Civ Pro Cases by Jean Pango

8/12/2019 Civ Pro Cases by Jean Pango

1/51

DIGESTED CASES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TABLE OF CONTENTSTITLE OF THE CASE PAGE

NUMBERS

1.MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC, vs. HON. C. A. &AGAPITA TRAJANO on be!"# o# $e Es$!$e o# ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO,G.R. No. 1%'() A*+*s$ 1, - 1

-.MANCHESTER DEV. CORP., ET AL., vs. C.A. CIT/ LAND DEV. CORP.,STEPHEN RO0AS, ANDRE LUISON, GRACE LUISON !n2 JOSE DE MAISIP,G.R. No. (3'1' M!4 (, 1'5( 1

%.ASS. OF PHIL. COCONUT DESICCATORS, VSPHIL COCONUT AUTHORIT/,.G.R. No. 113- Feb6*!64 1, 1''5 -

).A/ALA CORP., LAS PI7AS VENTURES, INC., !n2 FIL. LIFE ASS. COM., INC.,vs. HON. JOB B. MADA/AG, PRES. JUDGE, RTC, NAT. CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION,BR. 1)3 !n2 SPOUSES CAMILO AND MA. MARLENE SABIO.

G.R. No. 55)-1 J!n*!64 %, 1'' -

3.SPS ROLANDO M. 8OSA !n2 LUISA /. 8OSA, vs.HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, P6es J*2+e,R T C o# P!s9+ C9$4, B6. (, CHINATRUST :PHILS.; COMMERCIAL BAN< CORP,NOTAR/ PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL, REG. OF DEEDS FOR PASIG CIT/, CHAILEASE FINANCECORPORATION,G.R. No. 1)''5) Nove=be6 -5, -5> >SPS ROLANDO M. 8OSA !n2 LUISA /. 8OSA, vs. C.A., HON. SANTIAGO ESTRELLA, P6eS J*2+e,R T C o# P!s9+ C9$4, B6. (, CHINATRUST :PHILS.; COMMERCIAL BAN< CORP.,NOTAR/ PUBLIC JAIME P. PORTUGAL , CHAILEASE FINANCE CORPORATION,G.R. No. 13)''1 Nove=be6 -5, -5 %

.DOLORES MONTEFALCON & LAURENCE MONTEFALCON,vs. RONNIE S. VAS?UE8, .G.R. No. 131 J*ne 1(, -5 )

(.GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOP., INC. :GUCCI;, vs. AIDA TORRES,NONILO TORRES !n2 SHER/L ANN TORRESHOLGADO.G.R. No. 1('- Se@$e=be6 13, - )

5.AUGUSTO A. CAMARA AND FELICIANA CAMARA, vs.

HON. C. A. AND CELINA R. HERNAE8,.G.R. No. 1(5' J*"4 -, 1''' 3

9.PROV. OF 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE, 6e@ b4 GOV. ISAGANI S. AMATONG,Versus C. A. !n2 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., . - - -

3

1


2/51

1.MELOD/ PAULINO LOPE8, vs. NAT. LABOR REL. COMMISSION,LETRAN COLLEGEMANILA, FR. ROGELIO ALARCON, O.P.,FR. EDIN LAO, O.P. !n2 MS. PERL/ NAVARRO,G.R. No. 1-)3)5 O$obe6 5, 1''5

11.PEDRO SEPULVEDA, SR., s*bs. b4 SOCORRO S. LAAS,A2=9n. o# H9s Es$!$e, , vs. ATT/. PACIFICO S. PELAE8, .G.R. No. 13-1'3 J!n*!64 %1, -3 (

1-.RADIO COMMS. OF THE PHILS, INC. VS. C. A.%5 SCRA (. A*+*s$ 1, -- (

1%.NG SOON, vs. HON. ALO/SIUS ALDA/, RTC, ?UE8ON CIT/,BILLIE GAN AND CHINA BAN


3/51

FRANCISCO S. HERNANDE8 !n2 JOSEFA U. ATIEN8A, vs. RURAL BAN< OF LUCENA, INC.,CENTRAL BAN< OF THE PHILIPPINES, !n2 JOSE S. MARTINE8 9n 9s !@!9$4!s Ree9ve6 o# R*6!" B!n o# L*en!,G.R. No. L-'('1 J!n*!64 1, 1'(5 1(

-%.

NILO H. RA/MUNDO, vs .C A, HON. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS,P6es. J*2+e, RTC, B6. (, P!s9+ C9$4, !n2 JUAN MARCOS ARELLANO.G.R. No. 1%(('%. Se@$e=be6 -', 1''' 15

-).LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., :#o6=e6"4 L!#!6+e P9"9@@9nes, In.;,LU8ON CONTINENTAL LAND CORP, CONTINENTAL OPERATING CORP.!n2 PHILIP ROSEBERG, vs. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION,GREGOR/ T. LIM !n2 ANTHON/ A. MARIANO,G.R. No. 1331(% Nove=be6 -%, -) -

-3.ABRAHAM GEGARE, vs. C.A, !n2 SPS. MELENCIO !n2 SOTERA C. LAVARES,

G.R. No. 1%--). O$obe6 5, 1''5 -1

-.COLUMBIA PICTURES ENT., INC., MGM ENT. CO., ORION PICTURES CORP,PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., UNIVERSAL CIT/ STUDIOS, INC.,THE ALT DISNE/ COMP !n2 ARNER BROTHERS, INC.,vs.C. A.,!n2 JOSE B. JINGCO o# SHOTIME ENTERPRISES., INC.,G.R. No. 111-(. Se@$e=be6 -, 1'' -1

-(.DAVAO LIGHT & POER CO., INC., Vs C. A., HON. RODOLFO M. BELLAFLOR,P6eS. J*2+e o# B6!n 11, RTCCeb* !n2 FRANCISCO TESORERO,.G.R. No. 11153. A*+*s$ -, -1 --

-5.ROMEO C. GARCIA, vs.DIONISIO V. LLAMAS,G.R. No. 13)1-(. Dee=be6 5, -% -%

-'.ASIAN CONST. & DEV. CORP. vs. C. A!n2 MONAR< E?UIPMENT CORP.,G.R. No. 1-)- M!4 1(, -3 -3

%.

OOD TECH. CORP. :TC;, CHI TIM CORDOVA AND ROBERT TIONG


4/51

%).LAGRIMAS PACA7AGON8ALES, one o# $e e96s o# L*9!no P!!!,vs. C.AP. !n2 MANUEL CARBONELL PHUA,G.R. No. 13'5 J!n*!64 -1, -3 %

%3.PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR., VS. PNOC E0PLORATION CORPORATION,G.R. No. 1(')%, Se@$e=be6 -%, -5 %1

%.NICASIO P. RODRIGUE8 JR., ANTONIO P. ERE7ETA, JUANITO A. MAGNO,VICTOR C. PINEDA, BITUIN V. SALCEDO, CESAR R. SAN DIEGO, VICTOR V. TANTOCO!n2 AMADOR C. DE LA MERCED, vs. ANTONIOL. AGUILARSR..G.R. No. 13')5-. A*+*s$ %, -3 %-

%(.EDIN N. TRIBIANA, vs. LOURDES M. TRIBIANA,

G.R. No. 1%(%3' Se@$e=be6 1%, -) %-

38.LEONARDO ARCENAS, 6e@. b4 9s !$$o6ne49n#!$CARMELITA ARCENAS VILLANUEVA, vs. C.A., Hon. ARMIE E. ELMA,P6es. J*2+e o# B6. 13%, RTC o# P!s9+ C9$4, !n2 JOSE DELA RIVA,G.R. No. 1%)1 Dee=be6 ), 1''5 %%

%'.JOSEPHINE B. NG !n2 JESSE NG, vs. SPOUSES MARCELO!n2 MARIA FE SOCO, !n2 MARVIN J. SOCO,G.R. No. 1)'1%- M!4 ', -- %)

).A/ALA LAND, INC., vs. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE,9n 9s !@!9$4 !s P6es. J*2+e, RTCI=*s, B6. -,ASB REALT/ CORP., !n2 E. M. RAMOS & SONS, INC., %)

)1.SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA, vs. C. A, GERTRUDES B. MAGISA,=!669e2 $o !n2 !ss9s$e2 b4 PEDRO MAGISA,G.R. No. 115- Dee=be6 1), 1''- %3

42.LUDIG H. ADA8A, vs. SANDIGANBA/AN :$e F96s$ DIVISION o=@ose2o# J*s$9es GREGORIO S. ONG, CATALINO R. CASTANEDA, JR.!n2 FRANCISCO H. VILLARU8, JR. !n2 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES6e@6esen$e2 b4 SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE,G.R. No. 13)55. J*"4 -5, -3 %

43.CALIFORNIA AND HAAIIAN SUGAR COM PACIFIC GULF MARINE, INC.!n2 C.F. SHARP & COMPAN/, vs. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURET/ CORPORATION,

%(

)).JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., INC.,

vs. S@s. SUHARTO MANGUDADATU !n2 MIRIAM SANG


5/51

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORIT/VS. ALA INDUSTRIES CORPORATIONG.R. No. 1)(%)'. Feb6*!64 1%, -) )1

