CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURECourse Outline1. Introduction1.1. Courts and their jurisdiction La Naval Drug Corp v CA 236 S 78 Atwel v Concepcion Progressive Asso Inc GR 169370 April 14, 2008

Figueroa v People GR 147406 July 14, 2008

1.2. How jurisdiction is obtained and exercised: over persons over subject matter over res1.3. Doctrine of primary jurisdictionSamar II Electric Cooperative Inc v Seludo Jr 671 S 782. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions2.1. Must be based on a cause of action What is cause of action Belle Corporation v De Leon-Banks 681 S 351

No splitting of cause of action Read: City of Bacolod v San Miguel, 29 S 819 Jalandoni v Martir-Guanzon, 102 P 859 Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action Test of single cause of action Read: Joseph v Bautista, 170 S 5402.2. Parties to civil actions Who are parties in interest Competency of parties Indispensable and necessary parties Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc 665 S 367

Joinder and misjoinder of parties Death of party consequence of death of party Sarsaba vs Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410

Gonzales vs Pagcor 429 SCRA 533, 540

what counsel should do on death of party2.3. Venue of actions Real and personal actions Read: United Overseas Bank Phils. V Rosemoore Mining & Development Corp. 518 S 123 (2007) Actions against non-residents Agreement on venue2.4. Commencement of actions How and when deemed commenced Read: Magaspi v Ramolete, 115 S 193 Manchester Dev Corp v CA, 149 S 562 Sun Insurance v Asuncion, 170 S 274 Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso Jr versus CA, GR No. 116121, July 18, 2011 When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case? Effect of underpayment of docket fees Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within reglementary period but in several cases, both 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 v CA 528 S 45 (2007) Verification by Counsel In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Schwani Inc. 575 S 535 (2008) Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory pleadings Definition of Forum Shopping Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Compnay Inc. et.al v Valdez GR No. 150107 28Jan2008 Negros Slashers v Teng 666 S 629

Counsel cannot sign certification; exception Digital Microwave Corp. v CA GR 128550 16Mar2000 Guy v Court of Appeals GR 163707, September 15, 2006

Sy Chin v Court of Appeals GR 136233, November 23, 2000

Co-owner or Co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or co-parties Cavila v Heirs of Clarita Cavile 400 S 255 (2003) Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification against non-forum shopping requirement Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. v Piglas Kamao 561 S 569 (2008) Median Container Corp. v Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. 561 S 622 (2008) Substantial requirements of pleadings Sufficiency of allegations Ultimate facts only Remitere v Yulo 16 S 251 Philippine Stock Exchange v Manila Banking Corp. 559 S 352 (2008) Specific Denial

Gaza v. Lim, GR 126863, January 16, 2003 Tests of sufficiency of complaint: Can judgment be rendered if admitted? Always reckon against grounds for dismissal Is bill of particulars applicable? Read Philippine Bank of Communications v Trazo 500 S 242 (2006) 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 allegations lest they be deemed admitted Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either in 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 Read: Namarco v Federation of United Namarco Distributors Inc., 49 S 238 Bungcayao Sr v Fort Ilocandia 618 S 381 Calibre Traders Inc v Bayer Philippines 633 S 343.3. Effect of failure to plead Order of default by motion only, court cannot motu proprio declare party in default Consequences of order of default judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for need for presentation of evidence Rationale for order of default3.4. 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 filed responsive pleading When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to therule that the cause of action is not substantially changed or the theory altered Planters Development Bank v LZK Holdings & Development Co. 456 S 366 Young v Sy 503 S 151 (2006) 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 Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989) Effect of amended pleadings supersedes original pleading as a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need to be offered in evidence. Read Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94 The amendment may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense

Philippine Ports Authority v. William Gothong & Aboitiz Inc., GR 158401, January 28, 20083.5. Responsive pleadings What is responsive pleading Answer Judicial admissions binding on party Read Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007) Answer Judicial admissions NOT binding on party Read Gardner v CA 131 S 585 Bill of particulars, motion to dismiss interrupt period to file responsive pleading Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be set up in responsive pleading. However, it may be set up anytime thereafter (but before judgment) if omitted through oversight, inadvertence or excusable negligence Remedies of party declared in default Otero v Tan 678 S 583

