgment vs final and executor judgment a "final
judgment" in the sense just described becomes final "upon
expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been
duly perfected"or, an appeal therefrom having been taken, the
judgment of the appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the
records of the case are returned to the Court of origin.The "final"
judgment is then correctly categorized as a "final and executory
judgment" in respect to which, as the law explicitly provides,
"execution shall issue as a matter of right."It bears stressing
that only a final judgment or order, i.e., "a judgment or order
that finally disposes of the action of proceeding"can become final
and executory. (Investments vs. CA, 147 SCRA 334)
test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court
to do with respect to the merits of the case? Execution a matter of
right when judgment final and executor, but only upon motion
Judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e. when no appeal has
been taken within the period provided by law Enforcement of
judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it becomes
final, subject to certain exceptions Execution before finality,
only upon good reasons Execution pending appeal is not to be
granted except for good reason to be stated in a special order. For
the general rule is that only judgments which have become final and
executory may be executed.In this case, the issuance of an order
granting execution pending appeal is sought to be justified on the
plea that the "[r]espondents' dilatory appeal and refusal to pay
petitioner the amount justly due it had placed petitioner in actual
and imminent danger of insolvency." (BF Corp. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 109)
Even assuming that it was indeed in financial distress and on the
verge of facing civil or even criminal suits, the immediate
execution of a judgment in its favor pending appeal cannot be
justified as Falcon's situation may not be likened to a case of a
natural person who be ill or may be of advanced age. Even the
danger of extinction of the corporation will notper sejustify a
discretionary execution unless there are showings of other good
reasons, such as for instance, impending insolvency of the adverse
party or the appeal being patently dilatory.But even as to the
latter reason, it was noted in Aquino vs. Santiago (161 SCRA 570
[1998]), that it is not for the trial judge to determine the merit
of a decision he rendered as this is the role of the appellate
court. Hence, it is not within competence of the trial court, in
resolving a motion for execution pending appeal, to rule that the
appeals is patently dilatory and rely on the same as its basis for
finding good reasons to grant the motion. Only an appellate court
can appreciate the dilatory intent of an appeals as an additional
good reason in upholding an order for execution pending appealwhich
may have been issued by the trial court for other good reasons, or
in cases where the motion for execution pending appeal is filed
with the appellate court in accordance with Section 2, paragraph
(a), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court. (Supra) Nor does the fact
that petitioner filed a bond in the amount of P35 million justify
the grant of execution pending appeal. We have held in a number of
casesthat the posting of a bond to answer for damages is not alone
a sufficient reason for ordering execution pending appeal.
Otherwise, execution pending appeal could be obtained through the
mere filing of such a bond. (Supra)
Discretionary execution, when stayed Execution before or after
death of judgment obligor will depend on the nature of the
judgment, i.e. recovery of property vs. money judgments
4. Appeals a remedy to set aside or reverse or modify a judgment
on the merits.
4.1. Concept of appeal guard against judgment of unskilled and
unfair judges prevention as much as correction of mistakes not a
right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost
4.2. Who may appeal any of the parties to a case may appeal.
4.3. What are appealable Judgments decisions on the merits after
a full-blown trial Final Orders disposes of a portion of a case on
the merits/ disposes of the case on the merits without trial on the
merits, i.e. Order of Dismissal due to a Motion to Dismiss.
Declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable
what are final judgments? When does a judgment or order become
final? When no appeal is filed after the lapse of the period to
appeal.
Final judgments vs. judgments that are final and executory The
concept of "final" judgment, as distinguished from one which has
"become final" (or "executory" as of right [final and executory]),
is definite and settled. A "final" judgment or order is one that
finally disposes of a case,leaving nothing more to be done by the
Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits
which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial,
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the
parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order
that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, ofres
adjudicataor prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is
ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights
and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains
to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move
(which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new
trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and
ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once
it becomes "final" or, to use the established and more distinctive
term, "final and executory." (Investments vs. CA, 147 SCRA 334)
Now, a "final judgment" in the sense just described becomes final
"upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has
been duly perfected"or, an appeal therefrom having been taken, the
judgment of the appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the
records of the case are returned to the Court of origin.The "final"
judgment is then correctly categorized as a "final and executory
judgment" in respect to which, as the law explicitly provides,
"execution shall issue as a matter of right."It bears stressing
that only a final judgment or order, i.e., "a judgment or order
that finally disposes of the action of proceeding"can become final
and executory. (Supra)
What are not appealable and why are they not? Interlocutory
orders, because they do not dispose of the case.
