Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
CIVIL PROCEDURE
I.
JURISDICTION
principles
involved
in
concurrent
1. Hierarchy of Courts;
2. Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; and
3. Transcendental Importance
General rule: Jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Exception: The jurisdiction of Supreme Court is
conferred by the Constitution.
1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme
Court shall have the following powers: xxx
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ordinary Appeal;
Petition for review; and
Appeal by certiorari
Issue:
Whether it is RTC or Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) having jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the complaint.
Ruling:
HLURB. As regards the defendants supposed embrace
of the RTCs jurisdiction by appearing thereat and
undertaking to desist from prohibiting Eristingcols
workers from entering the village, suffice it to state that
the invocation of the doctrine in Tijam, et al. v.
Sibonghanoy, et al. is quite a long stretch.
The factual milieu obtaining in Tijam and in this case are
worlds apart. As found by the CA, defendants
appearance before the RTC was pursuant to, and in
compliance with, a subpoena issued by that court in
connection with petitioners application for a TRO. On
defendants supposed agreement to sign the
Undertaking allowing petitioners workers, contractors,
and suppliers to enter and exit the village, this
temporary settlement cannot be equated with full
acceptance of the RTCs authority, as what actually
transpired in Tijam.
of the denial. In his MR, he raised for the first time the
RTC's lack of jurisdiction. This motion was denied. Eradel
raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, not when the case
was already on appeal, but when the case, was still
before the RTC that ruled him in default, denied his
motion for new trial and for relief from judgment, and
denied his 2 MRs. After RTC still refused to reconsider
the denial of Eradel's motion for relief from judgment, it
went on to issue the order for entry of judgment and a
writ of execution.
Issue:
Whether private respondent was estopped from
assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC after he had filed
several motions before it.
Ruling:
No. It was Duero who filed the complaint before the
RTC, believing that the RTC had jurisdiction. RA 769117
amending BP 129 had already become effective, such
that jurisdiction already belongs not to the RTC but to
the MTC. Eradel, an unschooled farmer, in the mistaken
belief that since he was merely a tenant of the Artemio,
his landlord, gave the summons to a Hipolito Laurente,
one of the heirs of Artemio, who did not do anything
about the summons. For failure to answer the
complaint, Eradel was declared in default. He then filed
a Motion for New Trial in the RTC and explained that he
defaulted because of his belief that the suit ought to be
answered by his landlord. He stated that he had
evidence to prove that he had a better right than Duero
because of his long, continuous and uninterrupted
possession as bona-fide tenant-lessee. But his motion
was denied. He tried an alternative recourse. He filed
before the RTC a Motion for Relief from Judgment. RTC
denied his motion, hence he moved for reconsideration
Issue:
Whether or not the Presiding Justice of the
Sandiganbayan properly remanded the case to the RTC.
Ruling:
Yes. The petitioner contends that when the amended
information was filed with the RTC on February 6, 1991,
P.D. No. 1606 was still in effect. Under Section 4(a) of
the decree, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive
jurisdiction over the case against him as he was charged
with homicide with the imposable penalty of reclusion
temporal, and the crime was committed while in the
performance of his duties. He further asserts that
although P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861
and by R.A. No. 7975 provides that crimes committed by
members and officers of the PNP with a salary grade
below 27 committed in relation to office are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the proper RTC, the
amendment thus introduced by R.A. No. 7975 should
not be applied retroactively. This is so, the petitioner
asserts, because under Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975, only
those cases where trial has not begun in the
Sandiganbayan upon the effectivity of the law should be
referred to the proper trial court.
(2)
Other offenses or felonies committed by public
officers and employees in relation to their office,
including those employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed
with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law
is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for
six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00 .
However, for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive
jurisdiction under the said law over crimes committed
by public officers in relation to their office, it is
essential that the facts showing the intimate relation
between the office of the offender and the discharge
of official duties must be alleged in the Information. It
is not enough to merely allege in the Information that
the crime charged was committed by the offender in
relation to his office because that would be a conclusion
of law.[22] The amended Information filed with the RTC
against the petitioner does not contain any allegation
showing the intimate relation between his office and
the discharge of his duties. Hence, the RTC had
jurisdiction over the offense charged when on
November 24, 1995, it ordered the re-amendment of
the Information to include therein an allegation that the
petitioner committed the crime in relation to office. R.A.