)(.BAILINANG MAROHOMBSAR

VS. JUDGE SANTOS ADIONGG.R. No. RTJ-1(). J!n*!64 --, -) )-

48.MARIO SIASOCO, ANGELITA E. SIASOCO, MA. BELLA SIASOCO, ESTER SIASOCOLAMUG,MA. LOURDES SIASOCO LAMUGBARRIOS, MA. RAMONA SIASOCOLAMUG,MA. VICTORIA SIASOCO LAMUGDOMINGUE8, BELEN SIASOCOJOSE,RAFAEL SIASOCO JOSE, C/NTHIA SIASOCO JOSE, CRISTINA SIASOCO JOSE,ROBERTO SIASOCO JOSE, CARIDAD SIASOCO JOSE, RAMON SIASOCO JOSE,OSCAR SIASOCO, RUBEN SIASOCO, SALOME SIASOCOPA8, MEDARDO PA8 SIASOCO,ROLANDO PA8 SIASOCO, JESUS PA8 SIASOCO, NELL/ STO. DOMINGO NARIO,MAR/ GRACE STO. DOMINGO NARIO !n2 MAR/ ANNE STO. DOMINGO NARIO,vs. COURT OF APPEALS HON. MARCELINO BAUTISTA JR., P6es. J*2+e,B6. -13, R T C, ?*eon C9$4 !n2 $e IGLESIA NI CRISTO,

G.R. No. 1%-(3% Feb6*!64 13, 1''' )%

49.NORA A. BITONG, vs. C.A :FIFTH DIVISION;, EUGENIA D. APOSTOL,JOSE A. APOSTOL, MR. & MS.PUBLISHING CO., LETT/ J. MAGSANOC,AND ADORACION G. NU/DA,NORA A. BITONG, vs. C.A. :FIFTH DIVISION; !n2 EDGARDO B. ESPIRITU,G.R. No. 1-%33%. J*"4 1%, 1''5 ))

3.MARCIANA SERDONCILLO, vs. SPS. FIDEL !n2 EVEL/N BENOLIRAO,MELITON CARISIMA, !n2 COURT OF APPEALS,.G.R. No. 115%-5 O$obe6 5, 1''5 )3

31.ALLIED AGRIBUSINESS DEV. CO., INC., vs. C. A. !n2 CHERR/ VALLE/ FARMS LIMITED,G.R. No. 115)%5 Dee=be6 ), 1''5 ).

3-.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROMEO HILLADO,G.R. No. 1--5%5. M!4 -), 1''' )

3%.ASIAVEST LIMITED, vs. C. A !n2 ANTONIO HERAS,G.R. No. 1-55% Se@$e=be6 -3, 1''5 )(

G.R. No. 1%'() A*+*s$ 1, -

MA. IMELDA M. MANOTOC, Pe$9$9one6,vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS !n2 AGAPITA TRAJANO on be!"# o# $e Es$!$eo# ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO, Res@on2en$s.

FACTSIn the case of Trajano vs. Manotoc for wrongful death of the deceased Arch!edes

Trajano co!!tted "# Mltar# Intellgence under the co!!and of Ma. I!elda M. Manotoc.$ased u%on the co!%lant the &egonal Tral 'ourt ssued a su!!ons at the house ofManotoc. The sad Mac(e# dela 'ru) *careta(er+ receved the su!!ons. Manotoc wasdeclared n default for falure to answer.

ISSUE,hether or not the &T' ac-ure a vald jursdcton for the servce of su!!ons over

the %ettoner.


6/51

HELDThe &egonal Tral 'ourt dd not ac-ure jursdcton over the %ettoner/ "ecause the

su"sttuted servce of su!!ons was defectve n nature or nvald at the frst %lace. The!an fact that the su!!ons was not sent n the %ettoner0s dwellng/ The sad careta(er

was not a %erson of suta"le age and dscreton and was not resded n the sad address.

ence the re-ustes of su"sttuted su!!ons was not followed/ therefore the &T' dd notac-ure jursdcton over the %ettoner at the frst %lace.

G.R. No. (3'1' M!4 (, 1'5(

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., @e$9$9one6s,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, CIT/ LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, STEPHENRO0AS, ANDRE LUISON, GRACE LUISON !n2 JOSE DE MAISIP, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTSThs was orgnall# a case of an acton for torts and da!ages and s%ecfc

%erfor!ance wth a %ra#er for te!%orar# restranng order. The da!ages were nots%ecfcall# stated n the %ra#er "ut the "od# of the co!%lant assessed a 78.7 M.da!ages suffered "# the %ettoner. The a!ount of doc(et fee %ad was onl# 41.. The%ettoner then a!ended the co!%lant and reduced the da!ages to 1 M onl#.

ISSUES,hen does a court ac-ure jursdcton5oes an a!ended co!%lant vest jursdcton n the court

HELD

The court ac-ures jursdcton over an# case onl# u%on the %a#!ent of the%rescr"ed doc(et fee. An a!end!ent of the co!%lant or s!lar %leadng wll not vest

jursdcton n the court/ !uch less the %a#!ent of the doc(et fee "ased on the a!ountssought n the a!ended %leadng. All co!%lants/ %ettons/ answers and other s!lar%leadngs should s%ecf# the a!ount of da!ages "eng %ra#ed for. 5a!ages shall "econsdered n the assess!ent of the flng fees n an# case.

G.R. No. 113- Feb6*!64 1, 1''5

ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE COCONUT DESICCATORS, @e$9$9one6,

VSPHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORIT/, 6es@on2en$.

FACTSettoner alleged that the ssuance of lcenses to the a%%lcants would volate 'As

Ad!nstratve rder/ the tral court ssued a te!%orar# restranng order and/ wrt of%rel!nar# njuncton/ whle the case was %endng n the &egonal Tral 'ourt/ theovernng $oard of the 'A ssued a &esoluton for the wthdrawal of the hl%%ne'oconut Authort# fro! all regulaton of the coconut %roduct %rocessng ndustr#. ,hle tcontnues the regstraton of coconut %roduct %rocessors/ the regstraton would "e l!ted tothe !ontorng of ther volu!es of %roducton and ad!nstraton of -ualt# standards.

The 'A ssue certfcates of regstraton to those wshng to o%erate desccatedcoconut %rocessng %lants/ %ro!%tng %ettoner to a%%eal to the ffce of the resdent ofthe hl%%nes for not to a%%rove the resoluton n -ueston. 5es%te follow:u% letters sent%ettoner receved no re%l# fro! the ffce of the resdent. The certfcates of regstratonssued n the !eant!e "# the 'A has ena"led a nu!"er of new coconut !lls to o%erate.

6


7/51

ISSUESAt ssue n ths case s the valdt# of a resoluton/ of the hl%%ne 'oconut Authort#

n whch t declares that t wll no longer re-ure those wshng to engage n coconut%rocessng to a%%l# to t for a lcense or %er!t as a condton for engagng n such"usness.

HELDThe %etton s &A;T


8/51


9/51

G.R. No. 1('- Se@$e=be6 13, -

GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE, INC. :GUCCI;, @e$9$9one6,

vs.AIDA TORRES, NONILO TORRES !n2 SHER/L ANN TORRESHOLGADO,6es@on2en$s.

FACTS&es%ondents avaled loan fro! the coo%eratve "ut were una"le to %a# on due

dates s%ecfed. The coo%eratve fled a co!%lant n the &egonal Tral 'ourt for su! of!one# and da!ages. The res%ondents were gven su!!ons and t s receved "# $entaaglawanan/ the sad to "e the secretar# of the defendants.

ISSUE

,hether or not the su!!ons was valdl# served on the res%ondents

HELDIf the %ersonal servce of su!!ons cannot "e resorted then the su"sttuted servce

of su!!ons !a# follow. It s effected "# leavng co%es of su!!ons at the defendant0sdwellng wth so!e %erson suta"le of age and dscreton resdng theren/ or "# leavng theco%es n defendants offce or "usness wth a co!%etent %erson n charge. A co!%etent%erson !ust have a trust and confdence relatonsh% wth the res%ondent.

$enta agtalunan who receved the su!!ons and who s alleged to "e thesecretar# of the three *3+ res%ondents dd not have an# relatonsh% of Trust and confdence

wth the sad res%ondents. Therefore such servce of su!!ons s not "ndng and s not

vald.

G.R. No. 1(5' J*"4 -, 1'''

AUGUSTO A. CAMARA AND FELICIANA CAMARA, @e$9$9one6s,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND CELINA R. HERNAE8, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTSBulueta sold a %arcel of land n favor of 'a!ara. After the e@ecuton of the deed of sale/

the latter found out that the ttle was "urdened wth two encu!"rances. e then fled anacton for s%ecfc %erfor!ance aganst Bulueta to re!ove the encu!"rances. The tralcourt ordered Bulueta to cancel the !ortgages or return the %urchase %rce of 1/.,hen Bulueta ded/ 'a!ara avaled of the alternatve re!ed# "# %resentng a !one# cla!as credtor n the ntestate estate of the for!er. e was granted %artal e@ecuton of1/.

ernae)/ the !ortgagee of the lot a%%earng on the ttle/ fled an acton for judcalforeclosure of the contract of !ortgage aganst the for!er0s hers. The tral court ruled nfavor of ernae). The %ro%ert# nvolved was sold n a %u"lc aucton and a corres%ondngcertfcate of sale was awarded to ernae) as the hghest "dder and a judcal confr!atonof ownersh% was ssued.

'a!ara then nsttuted a case for -uetng of ttle aganst ernae) "efore the Ma(at&T' whch ds!ssed the case. The 'ourt of A%%eals affr!ed the ds!ssal and ruled that'a!ara has no cause of acton aganst ernae).

ISSUE,hether or not the acton for -uetng of ttle should "e ds!ssed on the ground of

lac( of cause of acton.

9


10/51

HELDA cause of acton s defned as an act or o!sson "# whch a %art# volates a rght of

another. 'a!ara0s cause of acton arose fro! the contract of sale e@ecuted "# Bulueta nhs favor. The act of the vendor Bulueta of sellng a %ro%ert# "urdened wth encu!"rances/n volaton of the warrant# that t was free fro! lens and encu!"rances/ was alread#

atoned when 'a!ara o"taned a decson n the acton for s%ecfc %erfor!ance where'a!ara o%ted to %resent a !one# cla! aganst the estate of Bulueta and was granted%artal e@ecuton. 'onse-uentl#/ 'a!ara cannot agan rel# on the sa!e volaton of

warrant# as a cause of acton for -uetng of ttle.

