Cipro Cases Rules 1 & 2

8/10/2019 Cipro Cases Rules 1 & 2

1/9

.R. No. 111077 Case Digest

G.R. No. 111077 July 14, 1994

Virgilio Gesmundo and Edna

Gesmundo, petitioners,

vs JRB Realty orporation, et

al, respondents.

!onente" #endo$a

Facts:

This is a petition for review on

certiorari of the order of RTC

Makati, dismissing on theground of proper venue a

complaint which the spouses

Gesmundo filed against the JRBRealt Corporation and Jaime

Blanco!

"n #pril $, %&'(, )irgilio

Gesmundo as lessee and JRB

represented * its presidentJaime Blanco entered into s

lease contract covering room

%%+ of *lanco suites in asaCit, with the stipulation that

-venue for all suits, whether for

*ranch hereof or damages or

an cause *etween the ./00"Rand the ./00//, and persons

claiming under each, *eing the

courts of appropriate1urisdiction in asa Cit! ! !-

"n March %&, %&&2, Gesmundofiled a complaint for damages

against JRB alleging that the

were shocked upon receiving aletter of termination of lease

from JRB! 3uring their

telephone conversation,

respondent Blanco toldpetitioner )irgilio B! Gesmundo

that since the Corporation for

which the latter works did notpa him 4Blanco5 his retainer

fees, he did not want petitioners

in an of his apartment units6that on 7ovem*er %', %&&8,petitioners sent respondents a

letter asking for reconsideration

of the termination of their lease6that on 7ovem*er 8$, %&&8,

respondents sent petitioners a

statement of accountsreiterating their letter of

7ovem*er &, %&&86 that on

7ovem*er 8', %&&8, petitionerswere forced to vacate the leased

premises and conse9uentl the

leased an apartment at8,((!(( monthl6 and that

respondents; action was

-unwarranted, un1ustified,malicious, a*usive, and

capricious!- etitioners praed

for 22,((!(( as actual or

compensator damages6%,(((,(((!(( as moral

damages6 (,(((!(( as

attorne;s fees, and costs!

Respondents moved to dismiss

the case on the ground that thevenue of the action had *een

improperl laid in RTC Makati

*ecause of their contract

stipulation that it should *e inasa cit!


2/9

for cash which pro*a*l

amounted to 8'(,&((!((! tinguished or condoned *agreement of the parties, and for

which reason, Tan did not

anmore redeem the checksprecisel *ecause the have*een close and mutual friends!

.atel, however, 3e GuHman

received from Tan;s lawer ademand letter dated %&''

supposedl detailing out therein

the former;s o*ligation to thelatter! rincipal #mount I

8'(,&((!(( 4)alue of ++

dishonored checks5 .egal


3/9

FR!" D#!$N

%A.&. No. R"'*10*1. 'anuar+ ,-

17/

R$DR $ . !P2NA Petitioner v.

' D 2 R $! A3 $ . D 2 3A R $! A

Res4ondent.

D 2 C ! $ N

52R&$!!&A 'R. '.6

n is veri8ied com4laint dated 'une19 1* &r. Rodrigo . !u4ena

President o8 &ortgagee PAgricultural Develo4ment an: (AD8or sort) carges res4ondent 'udgeRosalio G. de la Rosa ;itgross ignorance o8 te la; 8or issuingan unla;8ul $rder dated &a+ ,3 Realt+ncor4orated.= "e $rder in e88ecteld in a?e+ance te 4u?lic auctionsale set on &a+ ,9 1* 4er Notice o82@traudicial !ale o8 one (1)4arcel o8 land togeter ;it te?uilding and all te im4rovementse@isting tereon descri?ed and

covered ?+ "C" No. 11,9BB o8 teRegistr+ o8 Deeds o8 &anila on te?asis o8 a mere 2@Parte &otionto 5old Auction !ale in A?e+ance 8iled?+ &ortgagor P>3 Realt+ ncor4orated(P>3 8or sort)."e antecedent 8acts are as 8ollo;s6$n A4ril 1 1* mortgagee ADdecided to e@traudiciall+ 8oreclosete Real 2state &ortgage1e@ecuted ?+ mortgagor P>3 in te8ormers 8avor. Accordingl+ AD4etitioned te 2@$88icio !eri88 o8&anila to ta:e te necessar+ ste4s 8orte 8oreclosure o8 te mortgaged