Test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the
case
4.4. Modes of appeal ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal
with court rendering judgment) MTC to RTC RTC to CA Review of
judgments rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction No
extension of time to file notice of appeal Period to appeal in
interrupted by filing of Motion for New Trial or Motion for
Reconsideration If MNT or MR is denied, fresh period to appeal
Neypes vs. CA, G.R. No. 141524, September 24, 2005
Payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal
petition for review (by filing with the CA under Rule 42) second
level of review review of judgments rendered in appellate
jurisdiction RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA Not a matter of
right; discretionary on the part of the CA Ong vs. Tating, 149 SCRA
265 appeal by certiorari (filing with the SC) appeal to the SC from
RTC on questions of law from order or resolutions of the CA or SB
(Rule 45) but only questions of law appeal to SC not a matter of
right (Rule 45, Sec. 6) Cheesman vs IAC, 193 SCRA 93 Sumbingco vs.
CA, 155 SCRA 24
what is a question of law? When doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts. Questions of facts
there is a doubt or difference as to the truth or falsehood of
alleged facts.
petition for review vs. petition for certiorari New York
Maritime vs. CA, 249 SCRA 416 Ybanez vs CA, 253 SCRA 540
4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of
notice of appeal upon transmission of the records to the appellate
court. May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by the court?
Yes, when filed out of time; and Non-payment of docket fees within
the reglementary period Duty of the court when notice of appeal is
filed? Verify the correctness of the records Verify completeness of
the records If incomplete, complete the same Transmit to appellate
court the records Dilatory appeals Should be dismissed
4.6. Improper appeals to CA from RTC on questions of law to SC
via notice of appeal to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision
rendered in appellate jurisdiction the above modes will merit
dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be allowed Exception:
when the SC on questions of law and fact in which case, the case
will be remanded to CA.
5. Provisional Remedies5.1. Preliminary Attachment Kinds of
attachments Preliminary Garnishment Levy on execution
At what stage is preliminary attachment granted? Grounds for
attachment EXCLUSIVE May be granted ex parte Rule 57 in fact speaks
of the grant of the remedy "at the commencement of the action or at
any time thereafter." The phrase "at the commencement of the
action," obviously refers to the date of the filing of the
complaint which, as abovepointed out, its the date that marks "the
commencement of the action;" and the reference plainly is to a time
before summons is served on the defendant or even before summons
issues. What the rule is saying quite clearly is that after an
action is properlycommenced by the filing of the complaint and the
payment of all requisite docket and other fees the plaintiff may
apply for and obtain a writ of preliminary attachment upon
fulfillment of the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that
he may do so at any time, either before or after service of summons
on the defendant. And this indeed, has been the immemorial practice
sanctioned by the courts: for the plaintiff or other proper party
to incorporate the application for attachment in the complaint or
other appropriate pleading (counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party
claim) and for the Trial Court to issue the writex-parteat the
commencement of the action if it finds the application otherwise
sufficient in form and substance. (Onate vs. Abrogar, 241 SCRA
659)
We do not agree entirely with petitioners. True, this Court had
held in a recent decision that the enforcement of writ of
attachment may not validly be effected until and unless proceeded
or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons But we must
distinguish the case at bar from theSievertandBAC
Manufacturingcases. In those two cases,summons was never served
upon the defendants. The plaintiffs therein did not even attempt to
cause service of summons upon the defendants, right up to the time
the cases went up to this Court. This is not true in the case at
bar. The records reveal that Sheriff Flores and Sun Life did
attempt a contemporaneous service of both summons and the writ of
attachment on January 3, 1992, but we stymied by the absence of a
responsible officer in petitioners' offices. Note is taken of the
fact that petitioners Oate and Econ Holdings admitted in their
answer9that the offices of both Brunner Development Corporation and
Econ Holdings were located at the same address and that petitioner