PROVINCE OF 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE, 6e@6esen$e2 b4 GOV. ISAGANI S.AMATONG,petitioner,Versus

COURT OF APPEALS !n2 8AMBOANGA DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,INC., respondents.

FACTSettoner rovnce of Ba!"oanga del ;orte *re%resented "# ov. Isagan C.

A!atong+ fled wth the &egonal Tral 'ourt/ a co!%lant aganst Ba!"oanga del ;orte


11/51

the !atter/ t wll decde the sa!e correctl#. The %re!ature nvocaton of the jursdcton ofthe tral court warrants the ds!ssal of the case. It AI&M in toto with the decson of the'ourt of A%%eals.

G.R. No. 1-)3)5 O$obe6 5, 1''5

MELOD/ PAULINO LOPE8, @e$9$9one6,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LETRAN COLLEGEMANILA, FR.ROGELIO ALARCON, O.P., FR. EDIN LAO, O.P. !n2 MS. PERL/ NAVARRO,6es@on2en$s.

FACTSor allegedl# utterng ndecent and o"scene re!ar(s aganst a !e!"er of

ad!nstraton/ Melod# >o%e) was %laced under %reventve sus%enson for thrt# *3+ da#s.Che later found out that e!%lo#!ent fle contaned several unsavor# re%orts wthout her

"eng gven the chance to defend her sde. Thereafter/ she was ds!ssed fro! here!%lo#!ent "ased on that ncdent and other %ast !sconducts a%%earng n e!%lo#!entfle. Che fled a case for llegal ds!ssal.

ISSUE,hether or not the ds!ssal s warranted "ased on the evdence %resented.

HELDThe ds!ssal was llegal. The %ast nfractons cannot "e collectvel# ta(en as a

justfcaton for her ds!ssal fro! the servce. The %ettoner s not re-ured to %rove hernnocence on the charges leveled aganst her "ut the "urden rests u%on the res%ondent toesta"lsh the vald cause of ter!naton. ,here there s a"sence of clear/ vald and legal

cause of ter!naton/ the law consders t a case of llegal ds!ssal. In ter!naton cases/the "urden of %rovng the just cause of ds!ssng an e!%lo#ee rests on the e!%lo#er/ andhs falure to do so would result n a fndng that the ds!ssal s not justfed. avng faledto esta"lsh "# concrete and drect evdence/ no su"stantal "ass e@sts for %ettoner0sds!ssal.

G.R. No. 13-1'3 J!n*!64 %1, -3

PEDRO SEPULVEDA, SR., s*bs$9$*$e2 b4 SOCORRO S. LAAS, A2=9n9s$6!$69> o# H9sEs$!$e, @e$9$9one6,vs.

ATT/. PACIFICO S. PELAE8, respondent.

FACTSAtt#. acfco elae) fled a co!%lant aganst hs granduncle/ edro Ce%ulveda/ Cr./

for the recover# of %ossesson and ownersh% of hs share of several %arcels of landF andfor the %artton thereof a!ong the co:owners. In hs co!%lant/ the %rvate res%ondentalleged that hs !other 5ulce ded ntestate and asde fro! h!self/ was survved "# herhus"and &odolfo elae) and her !other 'arlota Ce%ulveda. 5ulce0s grandfather ?centeCe%ulveda ded ntestate and 5ulce was then onl# a"out four #ears old. The %rvateres%ondent alleged that he h!self de!anded the delver# of hs !other0s share n thesu"ject %ro%ertes on so !an# occasons/ the last of whch was n 1972/ to no aval.

The %rvate res%ondent further narrated that hs granduncle e@ecuted an affdavt

statng that he was the sole her of 5onsa when n fact/ the latter was survved "# herthree sons/ Cantago/ edro and ?cente. edro Ce%ulveda/ Cr. also e@ecuted a 5eed ofA"solute Calen favor of the 't# of 5anao for 7/492.. Accordng to the %rvateres%ondent/ hs granduncle receved ths a!ount wthout hs *%rvate res%ondent0s+(nowledge. The tral court ruled that the %rvate res%ondent0s acton for reconve#ance"ased on constructve trust had not #et %rescr"ed when the co!%lant was fledF that he

11


12/51

was enttled to a share n the %roceeds of the sale of the %ro%ert# to 5anao 't#F and thatthe %artton of the su"ject %ro%ert# a!ong the adjudcatees thereof was n order.

The %ettoner a%%ealed the decson to the 'A/ whch rendered judg!ent onGanuar# 31/ 22/ affr!ng the a%%ealed decson wth !odfcaton. The %ettoner nowco!es to the 'ourt viaa %etton for revew on certiorari/ contendng that the a%%ellate court

erredH

ISSUES,hether or not the &T'0C judg!ent was valdl# rendered

HELD&odolfo elae) s an nds%ensa"le %art# he "eng enttled to a share n usufruct/

e-ual to the share of the res%ondent n the su"ject %ro%ertes. The %lantff s !andated to!%lead all the nds%ensa"le %artes/ consderng that the a"sence of one such %art#renders all su"se-uent actons of the court null and vod for want of authort# to act/ not

onl# as to the a"sent %artes "ut even as to those %resent. ,thout the %resence of all theother hers as %lantffs/ the tral court could not valdl# render judg!ent and grant relef nfavor of the %rvate res%ondent. The falure of the %rvate res%ondent to !%lead the otherhers as %artes:%lantffs consttuted a legal o"stacle to the tral court and the a%%ellatecourt0s e@ercse of judcal %ower over the sad case/ and rendered an# orders or judg!entsrendered theren a nullt#.

To reterate/ the a"sence of an nds%ensa"le %art# renders all su"se-uent actonsof the court null and vod for want of authort# to act/ not onl# as to the a"sent %artes "uteven as to those %resent.ence/ the tral court should have ordered the ds!ssal of theco!%lant.

%5 SCRA (. A*+*s$ 1, --

RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.VS.COURT OF APPEALS

FACTSrvate res%ondent Manuel 5ulawon fled wth the &egonal Tral 'ourt a co!%lant

for "reach of contract of lease wth da!ages aganst %ettoner &ado 'o!!uncatons ofthe hl%%nes/ Inc. *&'I+. ettoner fled a !oton to ds!ss the co!%lant for lac( of

jursdcton contendng that t s the Munc%al Tral 'ourt whch has jursdcton as the

co!%lant s "ascall# one for collecton of un%ad rentals.

ISSUE,hether or not the &T' has jursdcton over the co!%lant fled "# %rvate

res%ondent.

HELD&T' has jursdcton over the co!%lant. The aver!ents n the co!%lant reveal that

the sut fled "# %rvate res%ondent was %r!arl# one for s%ecfc %erfor!ance as t wasa!ed to enforce ther three:#ear lease contract whch would ncdentall# enttle h! to

!onetar# awards f the court should fnd that the su"ject contract of lease was "reached.As alleged theren/ %ettoner0s falure to %a# rentals due for the %erod fro! Ganuar# toMarch 1997/ consttuted a volaton of ther contract whch had the effect of acceleratng the%a#!ent of !onthl# rentals for the #ears 1997 and 1998. 'learl#/ the acton for s%ecfc%erfor!ance/ rres%ectve of the a!ount of the rentals and da!ages sought to "erecovered/ s nca%a"le of %ecunar# est!aton/ hence/ cogn)a"le e@clusvel# "# the &T'.

12


13/51

G.R. No. 535(' Se@$e=be6 -', 1'5'

NG SOON, @e$9$9one6,vs.HON. ALO/SIUS ALDA/, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ?UE8ON CIT/, BILLIE GAN ANDCHINA BAN


14/51

MODESTA CALIMLIM AND LAMBERTO MAGALI IN HIS CAPACIT/ ASADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOMINGO MAGALI, @e$9$9one6s,vs.HON. PEDRO A. RAMIRE8 IN HIS CAPACIT/ AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURTOF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, BRANCH I, !n2 FRANCISCO RAMOS,6es@on2en$s.

FACTS

Gudg!ent for a su! of !one# and a wrt of e@ecuton was rendered n favor ofInde%endent Mercantle 'or%oraton aganst a certan Manuel Magal "# the Munc%al 'ourtof Manla/ The ;otce of >ev# !ade on a %arcel of land regstered n the na!e of 5o!ngoMagal/ !arred to Modesta 'al!l!/ s%ecfed that the sad lev# was onl# aganst allrghts/ ttle/ acton/ nterest and %artc%aton of the defendant Manuel Magal over the %arcelof land descr"ed n ths ttle. owever/ when the Cherff ssued the fnal 5eed of Cale/ t

was erroneousl# stated theren that the sale was wth res%ect to the %arcel of landdescr"ed n ths ttle *referrng to T'T ;o. 9138+ and not onl# over the rghts and nterestof Manuel Magal n the sa!e. The e@ecuton of the sad fnal 5eed of Cale was annotatedat the "ac( of sad ttle.

ettoner Modesta 'al!l!/ survvng s%ouse of 5o!ngo Magal/ fled a %ettonwth the res%ondent 'ourt/ sttng as a cadastral court/ %ra#ng for the cancellaton of T'T;o. 6868. An o%%oston to the sad %etton was fled "# Inde%endent Mercantle'or%oraton. After the %artes su"!tted ther res%ectve Me!oranda/ the res%ondent 'ourtssued an rder ds!ssng the %etton. The heren %ettoners dd not a%%eal the ds!ssalof the %etton the# fled n >&' &ecord ;o. 39492 for the cancellaton of T'T ;o. 6868.Instead/ the# fled the co!%lant n 'vl 'ase ;o. C'':18 %ra#ng for the cancellaton ofthe conve#ances and sales that had "een !ade wth res%ect to the %ro%ert#/ covered "#T'T ;o. 9138 %revousl# regstered n the na!e of 5o!ngo Magal/ heren %rvateres%ondent rancsco &a!os who cla!ed to have "ought the %ro%ert# fro! Inde%endent

Mercantle 'or%oraton. rvate res%ondent rancsco &a!os/ however/ faled to o"tan attle over the %ro%ert# n hs na!e n vew of the e@stence of an adverse cla! annotated onthe ttle thereof at the nstance of the heren %ettoners.

rvate res%ondent rancsco &a!os fled a Moton To 5s!ss on the ground thatthe sa!e s "arred "# %ror judge!ent or "# statute of l!tatons. &esolvng the sadMoton/ the res%ondent 'ourt/ ds!ssed 'vl 'ase ;o. C'': 18 on the ground ofesto%%el "# %ror judg!ent. A Moton or &econsderaton fled "# the %ettoners wasdened "# the res%ondent Gudge. A second Moton or &econsderaton was s!larl#dened.