3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers Service on counsel is mandatory unless otherwise ordered by court Improper service is ineffectual and does not bind party Read: Cabili v Badelles, 6 S 190 Service of pleadings and court papers (other than judgments, final orders and resolutions) may be done by substituted service if personal service and service by mail not successful Service of judgments, final orders and resolutions must be personal or by registered mail only (or by publication where summons is served by publication) Service must be on counsel as service on party not permitted Where final order or judgment not served on party or lawyer, said judgment cannot become final or executory. 3.7. Summons

Rules on service is strictly construed, hence: For actions in personam against residents, service must be personal first then substituted if unsuccessful or publication if whereabouts unknown or temporarily outside the country against non-residents, only personal service within the state can confer jurisdiction over the defendant For actions in rem or quasi in rem against residents, same as above against non-residents, personal service outside the country, with leave of court, or publication with leave of court For actions against domestic juridical persons, service only on those enumerated in the statute is allowed For actions against foreign juridical entity, service must be on resident agent, government regulator, or any of officers, agents within the country Venturanza v CA 156 S 305 Samartino v Raon 383 S 664 Valmonte v CA 252 S 92 Asiavest v CA 296 S 539 Philam Gen vs Breva 442 S 217

BPI v Santiago 519 S 389 San Pedro v Ong GR 177598 10/17/08 Guiguinto v Torres GR 170926 9/15/06 Potenciano v Barnes GR 159421 8/20/083.8. Dismissal of action Grounds lack of jurisdiction over person Read Amigo v CA, 253 S 382 lack of jurisdiction over subject matter ReadLa Naval v CA, 236 S 78 Ilocos Sur Electric v NLRC 241 S 36 Andaya v Abadia 228 S 705 Republic v Bantigue Point Development Corp 668 S 158

pendentia litis ReadAndersons Group v CA. 266 S 423 Ramos v Peralta, 203 S 412 Yap v Chua 672 S 411

res judicata ReadVda de Cruzo v Cariaga, 174 S 330 Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Chavez 618 S 559

no cause of action ReadSan Lorenzo v CA, 288 S 115 Calalang v IAC, 194 S 514 Perpetual v Fajardo, 233 S 720 City of Cebu v CA, 258 S 175 Remedy in case of granting/denial of motion to dismiss Order denying motion to dismiss is interlocutory, hence proper remedy is to appeal after a decision has been rendered Read: Indiana Aerospace University v Commission On Higher Education, 356 S 367 Bangko Silangan v CA, 360 S 322 Yutingco v CA, 386 S 85 Order granting motion to dismiss disposes of the case hence, appeal under Rule 41 is applicable. The dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago, GR 170354, June 30, 2006 A dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication on the merits, and operates as res judicata, particularly when the court did not direct that the dismissal was without prejudice

Filinvest Land, Inc. v. CA, GR 142439, December 6, 2006 Dismissal without prejudice Heirs of Juana Gaudiane v. CA, GR 119879, March 11, 2004 Unless there be a qualification in the order of dismissal that it is without prejudice, the dismissal should be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice.

Cruz v. CA, GR 164797, March 13, 2006 Notice of dismissal prevails over motion to dismiss

Dael v. Sps. Beltran, GR 156470, April 30, 2008 Where the defendant has interposed a counterclaim (whether compulsory or permissive) or is seeking affirmative relief by a cross-complaint, the plaintiff cannot dismiss the action so as to affect the right of the defendant in his counterclaim or prayer for affirmative relief.