Oate is the President of Econ Holdings while petitioner Dio is the
President of Brunner Development Corporation as well as a
stockholder and director of Econ Holdings. (Supra)
Writs of attachment may properly issueex parteprovided that the
Court is satisfied that the relevant requisites therefor have been
fulfilled by the applicant, although it may, in its discretion,
require prior hearing on the application with notice to the
defendant; but that levy on property pursuant to the writ thus
issued may not be validly effected unless preceded, or
contemporaneously accompanied, by service on the defendant of
summons, a copy of the complaint (and of the appointment of
guardianad litem, if any), the application for attachment (if not
incorporated in but submitted separately from the complaint), the
order of attachment, and the plaintiff's attachment bond. (Davao
Light and Water vs. CA, 204 SCRA 343)
Ordinarily, the prayer in a petition for a writ of preliminary
attachment is embodied or incorporated in the main complaint itself
as one of the forms of relief sought in such complaint. Thus, valid
service of summons and a copy of the complaint will in such case
vest jurisdiction in the court over the defendant both for purposes
of the main case and for purposes of the ancillary remedy of
attachment. In such case, notice of the main case is at the same
time notice of the auxiliary proceeding in attachment. Where,
however, the petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is
embodied in a discrete pleading, such petition must be served
eithersimultaneously with service of summonsand a copy of the main
complaint, orafter jurisdiction over the defendant has already been
acquiredby such service of summons. Notice of the separate
attachment petition is not notice of the main action. Put a little
differently, jurisdiction whetherratione personae or ratione
materiaein an attachment proceeding is ancillary to jurisdiction
ratione personae or ratione materiae in the main action against the
defendant. If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
or over the person of the defendant in the principal action, it
simply has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary
attachment against the defendant or his property. (Sievert vs. CA,
168 SCRA 692)
Section 20, Rule 57 does state that the award of damages shall
beincluded in the judgment on the main case, and seemingly
indicates that it should not be rendered prior to the adjudication
of the main case. (Carlos vs. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266) The rule,
which guarantees a right to damages incurred by reason of wrongful
attachment, has long been recognized in this jurisdiction. Under
Section 20, Rule 57 of the 1964 Rules of Court, it was provided
that there must be first a judgment on the action in favor of the
party against whom attachment was issued before damages can be
claimed by such party. The Court however subsequently clarified
that under the rule, "recovery for damages may be had by the party
thus prejudiced by the wrongful attachment, even if the judgment be
adverse to him. (Supra) The language used in the 1997 revision of
the Rules of Civil Procedure leaves no doubt that there is no
longer need for a favorable judgment in favor of the party against
whom attachment was issued in order that damages may be awarded. It
is indubitable that even a party who loses the action in main but
is able to establish a right to damages by reason of improper,
irregular, or excessive attachment may be entitled to damages. This
bolsters the notion that the claim for damages arising from such
wrongful attachment may arise and be decided separately from the
merits of the main action. (Supra) Moreover, a separate ruleSection
8, Rule 58 covers instances when it is the trial court that awards
damages upon the bond for preliminary injunction of the adverse
party. Tellingly, it requires that the amount of damages to be
awarded be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same
procedure prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 57. (Supra)
To merit an award of actual damages arising from a wrongful
attachment, the attachment defendant must prove, with the best
evidence obtainable, the fact of loss or injury suffered and the
amount thereof. Such loss or injury must be of the kind which is
not only capable of proof but must actually be proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. As to its amount, the same must be
measurable based on specific facts, and not on guesswork or
speculation.In particular, if the claim for actual damages covers
unrealized profits, the amount of unrealized profits must be
estalished and supported by independent evidence of the mean income
of the business undertaking interrupted by the illegal seizure.