ISSUE

The ds!ssal of 'vl 'ase ;o. C'':18 fled "# the heren %ettoners n theres%ondent 'ourt aganst the %rvate res%ondent s sought to "e annulled and set asde "#ths etton or &evew n 'ertorar.HELD

It s nether far nor legal to "nd a %art# "# the result of a sut or %roceedng whchwas ta(en cogn)ance of n a court whch lac(s jursdcton over the sa!e rres%ectve of theattendant crcu!stances. The e-uta"le defense of esto%%el re-ures (nowledge orconscousness of the facts u%on whch t s "ased. The sa!e thng s true wth esto%%el "#conduct whch !a# "e asserted onl# when t s shown/ a!ong others/ that there%resentaton !ust have "een !ade wth (nowledge of the facts and that the %art# to

who! t was !ade s gnorant of the truth of the !atter.

The ne-ut# of "arrng the %ettoners fro! vndcatng ther rght over ther %ro%ert#n 'vl 'ase ;o. C'':18 s rendered !ore acute n the face of the unds%uted fact thatthe %ro%ert# n -ueston ad!ttedl# "elonged to the %ettoners/ and that the ttle n the na!eof the %rvate res%ondent was the result of an error co!!tted "# the rovncal Cherff nssung the deed of sale n the e@ecuton %roceedng. The Moton To 5s!ss fled "# the%rvate res%ondent n 'vl 'ase ;o. C'':18 shall "e dee!ed dened and the res%ondent'ourt s ordered to conduct further %roceedngs n the case.

14


15/51

G.R. No. 1%- A*+*s$ %1, 1'')

LA NAVAL DRUG CORPORATION, @e$9$9one6,

vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS !n2 ILSON C. /AO, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTS &es%ondent ao/ owner of a co!!ercal "uldng whch s leased to %ettonerunder a contract of lease e@ecuted. $ut later the %ettoner and res%ondent ao dsagreedon the rental rate/ ther dsagree!ent were su"!tted to ar"traton/ res%ondent aoa%%onted 5o!ngo Ala!are)/ Gr. as hs ar"trator/ whle %ettoner chose Att#. 'asanoCa"le as ts ar"trator. The confr!aton of the a%%ont!ent of Aurelo Tu%ang/ as thrdar"trator/ was held n a"e#ance "ecause %ettoner nstructed Att#. Ca"le to defer thesa!e untl ts $oard of 5rectors could convene and a%%rove Tu%angs a%%ont!ent.&es%ondent ao %ra#ed that after su!!ar# hearng to %roceed wth the ar"traton n

accordance wth 'ontract of >ease and the a%%lca"le %rovsons of the Ar"traton law/ "#a%%ontng and confr!ng the a%%ont!ent of the Thrd Ar"tratorF and that the $oard ofThree Ar"trators "e ordered to !!edatel# convene and resolve the controvers# "efore t.

The res%ondent court announced that the two ar"trators chose Mrs.


16/51

G.R. No. 1%55' J*ne -, -

BARANGA/ SAN RO?UE, TALISA/, CEBU, @e$9$9one6,vs.

He96s o# FRANCISCO PASTOR n!=e"4 EUGENIO S/LIANCO, TEODORO S/LIANCO,TEODORO S/LIANCO, ISABEL S/LIANCO, EUGENIA S. ONG, LARENCES/LIANCO, LASON S/LIANCO, LAINA S. NOTARIO, LEONARDO S/LIANCO JR.!n2 LAFORD S/LIANCO, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTS:ettoner fled "efore the Munc%al Tral 'ourt *MT'+ a 'o!%lant to e@%ro%rate a

%ro%ert# of the res%ondents. In an rder the MT' ds!ssed the 'o!%lant on the groundof lac( of jursdcton. It reasoned that e!nent do!an s an e@ercse of the %ower to ta(e%rvate %ro%ert# for %u"lc use after %a#!ent of just co!%ensaton. The &T' also ds!ssedthe 'o!%lant when fled "efore t/ holdng that an acton for e!nent do!an affected ttle to

real %ro%ert#F hence/ the value of the %ro%ert# to "e e@%ro%rated/ 'oncludng that theacton should have "een fled "efore the MT' snce the value of the su"ject %ro%ert# wasless than 2/.

Aggreved/ %ettoner a%%ealed drectl# to ths 'ourt/ rasng a %ure -ueston of law.

In a &esoluton/ the 'ourt dened the etton for &evew for "eng %osted out of t!e onGul# 2/ 1999/ the due date "eng Gune 2/ 1999/ as the !oton for e@tenson of t!e to fle%etton was dened n the resoluton of Gul# 14/ 1999.7In a su"se-uent &esoluton datedcto"er 6/ 1999/ the 'ourt renstated the etton.

ISSUE,hch court/ MT' or &T'/ has jursdcton over cases for e!nent do!an or

e@%ro%raton where the assessed value of the su"ject %ro%ert# s "elow Twent# Thousand*2/.+ esos

HELDJurisdiction over an Expropriation Suit

In su%%ort of ts a%%eal/ %ettoner ctes Cecton 19 *1+ of $ 129/ whch %rovdesthat !Cs shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which thesubject o# the litigation is incapable o# pecuniary esti$ationF . . . . . It argues that the%resent acton nvolves the e@ercse of the rght to e!nent do!an/ and that such rght snca%a"le of %ecunar# est!aton.

,e agree wth the %ettoner that an e@%ro%raton sut s nca%a"le of %ecunar#est!aton. An e@%ro%raton sut does not nvolve the recover# of a su! of !one#. &ather/t deals wth the e@ercse "# the govern!ent of ts authort# and rght to ta(e %rvate%ro%ert# for %u"lc use.

True/ the value of the %ro%ert# to "e e@%ro%rated s est!ated n !onetar# ter!s/for the court s dut#:"ound to deter!ne the just co!%ensaton for t. Ths/ however/ s!erel# ncdental to the e@%ro%raton sut. Indeed/ that a!ount s deter!ned onl# after thecourt s satsfed wth the %ro%ret# of the e@%ro%raton. In addton/ The govern!ent doesnot ds%ute res%ondents ttle to or %ossesson of the sa!e. Indeed/ t s not a -ueston of

who has a "etter ttle or rght/ for the govern!ent does not even cla! that t has a ttle to

the %ro%ert#. It !erel# asserts ts nherent soveregn %ower to a%%ro%rate and controlndvdual %ro%ert# for the %u"lc "eneft/ as the %u"lc necesst#/ convenence or welfare!a# de!and. The &egonal Tral 'ourt s drected to


17/51

MIGUELITO LIMACO, ET AL.VS.SHONAN GAaguna. &es%ondent fled a !oton tods!ss on the ground of lts %endenta. ettoners o%%osed contendng that the nstantco!%lant for s%ecfc %erfor!ance was served on res%ondent ahead of the servce of theco!%lant for rescsson on %ettoners. >ater/ however/ res%ondent wthdrew ts !oton tods!ss n vew of the order of the &T' of Ma(at ds!ssng the co!%lant for rescsson. In

ts Answer wth 'ountercla!/ res%ondent alleged "# wa# of affr!atve defense thats%ecfc %erfor!ance s not %oss"le "ecause the res%ondent had alread# "ought another%ro%ert# whch s untenanted/ devod of an# legal co!%lcatons and now converted fro!agrcultural to non:agrcultural %ur%osen accordance wth 5A& Ad!nstratve rder.

Thereafter/ %ettoners fled a Moton to ,thdraw 'o!%lant consderngres%ondents s%ecal defense that s%ecfc %erfor!ance was no longer %oss"le. The#%ra#ed that ther co!%lant and res%ondents countercla! "e ordered wthdrawn ords!ssed/ argung that res%ondents countercla! would have no leg to stand on as t wasco!%ulsor# n nature.

ISSUE,hether res%ondents countercla! should "e ds!ssed.

HELDThere are two wa#s "# whch an acton !a# "e ds!ssed u%on the nstance of the

%lantff. rst/ ds!ssal s a !atter of rght when a notce of ds!ssal s fled "# the %lantff"efore an answer or a !oton for su!!ar# judg!ent has "een served on h! "# thedefendant. Cecond/ ds!ssal s dscretonar# on the court when the !oton for theds!ssal of the acton s fled "# the %lantff at an# stage of the %roceedngs other than"efore servce of an answer or a !oton for su!!ar# judg!ent. ,hle the ds!ssal n thefrst !ode ta(es effect u%on the !ere notce of %lantff wthout need of a judcal order/ the

second !ode re-ures the authort# of the court "efore ds!ssal of the case !a# "eeffected. Ths s so "ecause n the ds!ssal of an acton/ the effect of the ds!ssal u%onthe rghts of the defendant should alwa#s "e ta(en nto consderaton.