Procedural Issues:
Late filing
The present claim of AEDC is rooted in the Decision of
this Court in Agan. However, AEDC filed the Petition at
bar only 20 months after the promulgation of the
Decision in Agan on 5 May 2003. As the revised Rules
now stand, a petition for certiorari may be filed within
60 days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution sought to be assailed.42 Reasonable time for
filing a petition for mandamus should likewise be for the
same period. The filing by the AEDC of its petition
for mandamus 20 months after its supposed right to the
project arose is evidently beyond reasonable time and
negates any claim that the said petition for the
Lastly, there is, between Civil Case No. 66213 before the
RTC of Pasig City and the Petition now pending before
this Court, an identity of parties, of subject matter, and
of causes of action.
b.
c.
d.
10
Ruling:
No. Although the instant petition is styled as a petition
for certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by this
Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the
questioned ordinance and executive order. It, thus,
partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief
over which this Court has only appellate, not original,
jurisdiction. As such, this petition must necessary fail, as
this Court does not have original jurisdiction over a
petition for declaratory relief even if only questions of
law are involved.
11
Issue
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan may try a
government scholaran** accused, along with her
brother, of swindling government funds.
Ruling:
Yes. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D.
No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as
amended. R.A. No. 3019 is a penal statute approved on
August 17, 1960. The said law represses certain acts of
public officers and private persons alike which
constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto. Pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 3019, all
prosecutions for violation of the said law should be filed
with the Sandiganbayan. R.A. No. 3019 does not contain
an enumeration of the cases over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. In fact, Section 4 of R.A.
No. 3019 erroneously cited by petitioner, deals not with
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but with
prohibition on private individuals. P.D. No. 1606, as
amended, defines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan while R.A. No. 3019, as amended,
defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for
their penalties.
12
Issue 1:
Whether or not SB 4Th Division has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of Forfeitures I and II as both cases are
covered or included in the plunder case against the
Garcias.
Ruling:
Yes, the plunder case did not absorb the forfeiture
cases. Petitioner claims that the filing of the main
plunder case, with its automatic forfeiture mechanism
in the event of conviction, ousted the SB 4th Division of
its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the forfeiture
13
Issue 2:
Whether or not Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction
over the persons of petitioner and her children.
Ruling 2:
No. Petitioner argues that the SB did not acquire
jurisdiction over her person and that of her children due
to a defective substituted service of summons. Sec. 7,
Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
clearly provides for the requirements of a valid
substituted service of summons, thus: SEC. 7.
Substituted service.If the defendant cannot be served
within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section [personal service on defendant], service may be
effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendants residence with some person of suitable age
and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving
the copies at defendants office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge
thereof.
14
15
Issue:
Whether or not RTC-Branch 62s basis for acquiring
jurisdiction over the civil case was extinguished when
Judge Dioknos July 23, 1996 order allowing the
consolidation of the two cases was annulled and set
aside.
Ruling:
No. Since jurisdiction is the power to hear and
determine a particular case, it does not depend upon
the regularity of the exercise by the court of that power
or on the correctness of its decisions.
Panlilios collection case falls within the jurisdiction of
the RTC of Makati, Branch 62. The fact that the CA
subsequently annulled Judge Dioknos order granting
the consolidation, did not affect the jurisdiction of the
court which issued the said order.
16
Issue:
Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling:
Yes. On petitioners contention that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the instant case, Section 1 (c) of PD No.
1344, as amended, provides:
SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate
the real estate trade and business and in addition to its
powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the
National Housing Authority [now Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following
nature: x x x
17
GSIS argues: (1) that there was no proof of bad faith nor
could fraud or malice be attributed to the petitioner
when it erroneously caused the issuance of certificates
of title over the subject lots despite the fact that these
were expressly excluded from the foreclosure sale; (2)
an action for reconveyance based on implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the time
of its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent
registration of the property, in this case when the
ownership was consolidated to GSIS. The action was
instituted more than fourteen years later; (3) the
properties were not returned because no such
obligation exists under the loan and mortgage
agreement.