4ro4ert+ and its sale to teigest ?idder.$n A4ril ,1 1* 'esusa P. &aningaste Cler: o8 Court and 2@$88icio!eri88 o8 &anila issued aNotice o8 2@traudicial !alesceduling te 4u?lic auction sale on&a+ ,9 1* at 10600 ocloc: a.m. in8ront o8 te Cit+ 5all uilding&anila. !aid notice ;as su?seuentl+4u?lised in te Peo4les 'ournal"onigt on &a+ B 11 and 1 1*.5o;ever on &a+ ,3 in 8avor o8 mortgageeAD. 8 te main concern o8res4ondent udge in olding ina?e+ance te auction sale in &anilasceduled on &a+ ,9 1* ;as todetermine ;eter or not venueo8 te e@ecution sale ;as im4ro4erl+laid e ;ould ave easil+ ?eenenligtened ?+ re8erring to tecorrect la; de8initel+ not te Rules

o8 Court ;ic is Act No. *1*


4/9

under te 4ertinent 4rovisions o8Rule B o8 te Rules o8 Court on #enueo8 Actions ;ic 4rovide6=!ec. ,. #enue in Courts o8 Firstnstance (a) Real actions. Actionsa88ecting title to or 8or recover+ o84ossession or 4artition orcondemnation o8 or 8oreclosure o8mortgage on real 4ro4ert+ sall ?ecommenced and tried in te 4rovince;ere te 4ro4ert+ or an+ 4art tereo8

lies.!ec. *. #enue ?+ agreement. + ;rittenagreement o8 te 4arties te venue o8an action ma+ ?ecanged or trans8erred 8rom one4rovince to anoter.=venue o8 te auction sale sould ave?een laid in &a:ati as mutuall+ agreedu4on ?+ te 4arties.Again in tis regard ;e reiteratetat te la; in 4oint ere is Act No.*1*


5/9

ave a44reciated and8ollo;ed is tat autista and 5oecstPili44ines ave ?een renderedo?solete ?+ te Pol+trade line o8cases. Needless to sa+ te more recenturis4rudence sall ?e deemedmodi8icator+ o8 te old ones.Restating te settled rule tere8oreas ?ela?ored ?+ tis Court inPili44ine an:ing Cor4oration v."ensuan,< venue sti4ulations in a

contract ;ile considered valid anden8orcea?le do not as a rulesu4ersede te general rule set 8ortin Rule B o8 te Revised Rules o8Court. n te a?sence o8 uali8+ingor restrictive ;ords te+ sould ?econsidered merel+ as an agreement onadditional 8orum not aslimiting venue to te s4eci8ied 4lace."e+ are not e@clusive ?ut rater4ermissive.Not;itstanding te a?ove 8undamentalconsiderations res4ondent udge stillissued te &a+ ,


6/9

523D6 K2!.!ection , Rule 10 o8 te Revised Ruleso8 Court 4rovides tat6A 4art+ ma+ amend is 4leading once asa matter o8 course at an+ time ?e8ore ares4onsive 4leading is served or i8te 4leading is one to ;ic nores4onsive 4leading is 4ermitted andte action as not ?een 4laced u4onte trial calendar e ma+ so amend itat an+ time ;itin ten (10) da+s a8ter

it is served.n tis case te 8irst and secondcom4laint ;ere not +et set 8or 4retrial or trial ?ecause 4etitioners adnot +et 8iled an+ res4onsive 4leadingto ?ot com4laints tere8ore teamendment sould ?e allo;ed since saidamendment ;ill not dela+ te4roceeding and tere ;as no cange inres4ondent Cor4orations cause o8action."e amended com4laint in te instantcase ;as 8iled not to dela+ nor alterte cause o8 action o8 te 8irstcom4laint ?ut rater to o?viate tes4litting o8 te cause o8 action and

to o?tain a s4eed+ determination o8te controvers+ in one 4roceeding;itout regard to tecnicalit+."e rationale ?eind te rule is toavoid multi4licit+ o8 suits and inorder tat te real controversies?et;een te 4arties are 4resentedteir rigts are determined and tecase decided on te merits ;itoutunnecessar+ dela+. Hen te situationis suc tat i8 te 4ro4osed amendmentis not allo;ed anoter action ;ould ?einstituted tus

ma:ing t;o actions t;o trials and t;oa44eals 4ossi?le and 4ro?a?le te saidamendment sould ?e admitted inaccordance ;it te mandate o8 teRules o8 Court tat amendments to4leadings are 8avored and sould ?eli?erall+ allo;ed.