In the case at "ar/ t s unds%uted that %ettoners fled a Moton to ,thdraw'o!%lant after res%ondent alread# fled ts answer wth countercla!. In fact/ the reason forther !oton for wthdrawal was the s%ecal defense of res%ondent n ts answer thatsu"sttuton was no longer %oss"le as t alread# "ought another %ro%ert# n leu of the

17


18/51

su"ject lots under the contract. It s/ therefore/ ne@%lca"le how %ettoners could argue thatther co!%lant was successfull# wthdrawn u%on the !ere flng of a Moton to ,thdraw'o!%lant when the# the!selves alleged n ths %etton that %rvate res%ondent o"jectedto the wthdrawal and the Tral 'ourt sustanedthe o"jecton.

G.R. No. 135)( J!n*!64 1(, -3

FILOMENA DOMAGAS, @e$9$9one6,vs.VIVIAN LA/NO JENSEN, respondent.

FACTSlo!ena 5o!agas fled a co!%lant for forc"le entr# aganst res%ondent ?van

Gensen "efore the MT' of 'alasao/ angasnan. The %ettoner alleged that she was the

regstered owner of a %arcel of land and the res%ondent/ "# !eans of force/ strateg# andstealth/ ganed entr# nto the %ettoner0s %ro%ert# "# e@cavatng and constructng a fence.As such/ the %ettoner was de%rved of a %orton of her %ro%ert# along the "oundar# lne.The %ettoner %ra#ed that/ judg!ent "e rendered n her favor and she further %ra#s forother relefs and re!edes just and e-uta"le n the %re!ses.

The su!!ons and the co!%lant were not served on the res%ondent "ecause thelatter was a%%arentl# out of the countr#. Ths was rela#ed to the Cherff "# her *theres%ondent0s+ "rother/ scar >a#no/ who was then n the res%ondent0s house. The Cherffleft the su!!ons and co!%lant wth scar >a#no/ who receved the sa!e. The courtrendered judg!ent orderng the res%ondent and all %ersons occu%#ng the %ro%ert# for andn the latter0s "ehalf to vacate the ds%uted area and to %a# !onthl# rentals therefore/

ncludng actual da!ages/ attorne#0s fees/ and e@e!%lar# da!ages. The res%ondent faledto a%%eal the decson. 'onse-uentl#/ a wrt of e@ecuton was ssued.

The res%ondent fled a co!%lant aganst the %ettoner "efore the &T' of 5agu%an't# for the annul!ent of the decson of the MT' on the ground that the Cherff0s falure toserve the co!%lant and su!!ons on her "ecause she was n slo/ ;orwa#/ the MT'never ac-ured jursdcton over her %erson. The res%ondent alleged theren that the servceof the co!%lant and su!!ons through su"sttuted servce on her "rother/ scar >a#no/

was !%ro%er. Gudg!ent s rendered n favor of %lantff ?van >a#no Gensen and aganstdefendant lo!ena 5o!agas. The tral court declared that there was no vald servce ofthe co!%lant.

The %ettoner a%%ealed the decson to the 'A whch/ rendered judg!ent affr!ngthe a%%ealed decson wth !odfcatons. The 'A ruled that the co!%lant n 'vl 'ase ;o.879 was one for eject!ent/ whch s an acton quasi in re$. The su!!ons and theco!%lant should have "een served viae@traterrtoral servce under Cecton 1 n relatonto Cecton 16/ &ule 14 of the &ules of 'ourt.

ISSUE,hether or not there was a vald servce of the su!!ons and co!%lant n 'vl

'ase ;o. 879 on the res%ondent heren who was the defendant n the sad case. Theresoluton of the !atter s anchored on the ssue of whether or not the acton of the%ettoner n the MT' aganst the res%ondent heren s an acton npersona$ or quasi inre$%

HELDThe res%ondent was not valdl# served wth su!!ons and the co!%lant n 'vl

'ase ;o. 879 on A%rl / 1999/ "# su"sttuted servce. ence/ the MT' faled to ac-urejursdcton over the %erson of the res%ondentF as such/ the decson of the MT' n 'vl'ase ;o. 879 s null and vod.

18


19/51

G.R. No. 1-(5(. Dee=be6 1(, 1'''

RO0AS & CO., INC.,petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,

SECRETAR/ OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV,MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS !n2DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, respondents.

FACTSettoner &o@as L 'o. s a do!estc cor%oraton and s the regstered owner of

three hacendas/ na!el#/ acendas alco/ $anlad and 'a#lawa#/ all located n theMunc%alt# of ;asug"u/ $atangas. The events of ths case occurred durng thencu!"enc# of then resdent 'ora)on '. A-uno who ssued rocla!aton ;o. 3%ro!ulgatng a rovsonal 'onsttuton. $efore the law0s effectvt#/ %ettoner fled wthres%ondent 5A& a voluntar# offer to sell acenda 'a#lawa# %ursuant to the %rovsons of+.

In a letter/ res%ondent 5A& Cecretar# nfor!ed %ettoner that a reclassfcaton ofthe land would not e@e!%t t fro! agraran refor!. &es%ondent Cecretar# also dened%ettoner0s wthdrawal of the ?oluntar# ffer to Cell *?C+ on the ground that wthdrawalcould onl# "e "ased on s%ecfc grounds such as unsuta"lt# of the sol for agrculture/ or fthe slo%e of the land s over 18 degrees and that the land s undevelo%ed. 5es%te thedenal of the ?C wthdrawal of acenda 'a#lawa#/ %ettoner fled ts a%%lcaton forconverson of "oth acendas alco and $anlad. %ettoner/ through ts resdent/ A0s alread# ssued to the far!er "enefcares. To assu!e the %ower s to short:crcutthe ad!nstratve %rocess/ whch has #et to run ts regular course. &es%ondent 5A& !ust"e gven the chance to correct ts %rocedural la%ses n the ac-uston %roceedngs. Inacenda alco alone/ '>As were ssued to 177 far!er "enefcares n 1993. Cnce thenuntl the %resent/ these far!ers have "een cultvatng ther lands. It goes aganst the "asc%rece%ts of justce/ farness and e-ut# to de%rve these %eo%le/ through no fault of therown/ of the land the# tll.

19


20/51

G.R. Nos. (''%(%5 Feb6*!64 1%, 1'5'

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., :SIOL;, E.B. PHILIPPS !n2 D.J. ARB/, @e$9$9one6s,

vs.HON. MA0IMIANO C. ASUNCION, P6es929n+ J*2+e, B6!n 1), Re+9on!" T69!" Co*6$,?*eon C9$4 !n2 MANUEL CHUA U/ PO TIONG, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTSettoner Cun Insurance ffce/ >td. *CI> for "revt#+ fled a co!%lant wth the

&T' of Ma(at/ for the consgnaton of a %re!u! refund on a fre nsurance %olc# wth a%ra#er for the judcal declaraton of ts nullt# aganst %rvate res%ondent Manuel =# oTong. rvate res%ondent as declared n default for falure to fle the re-ured answer wthnthe regle!entar# %erod. n the other hand/ %rvate res%ondent fled a co!%lant n the &T'of Jue)on 't# for the refund of %re!u!s and the ssuance of a wrt of %rel!nar#

attach!ent aganst %ettoner CI>/ and ncludng


21/51

sad len and assess and collect the addtonal fee. The %etton s 5ICMICC


22/51

G.R. No. L-'('1 J!n*!64 1, 1'(5

FRANCISCO S. HERNANDE8 !n2 JOSEFA U. ATIEN8A, @"!9n$9##s!@@e""ees,

vs.RURAL BAN< OF LUCENA, INC., CENTRAL BAN< OF THE PHILIPPINES, 9n 9$s!@!9$4 !s L9*92!$o6 o# R*6!" B!n o# L*en!, !n2 JOSE S. MARTINE8 9n 9s!@!9$4 !s Ree9ve6 o# R*6!" B!n o# L*en!, 2e#en2!n$s!@@e""!n$s.

FACTSThs case s a"out the %ro%ret# of a se%arate acton to co!%el a dstress rural "an(

whch s under Gudcal l-udaton/ to acce%t a chec( n %a#!ent of a !ortgage de"t.rancsco C. ernande) and Gosefa =. Aten)a o"taned fro! the &ural $an( of >ucena/Inc. a loan of 6/ the loan was cured "# a !ortgage on ther two lots stuated n 'u"ao/Jue)on 't#. The nterest for one #ear was %ad n advance. Three !onths after that loan

was o"taned/ the >ucena $an( "eca!e a dstress "an(/ ts offcers/ drectors ande!%lo#ees had co!!tted certan ano!ales or had resorted to unsound and unsafe"an(ng %ractces whch were %rejudcal to the govern!ent/ ts de%ostors and credtors.

$efore the e@%raton of the one:#ear ter! of the loan/ ernande) went to the>ucena "an( and offered to %a# the loan "# !eans of a chec( for 6/ whch was drawnaganst the "an( "# a de%ostor/ the Can a"lo 'olleges/ and whch was %a#a"le toernande) As the "an(s e@ecutve vce %resdent was not avala"le/ the %a#!ent was notconsu!!ated. The e@ecutve vce:%resdent wrote to ernande) and nfor!ed h! that thechec( could not "e honored for the t!e "eng "ecause of adverse events that haddsru%ted the "an(s o%eratons.

ernande) and hs wfe fled an acton n the 'ourt of rst Instance at >%a 't# toco!%el the &ural $an( of >ucena/ Inc./ the 'entral $an( as l-udator/ and Gose C. Martne)as recever/ to acce%t the chec( and to e@ecute the cancellaton of the real estate!ortgage. The ernande) s%ouses also as(ed for !oral da!ages n the a!ount ofP&'%'''and attorne#s fees of 3/ the 'entral $an( fled a !oton to ds!ss. Itcontended that there was !%ro%er venue. The !oton was dened/ t should "e stated thatthe counsel for the >ucena offered to co!%ro!se the case "# st%ulatng that the 'entral$an( would a%%l# the chec( n -ueston to the !ortgage de"t of ernande) f the "alanceof the de%ost of the Can a"lo 'olleges would "e enough to cover the a!ount of the chec(of 6/ and that/ "# vrtue of that co!%ro!se/ the co!%lant and countercla! would "eds!ssed.