18
Motion
for
Issues
1. Is the Court of Appeals correct in resolving the
Petition for Certiorari based on an issue not
raised (the merits of the case) in the Petition?
2. Is the Court of Appeals correct in invoking its
alleged residual prerogative under Section 1,
Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in
resolving the Petition on an issue not raised in
the Petition?"
19
20
21
ISSUE
Whether or not the writ of execution the RTC issued on
March 11, 2008 was void because the RTC could no
longer issue the writ because of the lapse of the period
for appeal, and because the RTC no longer held the
records of the election contest which had then been
transmitted to the ECAD-COMELEC.
HELD
No. The writ of execution issued by the RTC is a mere
administrative enforcement medium of the Special
Order the main order supporting Pecsons motion for
the issuance of a writ of execution. The writ itself
cannot and does not assume a life of its own
independent from the Special Order on which it is
based. Certainly, its nullification does not carry with it
the nullification of the Special Order. This consequence
does not of course hold true in the reverse situation
the nullification of the Special Order effectively carries
with it the nullification of its implementing writ and
removes the basis for the issuance of another
implementing writ. In the present case, the reality is
that if and when we ultimately affirm the validity of the
Special Order, nothing will thereafter prevent the RTC
from issuing another writ.
The term for mayor consists of only three (3) years. One
year and six months has lapsed since the May 2007
election; thus, less than two years are left of the elected
mayors term. The election protest, while already
decided at the RTC level, is still at the executionpending-appeal stage and is still far from the finality of
any decision on the merits, given the available appellate
remedies and the recourses available through special
civil actions.
II.
A.
22
23
24
SC: When the complaint was filed in 1998, Rule 141 had
been amended by Administrative Circular 11-94.
In Manchester Development Corp. vs. CA, this Court
held that the court acquires jurisdiction over any case
only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees.
However, that the ruling in Manchester was clarified in
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd vs. Asuncion when this Court
held that in the former there was an effort to defraud
the government in avoiding to pay the correct docket
fees, whereas in the latter the plaintiff demonstrated his
willingness to abide by paying the additional fees as
required.
25
B.
If the cause of action is the act or omission in violation
of the right of the other, it is in the defendant. But the
definition of complaint says it is the plaintiffs cause of
action. Rule 6 pertains to the remedy of the plaintiff; its
not really a cause of action but a right of action. Thus,
the right of action is with the plaintiff. But there can
never be a right of action without the cause of action.
What triggers the right of action is the defendants
cause of action because the plaintiff can only go to court
once his right has been violated.
Rule 2
26
Personal actions:
Demand or the value of the property outside Metro
Manila > P100,000
Demand or the value of the property inside Metro
Manila > P200,000
27
28
29
30
31
32
Class suit
33
Transfer of interest
34
daughter Lourdes dela Cruz be substituted as partyplaintiff for the said Pedro Joaquin.
It is further prayed that henceforth the undersigned
counsel for the heirs of Pedro Joaquin be furnished with
copies of notices, orders, resolutions and other
pleadings at its address below.
35
1.
2.
3.
4.
36
37
E.
Summary Procedure
38
A.
These are the major pleadings: complaint, answer and
reply.
Kinds of Pleadings
C Co-defendant
B files a cross-claim against C. C can also file a crossclaim against B. B or C may interplead D.
D third-party defendant
In relation to D, C would be a third-party plaintiff.
39
40
41
2 kinds of counterclaim:
(1) compulsory is that which arises from the same
transaction or series of transactions
(2) permissive does not arise from the same
transaction
Alday vs FGU Insurance: What are the indicia of a
compulsory counterclaim? Alday was an insurance
agent. She was sued by FGU for non-remittance of
premiums. Alday set-up a counterclaim saying FGU
didnt pay her bonuses, commissions. And because of
the complaint, she suffered sleepless nights, wounded
feelings, etc. FGU said since the counterclaim is
permissive and Alday did not pay the docket fees, the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
counterclaim.