'imenez v Camara (Civil Procedure)

.R. No. 31B71- &arc *0 190

#C2N"2 '&2N2O 2" A3.

4lainti88sa44ellants vs. CAR&23$

!. CA&ARA 2" A3. de8endants

a44ellees.

2nriue F. &arino 8or a44ellants.

enedicto !um?ingco and Associates

8or a44ellees.

ARR2RA '.6

FAC"!6&$R"GAG2 E F$R2C3$!R2 ('&2N2O E PN)Plainti88s #icente 'imenez Arturo'imenez and Filomeno 'imenez togeter;it 8our oters ;ere originall+ teregistered coo;ners o8 ,B lotssituated in sa?ela ago and 3aCarlota Negros $ccidental. All ,B lots;ere mortgaged to te Pili44ineNational an:. Due to te o;nersmortgagors 8ailure to 4a+ teir

inde?tedness on time te said ?an:8oreclosed te mortgage and acuiredte said 4ro4erties in 4u?lic auctionsu?ect to redem4tion.

R2NNCA"$N $F RG5" $F R2D2&P"$N!!2>2N" R2D2&P"$N (G$32O)"e mortgagors renounced teir rigto8 redem4tion in 8avor o8 one AdrianoGolez ;o a44ointed #icente 'imenezone o8 erein 4lainti88s as isattorne+in8act.

!233 $F RG5"! AND N"2R2!"! N&$R"GAG2D PR$P2R"2! "$ CA&ARA32A!2 "$ CA&ARA (7 out o8 ,B lots)

n order to redeem said 4ro4erties8rom te Pili44ine National an:Adriano Golez and said #icente 'imenezo?tained te intervention and serviceso8 de8endant Carmelo !. Camara and onDecem?er , 1*1 a document entitled=2scritura de Com4romiso de #enta=(Anne@ A) ;as dul+ e@ecuted ?+ said?an: in 8avor o8 Camara ;erein te8ormer 4romised to sell to te latterall its rigts and interests in temortgaged 4ro4erties 8or te sum o8P


7/9

!!26Has te dismissal 4ro4er

523D6K2!."e t;o contracts are not se4arate8rom or inde4endent o8 eac oter."e+ are ?ot 4art o8 a singletransaction6 to carr+ out and8acilitate te redem4tion 8rom te

Pili44ine National an: o8 temortgaged 4ro4erties. "e leasecontract ;as resorted to 4rovide a modeo8 4a+ment to te ?an: ?+ te deliver+o8 1000 4iculs o8 sugar a +ear ;icis te agreed rental o8 7 o8 temortgaged lots. n 8ine ?ot actionsare 8ounded on one and te samecontract and te rule is tat ;erete covenant or contract is entire andte ?reac total tere can ?e onl+one action. (lossom E Co. vs. &anilaGas Cor4oration


8/9

ARR2D$ '.6

FAC"!61,B $F A C2N"A#$ F$R 2#2RK $""32$n Fe?ruar+ 17 1B te Cit+ Councilo8 acolod 4assed $rdinance No. 99series o8 1B im4osing u4on =an+4erson 8irm or cor4oration engaged inte manu8acturer ?ottling o8 cocacola4e4si cola tru orange lemonade andoter so8t drin:s ;itin te

urisdiction o8 te Cit+ o8acolod ... a 8ee o8 $N2 "H2N"KF$R"5(1,B) o8 a centavo 8or ever+ ?ottletereo8= 4lus =a surcarge o8 ,ever+ mont ?ut in no case to e@ceed,B 8or one ;ole +ear= u4on =suclocal manu8acturers or ?ottler a?ovementioned ;o ;ill ?e delinuent on an+amount o8 8ees due= under teordinance.

1- $F A C2N"A#$ F$R 2#2RK $""32n 1


9/9

declaring Dolosa in de8aultI and (?) indismissing te com4laint erein.

As regards te 8irst alleged error2nguerra maintains tat te e@tensiono8 *0 da+s granted in te order o8Fe?ruar+ 9 19* e@4ired on &arc 719* ?ecause te order stated tatsaid 4eriod sould ?e =counted 8romtoda+= ;ic 2nguerra maintainssould ?e understood to mean 8rom

Fe?ruar+ 9 to &arc 7 19*. Anidentical teor+ ;as reected inl4iando vs. Court o8 AgrarianRelations1 in te 8ollo;ing language6

"e 4etitioners raise 4roceduraluestions. $n , August 1

Documents

Cipro Cases Rules 1 & 2