That condtonal and e-uvocal co!%ro!se offer f))led out/ "ecause the law#ers ofernande) and the 'entral $an( dd not assent to t the lower court rendered an a!endeddecson orderng the >ucena $an( or the 'entral $an(/ as l-udator/ to acce%t the honorthe chec(/ to cancel the !ortage/ and to %a# ernande) s%ouses *P()*'''as !oralda!ages *not 1/ as %ra#ed for the co!%lant+ %lus 1/ as attorne#s fees.

ISSUE,hether or not the se%arate acton to co!%el a dstress rural "an( under judcal

l-udaton s %ro%er to acce%t the chec( n %a#!ent of a !ortgage de"t.

HELD The case s ds!ssed wthout %rejudce to the rght of the ernande) s%ouses tota(e u% wth the l-udaton court the settle!ent of ther !ortgage o"lgaton. .In the nstantcase/ the ernande) s%ouses/ after havng "eco!e cogn)ant of the fact that the >ucena"an( was under l-udaton/ chose to fle a se%arate acton aganst that "an( for rede!%tonand da!ages. Although resdents of 'u"ao/ Jue)on 't#/ where the !ortgage lots arelocated and whch was the address used "# the! n dealng wth the >ucena "an(/ the#chose >%a 't# as the venue of ther acton.

22


23/51

The# gnored the l-udaton court. ucena "an( a judg!ent for !oral da!ages whch the# sur!sed would not "egranted "# the Manla l-udaton court. The# attaned !ore than what the# had orgnall#desred "ecause/ nstead of the !oral da!ages of P&'*''ndcated n ther co!%lant/ thetral court generousl# awarded the! P()*'''. n the other hand/ the ernande) s%ouses

argue that ther acton n the 'ourt of rst Instance at >%a 't# deals wth a su! of !one#whch s stll not n the %ossesson/ custod#/ and ad!nstraton of the 'entral $an( and thereceverF that ther acton had nothng to do wth the funds and %ro%ert# held "# thereceverF that the >ucena "an( had not lost ts jurdcal %ersonalt# after t was %laced underl-udaton/ and that the ssue as to whether the >ucena "an( should have acce%ted thechoc( n -ueston was not n an#wa# connected wth the causes and grounds under whchthe l-udaton %roceedngs were nsttuted nor wth the ad!nstraton of the %ro%ert# andfunds under l-udaton

G.R. No. 1%(('%. Se@$e=be6 -', 1'''

NILO H. RA/MUNDO,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, S9>$ D9v9s9on, HON. APOLINARIO B. SANTOS, P6es929n+J*2+e, RTC, B6. (, P!s9+ C9$4, !n2 JUAN MARCOS ARELLANO, respondents.

FACTSGuan Marcos Arellano/ Gr. fled wth the &T'/ asg 't#/ a co!%lant aganst

%ettoner for collecton of a su! of !one#/ %ettoner fled hs answer wth countercla! tothe co!%lant. The tral court scheduled a %re:tral conference. It was nonetheless%ost%oned n vew of %ettoner0s !oton for leave to fle an a!ended answer. ettoner fled

wth the tral court hs a!ended answer wth countercla! together wth a !anfestaton.rvate res%ondent fled an o%%oston to the ad!sson of the a!ended answer/ to whch%ettoner fled a re%l#. The tral court ssued an order str(ng out %ettoner0s !anfestatonand a!ended answer wth countercla! for falure to co!%l# wth the %rovsons of Cecton3/ &ule 1 of the &ules of 'ourt.

The tral court scheduled the %re:tral conference %ettoner dd not attend the %re:tral conference scheduled on March / 1997. >ater that da#/ %ettoner learned that the tralcourt declared h! n default for non:a%%earance at the %re:tral conference ettoner fled

wth the tral court an urgent !oton to set asde default order. 5es%te the !oton/ the tralcourt %roceeded to receve %rvate res%ondent0s evdence ex+parte. ettoner fled wth thetral court a !oton to set asde res%ondent0s ex+parteevdence.

The tral court/ rendered a decson/ n favor of %lantff Guan Marco Arellano/ Gr. andaganst defendant ;lo &a#!undo. ettoner fled wth the tral court a !oton forreconsderaton of the decson/ to whch %rvate res%ondent fled an o%%oston. ettonerfled wth the tral court an Dad cautela!E o!n"us %etton for relef fro! judg!ent/ order orother %roceedngs. The tral court ssued an order den#ng %ettoner0s !oton forreconsderaton and Dad cautela!E o!n"us %etton. ettoner fled wth the tral court anotce of a%%eal to the 'ourt of A%%eals fro! the tral court0s decson/ and the tral courta%%roved.

ettoner fled wth the 'ourt of A%%eals a s%ecal cvl acton for certiorarichallengng the valdt# of the tral court0s decson and other %roceedngs as havng "eenrendered wth grave a"use of dscreton. The court of A%%eals %ro!ulgated ts decsonds!ssng the %etton outrght rulng that certiorariles onl# when there s no a%%eal or an#other %lan/ s%eed# or ade-uate re!ed# avala"le to %ettoner. Also/ certiorariwll not ssueto cure errors n %roceedngs or erroneous conclusons of law or fact. The 'ourt of A%%ealsadded that where a%%eal s the %ro%er re!ed#/ certiorariwould not le. The falure of the

23


24/51

tral court to resolve %ettoner0s !oton to set asde default order and !oton to set asde%rvate res%ondent0s ex+parteevdence "efore renderng judg!ent s D%urel#errorsKoversght n the %roceedngs/ not necessarl# an error of jursdcton.E

ISSUE,hether or not the 'ourt of A%%eals erred n den#ng the ssuance of a wrt of

certiorari"ecause of the avala"lt# of a%%eal.

HELDAn ordnar# a%%eal s the %ro%er re!ed# n -uestonng a judg!ent "# defaultF

a%%eal s also the %ro%er re!ed# fro! an order den#ng a %etton for relef of judg!ent.ence/ n the nor!al course of events/ the 'ourt of A%%eals correctl# dened the %etton forcertiorari"efore t/ assalng the tral court0s decson "# default and denal of the %etton forrelef/ n vew of the avala"lt# of a%%eal there fro!.

ur%ortedl#/ the tral court declared %ettoner as n default when he faled to attendthe scheduled %re:tral conference. ettoner/ however/ e@%laned that he dd not attend"ecause he was awatng resoluton of hs !oton to ad!t a!ended answer. Thus/

%ettoner need not attend the %re:tral conference "ecause the resoluton of hs !oton toad!t a!ended answer ta(es %recedence over the %re:tral conference. The tral courtgravel# a"used ts dscreton n declarng %ettoner as n default when t was tself re!ss nnot resolvng %ettoner0s %endng !otons.

,orse/ the tral court acted des%otcall# n allowng res%ondent to %resent evdenceex+parteeven f %ettoner could not "e lawfull# declared n default for non:a%%earance dueto the tral court0s own falure to rule on the ad!sson of hs a!ended answer "ecause theorgnal answer was on record. More/ n decdng the case wthout resolvng %ettoner0s!oton to set asde default and !oton to set asde ex+parteevdence/ the tral courte@ercsed ts dscreton ca%rcousl#/ ar"trarl# and wh!scall#.

G.R. No. 1331(% Nove=be6 -%, -)

LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., :#o6=e6"4 L!#!6+e P9"9@@9nes, In.;, LU8ONCONTINENTAL LAND CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL OPERATING CORPORATION!n2 PHILIP ROSEBERG, @e$9$9one6s,vs.CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION, GREGOR/ T. LIM !n2 ANTHON/ A.MARIANO, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTS

rgns of the controvers# can "e traced to the >etter of Intent *>I+ e@ecuted "#"oth %artes/ where"# ettoner >afarge 'e!ent hl%%nes/ Inc. *>afarge+ :: on "ehalf ofts afflates and other -ualfed enttes/ ncludng ettoner >u)on 'ontnental >and'or%oraton *>'>'+ :: agreed to %urchase the ce!ent "usness of &es%ondent 'ontnental'e!ent 'or%oraton *'''+. $oth %artes entered nto a Cale and urchase Agree!ent*CA+. At the t!e of the foregong transactons/ %ettoners were well aware that ''' hada case %endng wth the Cu%re!e 'ourt.

In antc%aton of the la"lt# that the gh Tr"unal !ght adjudge aganst '''/ the%artes/ under 'lause 2 *c+ of the CA/ allegedl# agreed to retan fro! the %urchase %rce a%orton of the contract %rce n the a!ount of 117/2/846.84 :: the e-uvalent of=C2/799/14. Ths a!ount was to "e de%osted n an nterest:"earng account n the rst

;atonal 't# $an( of ;ew or( *'t"an(+ for %a#!ent to AT/ the %ettoner n & ;o.119712. owever/ %ettoners allegedl# refused to a%%l# the su! to the %a#!ent to AT/des%te the su"se-uent fnalt# of the 5ecson n favor of the latter and the re%eatednstructons of &es%ondent '''. earful that non%a#!ent to AT would result n theforeclosure/ not just of ts %ro%ertes covered "# the CA wth >afarge "ut of several other%ro%ertes as well/ ''' fled "efore the &egonal Tral 'ourt a 'o!%lant wth A%%lcatonfor rel!nar# Attach!ent aganst %ettoners. The 'o!%lant %ra#ed/ that %ettoners "edrected to %a# the AT &etaned A!ount referred to n 'lause 2 *c+ of the CA.