42
43
44
Reply
Rule 6, Section 10. Reply. A reply is a pleading, the
office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in
denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of
defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as
to such new matters. If a party does not file such reply,
all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted.
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out
of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set
forth in an amended or supplemental complaint.
45
Parts of a Pleading
46
47
48
C.
Allegations in Pleadings
In Altres v. Empleo:
1) A distinction must be made between:
a. non-compliance with the requirement on or
submission of defective verification, and
b. non-compliance with the requirement on or
submission of defective certification against forum
shopping.
49
Actionable Documents
Rule 8, Section 7. Action or defense based on
document. Whenever an action or defense is based
upon a written instrument or document, the substance
of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be
deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may
with like effect be set forth in the pleading.
50
Rule 9
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
A.
58
Substantial vs Formal
59
60
Answer
B.
61
amended
complaint
when
amendment
is NOT a
matter of
right
Filing
an
answer
under Rules
of Summary
Procedure
Filing
an
answer to a
supplement
al complaint
Counterclai
m or crossclaim
Reply
Reply
Section 6. Reply. A reply may be filed within ten (10)
days from service of the pleading responded to.
Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. A
compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a
defending party has at the time he files his answer shall
be contained therein.
Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
answer. A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his
pleading may, with the permission of the court, be
presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by
supplemental pleading before judgment.
C.
60
When
defendant
is a foreign
juridical
Extraterritori
al service of
summons
under
Bill of Particulars
15
(incomplet
e)
Filing
an
answer
Filing
an
answer to
10
(incomplete
)
Bill
of
particulars
Filing
an
answer to
amended
complaint
when
amendmen
t
is
a
matter of
right
Filing
an
answer to a
third-,
fourthparty
complaint
62
D.
63
64
Proof
If it is personally
filed, the proof is the
stamp***
If it is service by
registered
mail,
proof is
affidavit
person
of facts
Summons
1.
What is summons?
Who serves?
66
Kinds of summons
67
3.
Because there was no order granting such leave,
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not given ample
time to file her Answer which, according to the rules,
shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice. It must
be noted that the period to file an Answer in an action
against a resident defendant differs from the period
given in an action filed against a nonresident defendant
who is not found in the Philippines. In the former, the
period is fifteen (15) days from service of summons,
while in the latter, it is at least sixty (60) days from
notice.
b.
substituted service
1.
Service of summons on petitioner Alfredo D.
Valmonte was not made upon the order of the court as
required by Rule 14, 17 and certainly was not a mode
deemed sufficient by the court which in fact refused to
consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure
to file an answer.
2.
Service in the attempted manner on petitioner
was not made upon prior leave of the trial court as
required also in Rule 14, 17. As provided in 19, such
leave must be applied for by motion in writing,
supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on
his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the
application.
68
Publication. The Judge issued an Order granting the Exparte Motion for Leave of Court to Effect Summons by
Publication. The judge, sans a written motion, issued an
Order declaring [respondents] in default for failure to
file their respective answers. As a consequence of the
declaration of default, [petitioners] were allowed to
submit their evidence ex-parte.
69
70
71
personal
by publication
any mode
On whom served
extraterritorial
Section 12. Service upon foreign private juridical
entities. When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity which has transacted business in the
Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or,
if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers
or agents within the Philippines.
72
on
natural
persons:
prisoners;
minors/incompetents; unknown; entities without
juridical personality
6.
Proofs of service
F.
Voluntary Appearance
73
Rule 16
JUNE 17, 2014
Rule 16
Motion to dismiss
Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting
a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to
sue;
(e) That there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause;
De Guzman v Ochoa
Omnibus motion in relation to motion dismiss
74
75
Remedies:
1. Rule 16 (MTD);
2. Demurrer;
3. Rule 37 (new trial/recon)
4. Rule 40-45 (appeals)
5. After judgment has been entered, Rule 38 and
47 (petition for relief from judgment and
annulment of judgment)
76
1. It is no longer
jurisdictional. It is just a
matter of prematurity.