Mendoza v. Paule, 579 SCRA 341, February 13, 2009 Effect

Benedicto v. Lacson, 620 SCRA 82, May 5, 20103.9. Pre-trial Definition Anson Trade Center v Pacific Banking, GR No. 179999 17 Mar 2009 Interlining Corp. v Philippine Trust Co. 428 S 583 (2002) Setting for Pre-Trial Espiritu v Lazaro, GR. No.181020 20 Nov 2009 Polanco v Cruz, GR. No. 182426 13 Feb 2009 A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC Failure to have Pre-trial Madrid v Spouses Mapoy, GR. 150887 14 Aug 2009 Failure of defendant to appear Will result in plaintiff presenting his evidence ex parte and for the court to render judgment thereon. This is dissimilar to default from failure to plead where the sanction is for the court to render judgment based on the complaint Summary judgment or judgment on pleadings possible if facts are discovered in pre-trial to warrant such action Effect of Pre-trial Order General Rule: Binding on all parties, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC Exception: Read Heirs of Reyes v CA, 519 S 250 (2007)Rule 19 Intervention

Requirements

Nordic Asia Limited v. CA, 403 SCRA 390, June 10, 2003When to Intervene

Salandanan v. Sps. Mendez, 581 SCRA 182, March 13, 2009

Mactan-Cebu Intl Airport Authority v. Heirs of Mioza, 641 SCRA 520, February 2, 2011Who may Intervene

GSIS v. Nocom, 543 SCRA 676, February 04, 2008

Ombudsman v. Maximo Sison, 612 SCRA 702, February 16, 20103.10. Discovery Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders, to disgorge private information to adverse party Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties; obtain admissions from adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents, objects and property. What are discoverable? Limitations on discoverability Modes of discovery Deposition Function When may be availed of Pajarilla v CA 570 S 347 (2008) De bene esse (pending action) Perpetuam rei memoriam (prior to action) Who do you depose Admissibility of Deposition

Sales v. Sabino, 477 SCRA 101, December 09, 2005 Deposition under oral examination to be used in criminal cases

Rosete v. Lim, 490 SCRA 125, June 8, 2006 Interrogatories to parties Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories Requests for admission Sime Darby Employees Association v NLRC 510 S 204 Production and inspection of things Examination of persons ReadRepublic v Sandiganbayan, 204 S 212 Dasmarinas Garments v Reyes 225 S 622 Ayala Land vs Tagle 466 S 521

Hyatt Industrial v Ley Construction GR 147143 Mar 10, 2006

Sime Darby v CA 510 S 204

Security Bank v CA 323 S 330

Solidbank v Gateway GR 164805 April 30, 2008 Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)------- COURT VISIT -------3.11. Trial Order of trial Reverse trial when complaint is admitted Read Yu v Magpayo 44 S 163 Reverse trial also in criminal cases When trial can be dispensed with

Republic v. Vda. De Neri, 424 SCRA 676, March 04, 2004 Absence of party

Sps. Calo v. Sps. Tan, 476 SCRA 426, November 29, 20053.12. Consolidation Test is common questions of fact or of law Active v CA, 181 S 774 Superlines v Victor, 124 S 939 Steel Corporation of the Philippines v Equitable PCI Bank 635 S 403

Deutsche Bank AG vs Court of Appeals 667 S 82

Producers Bank of the Philippines v Excelsa Industries 669 S 470

Consolidation of civil and criminal cases Consolidation of cases on appeal Consolidation of actions

Teston v. DBP, 474 SCRA 597, November 11, 2005 The proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession should not be consolidated with the case for the declaration of nullity of a foreclosure sales the glarying difference in the nature of the two militates against their consolidation

Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils, 616 SCRA 353, March 22, 20103.13. Demurrer to Evidence Concept of demurrer Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence Nepomuceno v Comelec, 126 S 472 Effect of filing demurrer

Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Del Rosario, 335 SCRA 288, July 06, 2000 What evidence

Casent Realty Devt Corp. v. Philbanking Corp., 533 SCRA 390, September 19, 20073.14. Judgment on the pleadings Generally applicable when there is no tender of issue Denial in answer may not amount to tender of issue Manufacturers v Diversified, 173 S 357 Pacific Rehouse Corporation v EIB Securities 633 S 214 In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue.

Reillo v. San Jose, 589 SCRA 458, June 18, 2009 A judgment on the pleadings may be rendered only when an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings.