24


25/51

ISSUES1. ,hether or not the &T' gravel# erred n refusng to rule that &es%ondent ''' has

no %ersonalt# to !ove to ds!ss %ettoners co!%ulsor# countercla!s on&es%ondents >! and Maranos "ehalf.

2. ,hether or not the &T' gravel# erred n rulng.

HELD&% Petitioners, Counterclai$s Co$pulsory The %rocedural rules are founded on

%ractcalt# and convenence. The# are !eant to dscourage du%lct# and !ult%lct#of suts. Ths o"jectve s negated "# nsstng :: as the court a -uo has done :: thatthe co!%ulsor# countercla! for da!ages "e ds!ssed/ onl# to have t %oss"l# re:fled n a se%arate %roceedng. More !%ortant/ as we have stated earler/&es%ondents >! and Marano are real %artes n nterest to the co!%ulsor#countercla!F t s !%eratve that the# "e joned theren. Cecton 7 of &ule 3%rovdesH

'o!%ulsor# jonder of nds%ensa"le %artes. N artes n nterest wthout who! nofnal deter!naton can "e had of an acton shall "e joned ether as %lantffs ordefendants.Moreover/ n jonng >! and Marano n the co!%ulsor# countercla!/ %ettonersare "eng consstent wth the soldar# nature of the la"lt# alleged theren.

(% The Tral 'ourt s here"# ordered to ta(e cogn)ance of the countercla!s %leadedn %ettoners Answer wth 'o!%ulsor# 'ountercla!s and to cause the servce ofsu!!ons on &es%ondents regor# T. >! and Anthon# A. Marano. The a!"gut#n %ettoners countercla!s notwthstandng/ res%ondents la"lt#/ f %roven/ ssoldar#. Ths character)aton fnds "ass n Artcle 127 of the 'vl 'ode/ whch%rovdes that o"lgatons are generall# consdered jont/ e@ce%t when otherwse

e@%ressl# stated or when the law or the nature of the o"lgaton re-ures soldart#.owever/ o"lgatons arsng fro! tort are/ "# ther nature/ alwa#s soldar#.

G.R. No. 1%--). O$obe6 5, 1''5

ABRAHAM GEGARE, Petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, :Fo6=e6 S@e9!" TKe"#$ D9v9s9on;, HON. PRESIDINGJUDGE, RTC, BR. -1(, ?UE8ON CIT/, !n2 SPS. MELENCIO !n2 SOTERA C.LAVARES, Respondents.

FACTSAs a result of a co!%lant for recover# of %ossesson and da!ages/ the &egonal

Tral 'ourt ordered the %ettoner egare to turn over the %ossesson of the leased%re!ses and to %a# reasona"le co!%ensaton for ts use and attorne#0s fees.

5ssatsfed wth the decson/ %ettoner fled a ;otce of A%%eal to the 'ourt ofA%%eals. 5es%te due notce/ %ettoner faled to %a# doc(et fees wthn the gvenregle!entar# %erod of ffteen *1+ da#s. 'onse-uentl#/ the 'ourt of A%%eals ds!ssed thea%%eal holdng that for falure to %a# doc(et fees/ the sad a%%eal was dee!ed a"andoned/hence/ ds!ssal s %ro%er.

ISSUE,hether or not the ds!ssal of the a%%eal for falure to %a# doc(et fees s %ro%er.

HELDThe ds!ssal s %ro%er. It has consstentl# "een held that %a#!ent n full of doc(et

fees wthn the %rescr"ed %erod s !andator# for such %a#!ent s an essental re-ure!ent"efore the court could ac-ure jursdcton over a case. =nder Cecton 1*c+ of &ule of the&evsed &ules of 'ourt/ a!ong the grounds for ds!ssal of a%%eal "# the 'ourt of A%%eals

2


26/51

s the falure of the a%%ellant to %a# the doc(et and other lawful fees as %rovded n Cecton of &ule 4 and Cecton 4 of &ule 41 thereof.

G.R. No. 111-(. Se@$e=be6 -, 1''

COLUMBIA PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MGM ENTERTAINMENT CO., ORIONPICTURES CORPORATION, PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., UNIVERSAL CIT/STUDIOS, INC., THE ALT DISNE/ COMPAN/ !n2 ARNER BROTHERS, INC.,

petitioners,vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 1)TH DIVISION !n2 JOSE B. JINGCO o#SHOTIME ENTERPRISES., INC., respondents.

FACTSAlfredo . &a!os/ ntellgence offcer of the ?deogra! &egulator# $oard *?&$+/

receved nfor!aton that %rvate res%ondent Gose $. Gnco had n hs %ossesson %ratedvdeota%es/ %osters/ advertsng !aterals and other te!s used or ntended to "e used forthe %ur%ose of sale/ lease/ dstr"uton/ crculaton or %u"lc e@h"ton of the sad %ratedvdeota%es. &a!os ascertaned the nfor!aton to "e true and fled a verfed A%%lcatonfor Cearch ,arrant wth %ra#er for the se)ure of the %ro%ertes descr"ed n the search

warrant.earng was conducted "# Gudge lorentno A. lor of the &T' of asg/ wheren &a!osand hs two wtnesses/ Anale G!ene) and &e"ecca $ente):'ru) testfed on the need forthe ssuance of search warrant. The %ra#er for the ssuance of the search warrant wasgranted and/ on the sa!e date/ Cearch ,arrant was ssued.

ISSUE1. ,hether or not %ettoners have the legal %ersonalt# and standng to fle the a%%eal.2. ,hether or not the search warrant s vald.

HELD1. ro! the records t s clear that/ as co!%lanants/ %ettoners were nvolved n the

%roceedngs whch led to the ssuance of Cearch ,arrant ;o. 23.In eo%le v. ;ano/ the 'ourt declared that whle the general rule s that t s onl# the

Colctor eneral who s author)ed to "rng or defend actons on "ehalf of theeo%le or the &e%u"lc of the hl%%nes once the case s "rought "efore ths 'ourt

or the 'ourt of A%%eals/ f there a%%ears to "e grave error co!!tted "# the judge ora lac( of due %rocess/ the %etton wll "e dee!ed fled "# the %rvate co!%lanantstheren as f t were fled "# the Colctor eneral. In lne wth ths rulng/ the 'ourtgves ths %etton due course and wll allow %ettoners to argue ther case aganstthe -uestoned order n leu of the Colctor eneral.

2. ,hether or not the Cearch ,arrant ;o. 23 s vald/To "e vald/ a search warrant !ust "e su%%orted "# %ro"a"le cause to "edeter!ned "# the judge or so!e other author)ed offcer after e@a!nng theco!%lanant and the wtnesses he !a# %roduce. ;o less !%ortant/ there !ust "e as%ecfc descr%ton of the %lace to "e searched and the thngs to "e se)ed/ to%revent ar"trar# and ndscr!nate use of the warrant.

'learl#/ the te!s se)ed could not "e an#!ore s%ecfc as the crcu!stances wllallow snce the# are all used or ntended to "e used n the unlawful sale or lease of%rated ta%es. Therefore/ the fndng of the a%%ellate court that Cearch ,arrant ;o.23 s a general warrant s devod of "ass. ,herefore the assaled decson andresoluton of res%ondent 'ourt of A%%eals/ and necessarl# nclusve of the order ofthe tral court/ are here"# &


27/51

dated Gul# 28/ 1986 u%holdng the valdt# of Cearch ,arrant ;o. 23 s here"#&ease and another 'ontract of >ease of eneratng


28/51

DIONISIO V. LLAMAS, respondent.

FACTSDThe case s a co!%lant for su! of !one# and da!ages "# 5onso >la!as

aganst &o!eo arca and


29/51

2. Acco!!odaton art#

ettoner avers that he sgned the %ro!ssor# note !erel# as an acco!!odaton%art#F and that/ as such/ he was released as o"lgor when res%ondent agreed to e@tend theter! of the o"lgaton.

Ths reasonng s !s%laced/ "ecause the note heren s not a negota"le nstru!ent.The note was !ade %a#a"le to a s%ecfc %erson rather than to "earer or to order :: are-uste for negota"lt# under Act 231/ the ;egota"le Instru!ents >aw *;I>+. ence/%ettoner cannot aval h!self of the ;I>0s %rovsons on the la"ltes and defenses of anacco!!odaton %art#. The %ro!ssor# note s thus covered "# the general %rovsons of the'vl 'ode/ not "# the ;I> ;egota"le Instru!ents >aw *;I>+. .

3. ro%ret# of Cu!!ar# Gudg!ent or Gudg!ent on the leadngs

ro! the records/ t also a%%ears that %ettoner h!self !oved to su"!t the casefor judg!ent on the "ass of the %leadngs and docu!ents. In a wrtten Manfestaton/ he

stated that Djudg!ent on the %leadngs !a# now "e rendered wthout further evdence/consderng the allegatons and ad!ssons of the %artes.E The 'A correctl# consdered asa su!!ar# judg!ent that whch the tral court had ssued aganst %ettoner.

G.R. No. 1-)- M!4 1(, -3

ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, @e$9$9one6,vs.COURT OF APPEALS !n2 MONAR< E?UIPMENT CORPORATION, 6es@on2en$s.