The Court will merely
archive the case until
condition precedent has
been complied with.
ii. Exceptions:
1. An action wherein one
of the parties is a
government
instrumentality
2. When a public officer is
involved and the action
involved his office
3. Where one of the
parties is a corporation
4. If the parties reside in
different cities or
municipalities except
when they voluntarily
submit themselves in
the proper forum and
the barangay in which
they reside is adjacent
to each other. So even if
the parties reside in
different cities or
municipalities but they
reside in a barangay
who is adjacent to each
other there is still a
need for barangay
conciliation.
5. When parties avail any
one of the provisional
remedies
a. What are these
provisional
remedies?
AIRRS
i. Prelimi
nary
Attach
ment
ii. Prelimi
nary
Injuncti
on
iii. Receive
rship
iv. Replevi
n
v. Support
penden
te lite
6. When party is arrested
pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule
113 or warrantless
arrest
b. When the case is between or among
members of the immediate family
i. Immediate family = up to 2nd
degree of consanguinity
1. Vertical line = no
limitation
2. Horizontal line = up to
brothers and sisters
ii. However under Rule 3, we
spoke of parties - spouses
1. In-laws are included,
because they have to be
impleaded as spouse/s.
c. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
i. Exercise of primary jurisdiction
If a MTD is granted, what happens? The case is
dismissed. What is the remedy? Appeal, because an
order denying a motion to dismiss is a final order court
has nothing left to do. If denied, what is your remedy?
File an answer. When? Within the remaining balance of
days for the period of filing an answer from receipt of
notice of denial, which must not be less than 5 days.
When do we not apply the Neypes? Doctrine (fresh
period rule)? Rules 12, 16 and 64. Example: If summons
was duly served on 1st of the month, the defendant has
until the 16th of the month to file an answer; however,
he filed a MTD on the 5th day. How many days were
consumed? 4 days. What is the balance of the period?
11 days. MTD was denied, when should the defendant
file an answer? Within 11 days from receipt of the
notice of the denial of the motion to dismiss (only the
balance of the period but not less than 5 days).
Rule 17
Dismissal of actions
Sec.1 notice of dismissal by plaintiff
77
78
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Summary procedure;
Lack of jurisdiction (Sec.1, Rule 9)
Litis pendentia (Sec.1, Rule 9)
Res judicata (Sec.1, Rule 9)
Prescription (Sec.1, Rule 9)
Present rule:
Rule on national mediation and conciliation proceedings
before the Philippine Mediation and Conciliation Office
(amended Rule 18 and Rule 118); the term preliminary
conference is not limited now to summary procedure
only. Even in the pre-trial, as amended, there is
preliminary conference. That preliminary conference is
done before the branch clerk of court. Identification of
evidence, marking of evidence, stipulations and
admissions they are all done before the branch clerk
of court. So when the plaintiff sets pre-trial on a
particular day, you go to court and 100% pre-trial will
not push through because you will be referred to
Philippine Mediation and Conciliation Office, which is
mandatory and cannot be waived. Within 30 days, you
must find ways and means to settle. And this 30-day
period is extendible to another 30 days, maximum of 60
days for mediation and conciliation. What happens if
there is settlement there? Mediator will simply draft
compromise agreement, and when parties are
amenable, they will sign it, and they give it to the court
which will render judgment on compromise that is
immediately executory. If there is no settlement before
the mediation officer, then it is brought back to the
court for preliminary conference before the branch clerk
of court. And after the branch clerk of court has
undertaken the preliminary conference, you go now to
pre-trial proper before the judge. The judge will now
have to issue a pre-trial order. The pre-trial order is
mandatory. Without a pre-trial and pre-trial order is a
ground for disciplinary action against the judge, and
pre-trial must be conducted. In criminal procedure
under Rule 121, lack of pre-trial is a ground for new
trial.
Rule 18
Pre-trial
Rule 18 must be read together with Rule 118 of criminal
procedure.
What is a pre-trial? Trial before trial, LOL.
Requirements? After the last pleading has been served
and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly
move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. What is
that last pleading? Reply.