Ong v. Roban Lending Corporation, 557 SCRA 516, July 09, 2008 Who files

Sunbanun v. Go, 611 SCRA 320, February 02, 20103.15. Summary Judgments Distinguished from judgment on the pleadings Vergara v Suelto 156 S 753 Diman v Alumbres, 299 S 459 How motion for summary judgment is considered Hearing on motion is only for determining whether issues are genuine or not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings motion is proven through affidavits, depositions and admissions submitted by movant Propriety of summary judgment

Natalia v Vallez, 173 S 536 Grand Farms v CA, 193 S 748 Movant may be either party3.16. Judgments Requirements written and signed by judge must contain findings of facts and law applied must contain a dispositive portion filed with the clerk of court rendition reckoned from filing with clerk must be served on parties may be amended before finality upon motion or motu proprio entry upon finality entry determines prescriptive periods final judgment not subject to amendment separability of judgments

3.17. Remedies from judgments (same court, same case) New Trial or Reconsideration FAMEN Fraud as a ground must be extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is intrinsic when done by a party during trial (use of forged documents etc), extrinsic when employed outside the court (concealing a witness or colluding with a party) accident and mistake as ground must be based on well-engendered belief ordinary prudence could not guard against excusable negligence as ground will depend on circumstances Newly discovered evidence must be material and not discoverable during trial Banco Filipino v Campos 63 S 180 Motion for reconsideration NT distinguished from reconsideration grounds results when granted remedy when denied (appeal from the judgment) Relief from judgment not available for lost remedy Tuazon v CA, 256 S 158 available only versus final judgment distinguished from NT or reconsideration grounds when/how invoked result when granted remedy when denied (no more appeal) Annulment of Judgment (not same court, not same case)

Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v Court of Appeals 681 S 5803.18. Execution of judgments Only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution Final judgment versus final and executory judgment Investment v CA 147 S 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 executory, 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 of judgment, only upon good reasons BF Corp v Edsa Shangrila, 294 S 109 discretionary executions, when stayed City of Manila v CA, 72 S 98 Valencia v CA, 184 S 561 execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the nature of the judgment, i.e. recovery of property v money judgments4. APPEALS4.1. Nature of appeal as a remedy guard against judgments of unskilled and unfair judges prevention as much as correction of mistakes not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost Dacuital v LM Engineering Corporation 629 S 702

4.2. Who may appeal4.3. What are appealable what are final judgments when does a judgment or order become final final judgments vs judgments that are final and executory what are not appealable and why are they not? test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case4.4. Modes of appeal ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment) MTC to RTC RTC to CA no extension of period to file notice of appeal interrupted by motion for NT or recon if NT or recon denied, fresh period to appeal Neypes vs CA GR 141524 Sept 14, 2005

payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal petition for review (by filing petition with CA under rule 42) second level of review review of judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA not a matter of right; discretionary on part of CA Ong v Tating. 149 SCRA 265 appeal by certiorari (filing petition with SC) appeal to the SC from RTC on questions of law only (Rule 41) UMC v Velasco 98 S 545 may be remanded to CA if involving questionof fact (rule 56, sec 6), not dismissed from final order or resolution of CA or SB (rule 45) but only on questions of law appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, sec 6) Cheesman v IAC, 193 S 93 Sumbingco v CA, 155 S 24 What is a question of law? See Macawiwili and Land Bank cases below

petition for review on certiorari vs petition for certiorari New York Marine v CA, 249 S 416 Ybanez v CA, 253 S 540Rule on appeals summarized

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt Co v CA 297 S 602

Land Bank of the Philippines v Ramos 685 S 540

4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by court? duty of court when notice of appeal filed dilatory appeals4.6. 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 is when appeal to 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 attachment preliminary garnishment levy on execution At what stage is preliminary attachment granted? grounds for attachment exclusive may be granted ex parte Onate v Abrogar, 241 S 659 Davao Light & Water v CA, 204 S 343 Sievert v CA, 168 S 692 Carlos v Sandoval 471 S 266

Spouses Yu v Ngo Yee Te GR 155868

5.2. Preliminary Injunction preceded by a 72-hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA) within TRO, hearing must be conducted may be granted at any stage of the proceeding requirements for issuance coordinate body may not be enjoined may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself

Bacolod City Water District v Labayen 446 S 110

China Banking Corp v Co GR 174569

Estares v CA GR 144755

Buyco v Baraquia GR 177486 (December 21, 2009)

Heirs of the late JBL Reyes v CA 338 S 282

Brocka v Enrile 192 S 182

Medina v Greenfield Development GR 140228

5.3. Receivership When is receiver appointed? object is preservation of property subject matter of litigation powers of a receiverNational Investment and Development Corp v Judge Aquino 163 S 153

Traders Royal Bank v IAC 273 S 521

5.4. Replevin nature of a replevin suit question involved is one of possession but ownership may be resolved if raised plaintiff (claim) and defendant (counterclaim) can petition for replevinYang v Valdez 177 S 141

Adoma v Gatcheco 448 S 299

Paat v CA 266 S 167

Citibank v CA 304 S 679

5.5. Support pendete lite concept of support is that the applicant is entitled to it by reason of some relationship (say, marital or filial) with the adverse party judgment of support is never final, it can be amended at any time as long as the obligation to support subsists Arts 194, 195, 201, 202 of Family CodeReyes v Ines-Luciano GR 48219

Lam v Chua GR 131286

6. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS6.1. InterpleaderOcampo v Tirona GR 147812 (April 6, 2005)

6.2. Declaratory ReliefTano v Socrates GR 110249 (August 14, 1997)

Martelino v NHMF Corp GR 160208 (June 30, 2008)

Velasco v Villegas GR 24153 (February 14, 1983)

6.3. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus See distinctions between certiorari as an appeal and certiorari as an original action (supra) writ of certiorari is territorial if issued by RTC, not if by CA certiorari to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment Section 19, 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure

Section 19, Rule on Writ of Amparo

Section 19, Rule on Habeas Data

Section 14, Rule of Procedure in Small Claims Cases

Circular 28-91

Balba v Peak Development Inc GR 148288 (August 12, 2005)

New Frontier Sugar Corp v RTC of Iloilo GR 165001 (January 31, 2007)Camutin v Sps Potente GR 181642 (January 29, 2009)

Bugarin v Palisoc GR 157985 (December 2, 2005)

Lalicon v Vergara 276 S 518

Sps Nische v Equitable-PCI Bank GR 167434 (February 19, 2007)

David v Rivera 420 S 90

Tan v Comelec GR 73155 (July 11, 1986)

Mayuga v CA (August 30, 1996)

Kant Wong et al v PCGG GR 79484 (December 7, 1987)

Uy Kiao Eng v Nixon Lee GR 1776831 (January 15, 2010)

Matibay v Garcia (January 25, 1983)Paloma v Mora 470 S 711

6.4. Quo WarrantoMunicipality of San Narciso v Mendez 239 SCRA 11

Tarrosa v Singson 232 S 553

Lota v CA 2 S 715

6.5. Expropriation determination of authority to exercise eminent domain determination of just compensationRepublic v Gingoyan GR 166429 (December 19, 2005)

National Power Corp v Manubay Agro-Industrial GR 150936 (August 18, 2004)

Republic v CA and Heirs of Cris Santos GR 146587 (July 2, 2002)

Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v City of Pasig GR 152230

6.6. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage all parties in interest should be joined as necessary parties, i.e. mortgagor as well as second mortgagee or attaching creditor equity of redemption instead of right of redemption is remedy of debtor in the same case, in case of deficiency, the court will render judgment against debtor which may be executed immediately if debt is due upon judgment AM No. 99-10-05-0

Act No 3135Limpin v IAC 166 S 88

BPI Family Savings Bank v Sps Veloso 436 S 1

6.7. Partition Figuracion Gerilla v Vda de Figuracion GR 154322 (August 22, 2006)

6.8. Forcible Entry and Unlawful DetainerValdes v CA GR 132426

Co v Militar 41 S 455

Unida v Urban GR 155432

Spouses Calendacion v Larano GR 158231

Montenegro v Montenegro GR 156829

6.9. ContemptAng v Castro GR 66371 (May 15, 1985)

People v Godoy 243 S 64 (March 29, 1995)PAGE 10