(Spouses Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te, G.R. No. 155868) Nonetheless, we
recognize that Spouses Yu suffered some form of pecuniary loss when
their properties were wrongfully seized, although the amount
thereof cannot be definitively ascertained. Hence, an award of
temperate or moderate damages in the amount ofP50,000.00 is in
order. As to moral and exemplary damages, to merit an award
thereof, it must be shown that the wrongful attachment was obtained
by the attachment plaintiff with malice or bad faith, such as by
appending a false affidavit to his application. (Supra)
5.2. Preliminary Injunction preceded by a 72 hour TRO, 20-day
TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA) within the TRO, hearing must be
conducted may be granted at any stage of the proceeding requirement
for issuance existence of the right to be protected that the act
against which injunction is to be directed are violative of such
right. coordinate body may not be enjoined may be a provisional
remedy and the principal remedy itself
Injunctionis a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a
party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may
be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an
incident in the main action. (Bacolod City Water District vs.
Labayen, 446 SCRA 110) The main action for injunction is distinct
from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction
which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an
independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an
action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary
injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the
law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a
final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused
with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole
object of which is to preserve thestatus quountil the merits can be
heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an
action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It
persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the
action without the court issuing a final injunction. (Supra) A
restraining order, on the other hand, is issued to preserve
thestatus quountil the hearing of the application for preliminary
injunctionwhich cannot be issuedex parte. Under Rule 58 of the
Rules of Court, a judge may issue a temporary restraining order
with a limited life of twenty (20) days from date of issue. If
before the expiration of the twenty (20)-day period the application
for preliminary injunction is denied, the temporary restraining
order would be deemedautomatically vacated. If no action is taken
by the judge on the application for preliminary injunction within
the said twenty (20) days, the temporary restraining order
wouldautomatically expireon the 20th day by the sheer force of law,
no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary. (Supra) The
rule against the non-extendibility of the twenty (20)-day limited
period of effectivity of a temporary restraining order is absolute
if issued by a regional trial court. The failure of respondent
court to fix a period for the ordered restraint did not lend the
temporary restraining order a breath of semi-permanence which can
only be characteristic of a preliminary injunction. The twenty
(20)-day period provided by the Rules of Court should be deemed
incorporated in the Order where there is an omission to do so.
(Supra)
Absence of a showing that the applicant for injunction have an
urgent and paramount need for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction to prevent irreparable damage, they are not entitled to
such writ. (China Banking Corp. vs. Co, G.R. No. 174569)
Requirements for them to be entitled to injunctive relief: (a)
the existence of their right to be protected; and (b) that the acts
against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of
such right. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner
must show,inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable
right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage. Thus, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to
when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences
which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. (Estares
vs. CA, G.R. No. 144755) It must be remembered that a writ of
preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and
incomplete evidence. The evidence submitted during the hearing on
an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not
conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the
trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary
injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits.
(Supra)
It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary
injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve
thestatus quountil the merits of the case can be heard. It is
usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a
substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is
committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act
that will cause irreparable injury or destroy thestatus quoof the
controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the
case. (Buyco vs. Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, December 21, 2009)
Dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a
restraining order or temporary injunction has been grantedoperates
as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction,"
regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for
reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal
therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor is that even in cases
where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on
the merits,the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence the
general rule applies that a temporary injunction terminates
automatically on the dismissal of the action. (Supra) It is well
settled that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed
by injunction, preliminary or final, subject to certain exceptions,
e.g. where a sham preliminary investigation was hastily conducted.
(Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 SCRA 182)
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened
or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before
their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole
aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can
be heard fully. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the
petitioner has the burden to establish the following requisites: 1)
a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be
protected;(2) a violation of that right;(3) that there is an urgent
and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage.Hence, petitioners' entitlement to the injunctive
writ hinges on their prima facie legal right to the properties
subject of the present dispute. The Court notes that the present
dispute is based solely on the parties' allegations in their
respective pleadings and the documents attached thereto. We have on
one hand, petitioners' bare assertion or claim that they are
co-owners of the properties sold by their predecessors to
respondent, and on the other, respondent's claim of ownership
supported by deeds of conveyances and torrens titles in their
favor. From these alone, it is clear that petitioners failed to
discharge the burden of clearly showing a clear and unmistakable
right to be protected. Where the complainant's right or title is
doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of
irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a
ground for an injunction. (Medina vs. Greenfield Development, G.R.
140228)
5.3. Receivership5.4. Replevin5.5. Support pendete lite