When pre-trial is set, what happens? Presentation of
documents and names of witnesses; marking and
identification of evidence
What dont you find under Rule 18 that you find in Rule
118? Plea-bargaining. There is no plea-bargaining in civil
cases, in criminal cases, plea-bargaining is mandatory or
the court should at least ask whether they will plea
bargain. An application for being a state witness, is that
part of plea-bargaining? No. Because it is upon the
discretion of the prosecution to recommend, although
the final say is with the court. That is not part of pleabargaining because plea-bargaining is asking the other
party to accept your plea to a lower charge, e.g., murder
to homicide, and that is done during pre-trial.
Take note that when you plea bargain for the reduction
or removal of one of the accused from the charge sheet,
it must always be by leave of court.
Under Rule 18, under mandatory requirement there is
appearance of the parties and counsels. What are the
sanctions if any of the party does not appear? It
depends. If it is the plaintiff, the action will be dismissed
Summary:
1. Mediation and conciliation with the PMCO;
79
Rule 19
Intervention
Anonuevo v Intestate Estate of Jalandoni
Who is Anonuevo here? What kind of a party was he?
He was the intervenor. Under Rule 19 on intervention,
what are the requirements? Must have legal interest in
the matter in litigation, or interest in the success of the
plaintiff, or interest in the success of the defendant. The
kind of pleading you are bound to file depends on
whose interest you are with if you are with the
plaintiff, you file a complaint in intervention; if you are
with the defendant, you file an answer in intervention; if
neither, you file a complaint in intervention.
Going back to the facts, Anonuevo and siblings filed an
intervention in the intestate proceedings. What was
their claim? They claim that they have a share in the
intestate estate because their grandmother was married
to the deceased. What was their evidence? Birth
certificate. The administrator of the estate contends
that such was not sufficient because the evidence
necessary is a marriage contract, and they were able to
establish that their grandmother was married to
somebody else. The issue is do the intervenors have
interest in this case? The trial court said yes. But on
appeal with the CA, it reversed the RTC. The SC ruled
that they do not have interest, as they were not able to
establish that they were grandchildren to Jalandoni, the
deceased.
Rule 23
Depositions pending action
People v Webb
Judge Tolentino stopped the taking of depositions
because there were more than 150 documents already
for resolution or as basis for judgment. Instead the
accused wanted to take the deposition of 5 more
persons in the US. Can the Judge do that under the rules
of evidence? The SC said yes. At any time at the course
of the trial, the judge can stop the trial because the
judge may say that there is more than enough evidence.
But the more important issue is whether depositions are
allowed in criminal cases. The SC ruled NO. It is not
allowed. But some justices dissented, particularly PUNO
and DAVIDE, saying that while depositions under Rule
80
81
Rule 25
Interrogatories to parties
Is this pending action, before action or pending appeal?
This is pending action. You cannot avail of this against
non-parties, solely against parties.
Where is the sanction under this rule? Sec. 6. Failure to
serve written interrogatories. Who is being sanctioned?
The one who failed to prepare the questions/supposed
to prepare the questions. As a result/sanction, the other
party may not be compelled to testify on the matter of
the interrogatories. How would the court know or
determine whether a party should be sanctioned for
failure to serve written interrogatories? During trial,
when a witness/other party is asked a question that
should have been asked in written interrogatories.
Rule 26
Request for admission by adverse party
Rule 24
Depositions before action or pending appeal
Why is this allowed, deposition pending appeal? This is
because, at that time, appellate courts are not allowed
to accept new evidence. Right now, with more reason
that this is of great use because appellate courts are
allowed to take new evidence. Another reason is in case
of remand to the trial court. Whether you take the
deposition before the lower court or appellate court,
the deposition may come in handy in case of remand.
82
Rule 27
Production or inspection of documents or things
Rule 30/119
Trial
Rule 28
Physical and mental examination of persons
Available in actions where it is relevant
Example of relevant cases where this may be applied:
1. Annulment of contract by reason of imbecility of
a contracting party;
2. Common in paternity cases;
Rule 30
Principal issues under Rule 30:
(1) Order of trial = not to be confused with the
order of presentation of evidence;
(1) plaintiffs evidence;
(2) defendants;
(3) so on.
(2) Absences
(1) When party is absent for no valid
reason
(1) There is usually a penalty, but
not strictly imposed.
(2) They are however strict on
postponement
(3) Valid ground for postponement
= Unavailability of evidence
Rule 31
Severance and consolidation
Severance and consolidation are not opposites.
Rule 29
Refusal to comply with the modes of discovery
83
Rule 32
Trial by commissioner
There are instances where trial by commissioners is
mandatory:
1. Rule 67, expropriation
a. Determination of just compensation =
done by a commissioner
2. Rule 69, Partition
a. Determination of accounting = done by
commissioner
84
XVI.
They are grounded on the same which is
insufficiency of evidence.
XVII. As to the time frame, it can only be filed after
the plaintiff/prosecution has rested its case.
Praenotanda: Even if it is a motion to dismiss which is a
prohibited pleading under the rules on summary
procedure, the same is not true in demurrer to
evidence. Even if it is a kind of a motion to dismiss is
NOT a prohibited pleading in summary procedure. Hun
Hyung Park v. Choi is about violation of BP 22 which is
governed by the rules on summary procedure says that
a demurrer to evidence is not a prohibited pleading. The
doctrine in that case is that, notwithstanding an
acquittal, there was an appeal separating the civil from
the criminal (a questionable doctrine according to
professor).
Differences:
(3)
Even if they are grounded on the same which is
insufficiency of evidence, the quantum of evidence
differs. In civil cases, it is preponderance of evidence
while in criminal, it is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Because of this, it is easier to avail of demurrer to
evidence in criminal cases because the quantum of
evidence is higher.
(4)
85
(6)
If it is appealed by the plaintiff who ordinarily
will appeal it and the appellate court reverses the
order of dismissal, the defendant loses his right to
present evidence. In criminal cases, this is not
applicable precisely because there is no appeal -- the
exception is Hun Hyung Park v. Choi.
Civil Cases
leave of court is not required
before filing a demurrer
Criminal Cases
a demurrer is filed with or
without leave of court
Summary Judgments
87
Examples:
Under Rule 39, when may you execute a judgment as
a matter of right? Sec. 1 says five (5) years from entry
of judgment.
Under Rule 38, when are you supposed to file a
petition for relief under Sec. 3? Within six (6) months
from the date of entry.
NEW TRIAL
(5 grounds)
1. FAME (fraud, accident,
mistake, excusable
negligence), which ordinary
prudence could not have
guarded against and by reason
of which such aggrieved party
has probably been impaired in
his rights -- constitutes 4
grounds
RECONSIDERATION
(3 grounds)
Illustration:
judgment was rendered July 1
judgment became final and executory on July 16
clerk of court recorded the judgment July 31
: date of entry is July 16
Why is this so? Because the finality of judgment cannot
be made to depend on the will of the clerk of court who
is in charge of recording said judgment in the book of
entries. Otherwise, if the clerk of court is a friend of a
party litigant, he may be influenced to adjust the date
88
If you file a motion for new trial on the ground that the
evidence is insufficient, should it be dismissed? No. The
court may consider it as a motion for reconsideration.
89
Can you file a second motion for new trial? Yes, but
only when a ground for new trial was not existing or
available when the first motion was made.
Consequently, you can only file a second motion for
new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
While a second motion for reconsideration is not
allowed, a second motion for new trial is authorized by
the Rules.
90
91
b.
A.
Kinds of Execution
92
over
discretionary
93
The good reason relied upon by both the trial and the
CA was that the partial adjudication of the case was
based on petitioners own admission; hence, any appeal
based on that point would be unmeritorious and merely
dilatory. Indeed, both courts ruled that an appeal by
petitioner would only serve as a good and sufficient
reason upon which to issue execution.
The ascertainment of good reasons for execution
pending appeal lies within the sound discretion of the
trial court, and the appellate court will not normally
disturb such finding. Intervention by the latter may be
proper, if it is shown that there has been an abuse of
discretion. Like the CA, we find no abuse of discretion in
the trial courts grant of execution pending appeal.
Indeed, a good and sufficient reason upon which to
authorize immediate execution is when an appeal is
clearly dilatory.
94
95
96
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the motion for
execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate
court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good
reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments.
A several, separate or partial judgment may be
executed under the same terms and conditions as
execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.
i.
Modes of Execution
in
97
1. By motion (Section 6)
2. By independent action (Section 6)
C.
Manner of Execution
1.
(a)
In case of the death of the judgment obligee,
upon the application of his executor or administrator, or
successor in interest;
on
(b)
In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
against his executor or administrator or successor in
interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or
personal property, or the enforcement of a lien thereon;
(c)
In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
after execution is actually levied upon any of his
property, the same may be sold for the satisfaction of
the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale
shall account to the corresponding executor or
administrator for any surplus in his hands.
2.
98
99
100
101
xxx
xxx
102
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking
or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if
such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall
prevent such claimant or any third person from
vindicating his claim to the property in a separate
action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming
damages in the same or a separate action against a
third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly
spurious claim.
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the taking
or keeping of such property to any such third-party
claimant, if such bond shall be filed. Nothing herein
contained shall prevent such claimant or any third
person from vindicating his claim to the property, or
prevent the attaching party from claiming damages
103
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages, for the taking
or keeping of such property, to any such third-party
claimant if such bond shall be filed. Nothing herein
contained shall prevent such claimant or any third
person from vindicating his claim to the property, or
prevent the applicant from claiming damages against a
third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly
spurious claim, in the same or a separate action.
104
(d)
In all cases, written notice of the sale shall be
given to the judgment obligor, at least three (3) days
before the sale, except as provided in paragraph (a)
hereof where notice shall be given the same manner as
personal service of pleadings and other papers as
provided by section 6 of Rule 13.
The notice shall specify the place, date and exact time of
the sale which should not be earlier than nine o'clock in
the morning and not later than two o'clock in the
afternoon. The place of the sale may be agreed upon by
the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the sale
of the property or personal property not capable of
manual delivery shall be held in the office of the clerk of
court of the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial
Court which issued the writ of or which was designated
by the appellate court. In the case of personal property
capable of manual delivery, the sale shall be held in the
place where the property is located.
F.
(a)
In case of perishable property, by posting
written notice of the time and place of the sale in three
(3) public places, preferably in conspicuous areas of the
municipal or city hall, post office and public market in
the municipality or city where the sale is to take place,
for such time as may be reasonable, considering the
character and condition of the property;
(b)
In case of other personal property, by posting a
similar notice in the three (3) public places abovementioned for not less than five (5) days;
(c)
In case of real property, by posting for twenty
(20) days in the three (3) public places abovementioned
a similar notice particularly describing the property and
stating where the property is to be sold, and if the
assessed value of the property exceeds fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) pesos, by publishing a copy of the notice
105
106
Redemption
107
1.
2.
3.
108
H.
3.
4.
I.
Section 37. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor.
When the return of a writ of execution against the
property of a judgment obligor shows that the judgment
remain unsatisfied, in whole or in part, and upon proof
to the satisfaction of the court which issued the writ,
that a person, corporation, or other juridical entity has
property of such judgment obligor or is indebted to him,
the court may, by an order, require such person,
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
First Complaint:
Second complaint:
The spouses filed a complaint with the RTC against the
bank, Perez and Ragua, for the cancellation and
annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real
estate mortgage executed by them in favor of the bank,
the sale at public auction as well as the certificate of
Allegations:
117
Allegations:
118
119
120
121
122
Time Frames:
Notice of Appeal: 15 days after notice to the appellant
of the judgment or final order appealed from
Record on Appeal: 30 days after notice of the
judgment or final order
123
When you read Rule 41, you are left hanging because
the process is not yet done. The continuation of Rule 41
is Rule 44 (Ordinary Appealed Cases).
125
xxx
xxx
xxx
When the CA notifies you to file an appellants brief, you
have to go to the CA and look over the records of the
case. Dont rely on your own records because the basis
of your appellants brief must be the official records of
the case which are now with the CA. You will note from
Rule 41 that before the RTC clerk of court transmits the
records to the CA, they must be arranged
chronologically and paged accordingly. That is the
provision of the rule. If you have the copy of the records
of the case, it bears no paging.
xxx
xxx
126
Note: This is not given in the bar but may come in handy
in practice.
127
128