FACTSMonar( AI;T IC &


30/51

n connecton of $ecthel verseas 'or%oraton0s and that the e-u%!ent leased was usedn connecton wth the $ecthel verseas 'or%oraton %roject. Ths tendered ssue could not

just "e dsregarded n the lght of the thrd:%art# co!%lant fled "# heren %ettoner andthrd:%art# %lantff whch/ as argued n the frst dscussonKargu!ent/ s %ro%er and shouldhave "een gven due course.

All the rghts of the %artes concerned would then "e adjudcated n one %roceedng.Ths s a rule of %rocedure and does not create a su"stantal rght. ;ether does t a"rdge/enlarge/ or nullf# the su"stantal rghts of an# ltgant. Ths rght to fle a thrd:%art#co!%lant aganst a thrd:%art# rests n the dscreton of the tral court. The thrd:%art#co!%lant s actuall# nde%endent of/ se%arate and dstnct fro! the %lantff0s co!%lant/such that were t not for the rule/ t would have to "e fled se%aratel# fro! the orgnalco!%lant.

'onsderng that the %ettoner ad!tted ts la"lt# for the %rnc%al cla! of theres%ondent n ts Answer wth Thrd:art# 'o!%lant/ the tral court dd not err n renderng

judg!ent on the %leadngs aganst t.

G.R. No. 13%5( Feb6*!64 1(, -3

OOD TECHNOLOG/ CORPORATION :TC;, CHI TIM CORDOVA AND ROBERTTIONG


31/51

HELDettoners argue that a judg!ent on the %leadngs cannot "e rendered "ecause

ther Answer tendered genune ssues and ds%uted the !ateral allegatons n the'o!%lant. In ths case/ at ssue s the %ro%ret# and valdt# of a judg!ent on the %leadngs.

$oth the &T' and 'ourt of A%%eals recogn)e that ssues were rased "# %ettoners n therAnswer "efore the tral court. The essental -ueston n such a case s whether there aressues generated "# the %leadngs. Ths s the dstncton "etween a %ro%er case ofsu!!ar# judg!ent/ co!%ared to a %ro%er case for judg!ent on the %leadngs.

In su!/ no cause to dstur" the fndngs of fact the 'ourt of A%%eals/ affr!ng thoseof the &T' as to the reasona"leness of the nterest rate of 8.7O %er annu! on the loan.;o %ersuasve reason to contradct the rulng of "oth courts that the loan secured "#%ettoner ,T'/ wth co:%ettoners as suretes/ was %a#a"le on de!and. &es%ondent0sco!%lant could not "e consdered %re!ature. ;or could t "e sad to "e wthout suffcentcause of acton theren set forth. The judg!ent rendered "# the tral court s vald as asu!!ar# judg!ent/ and ts affr!ance "# the 'ourt of A%%eals.

G.R. No. 1%5% O$obe6 1, -'

ASSOCIATED BANga#a Montano *the Montanos+ owned three *3+ %arcels of

land stuated n 'avte. Gustnano was then servng as congress!an for the lone dstrct of

'avte and as !nort# floor leader. ,hen the countr# was under !artal law/ Gustnanowent to the =nted Ctates of A!erca *=CA+ to avod the harass!ent and threats !adeaganst h! "# the dctator. ,hle stll n the =CA/ the Montanos transferred the sad%ro%ertes to Tres 'ruces Agro:Industral 'or%oraton *T'AI'+ n e@change for shares ofstoc( n the co!%an#/ allowng the Montanos to control 98O of the stoc(holdngs of T'AI'.Thus/ on the certfcates of ttle regstered n the na!e of the Montanos were cancelled and

were re%laced wth transfer certfcates of ttle *T'Ts+ n T'AI'0s na!e.

A #ear later/ T'AI' sold the %ro%ertes to Internatonal 'ountr# 'lu"/ Inc. *I''I+ for6//.. The sale resulted n the cancellaton of the ttles of T'AI'/ and n thertransfer to I''I. I''I !!edatel# !ortgaged the %arcels of land to 't)ens $an( andTrust 'o. *later rena!ed as Assocated $an(+ for 2//..The loan !atured "ut

re!aned un%ad/ %ro!%tng Assocated $an( to foreclose the !ortgage. The %ro%erteswere then %ut on %u"lc aucton and were sold for /7/. to Assocated $an(/ thesole and hghest "dder. wnersh% over the sad %ro%ertes was consoldated "#Assocated $an( and/ new T'Ts were ssued n ts na!e.

Montanos returned to the countr#. After dscoverng the transfer of the %ro%ertes/the Montanos !!edatel# too( %h#scal %ossesson of the sa!e and "egan cultvatng theland.Montanos fled an acton for reconve#ance of ttle aganst heren %ettoner/ %ra#ng/ nsu!/ that the transfer of the %ro%ertes fro! T'AI' to I''I/ and fro! I''I to Assocated$an(/ "e declared null and vod.

ISSUES1. ,hether t s %ro%er to fle a !oton to ds!ss after an answer has alread# "eenfledF

2. ,hether the co!%lant should "e ds!ssed on the grounds set forth theren.

HELD1. n the %ro%ret# of the !oton to ds!ss

31


32/51

It s/ therefore/ nconse-uental that %ettoner had alread# fled an answer to theco!%lant %ror to ts flng of a !oton to ds!ss. The o%ton of whether to set the case for%rel!nar# hearng after the flng of an answer whch rases affr!atve defenses/ or to flea !oton to ds!ss rasng an# of the grounds set forth n Cecton 1/ &ule 16 of the &ulesare %rocedural o%tons whch are not !utuall# e@clusve of each other. Moreover/ as

%ettoner correctl# %onted out/ res%ondents faled to o%%ose the !oton to ds!ss des%tehavng "een gven the o%%ortunt# to do so "# the &T'. Therefore/ an# rght to contest thesa!e was alread# waved "# the!.

2. n whether the co!%lant for reconve#ance should "e ds!ssed

In ther co!%lant for reconve#ance/ res%ondents alleged that the transfer of the three%arcels of land fro! T'AI' to I''I was facltated through threat/ duress and nt!datone!%lo#ed "# certan ndvduals. n ts face/ the co!%lant clearl# states a cause of actonand rases ssues of fact that can "e %ro%erl# settled onl# after a full:"lown tral. n thsground/ %ettoner0s !oton to ds!ss !ust/ %erforce/ "e dened. owever/ the &T'0s rulngthat the acton has alread# %rescr"ed was not correct. The &T'/ however/ see!ed to have

overloo(ed the fact that the "ass of res%ondents0 co!%lant for reconve#ance s not fraud"ut threat/ duress and nt!daton/ allegedl# e!%lo#ed "# Marcos0 crones u%on therelatves of the Montanos whle the latter were on self:e@le. In fact/ fraud was nethers%ecfcall# alleged nor re!otel# !%led n the co!%lant.

The four:#ear %rescr%tve %erod !ust/ "e rec(oned fro! the sad date. Thus/ whenres%ondents fled ther co!%lant for reconve#ance on Ce%te!"er 1/ 1989/ the %erod%rovded for "# law had not #et %rescr"ed. Therefore/ %ettoner0s !oton to ds!ss should"e dened.

G.R. No. 1(--)- A*+*s$ 1), -(

PER


33/51

res. Thus/ n such nstance/ e@traterrtoral servce of su!!ons can "e !ade u%onthe defendant.

The sad e@traterrtoral servce of su!!ons s not for the %ur%ose of vestng thecourt wth jursdcton/ "ut for co!%l#ng wth the re-ure!ents of far %la# or due%rocess/ so that the defendant wll "e nfor!ed of the %endenc# of the acton aganst

h! and the %oss"lt# that %ro%ert# n the hl%%nes "elongng to h! or n whchhe has an nterest !a# "e su"jected to a judg!ent n favor of the %lantff/ and hecan there"# ta(e ste%s to %rotect hs nterest f he s so !nded. There was no%ro%er servce of su!!ons/ "ecause the terrtoral servce of su!!ons was not%ro%er for acton n %ersona! and the attach!ent of the %ro%ert# does notconsttutes or even convert t nto -uas n re!.

2. It s %ro%er venue for cvl case "ase on 5str"uton Agree!ent t was st%ulatedthat f ds%ute arses t wll "e resolved ether n Cnga%ore or n the hl%%nes.

G.R. No. 135-)3 J*ne %, -3

MIGUELITO B. LIMACO, ROGELIO LIMACO, JR., !n2 ISIDRO LIMACO, @e$9$9one6s,vs.SHONAN GAaguna.

&es%ondent fled a !oton to ds!ss on the ground of lts %endenta. ettonerso%%osed contendng that the nstant co!%lant for s%ecfc %erfor!ance was served onres%ondent ahead of the servce of the co!%lant for rescsson on %ettoners. >ater/however/ res%ondent wthdrew ts !oton to ds!ss n vew of the order of the &T' ofMa(at ds!ssng the co!%lant for rescsson. In ts Answer wth 'ountercla!/ res%ondentalleged "# wa# of affr!atve defense that s%ecfc %erfor!ance s not %oss"le "ecause

the res%ondent had alread# "ought another %ro%ert# whch s untenanted/ devod of an#legal co!%lcatons and now converted fro! agrcultural to non:agrcultural %ur%ose naccordance wth 5A& Ad!nstratve rder.

Thereafter/ %ettoners fled a Moton to ,thdraw 'o!%lant consderngres%ondents s%ecal defense that s%ecfc %erfor!ance was no longer %oss"le. The#%ra#ed that ther co!%lant and res%ondents countercla! "e ordered wthdrawn ords!ssed/ argung that res%ondents countercla! would have no leg to stand on as t was

33


34/51

co!%ulsor# n nature.

ISSUE,hether res%ondents countercla! should "e ds!ssed.

HELDThere are two wa#s "# whch an acton !a# "e ds!ssed u%on the nstance of the

%lantff. rst/ ds!ssal s a !atter of rght when a notce of ds!ssal s fled "# the %lantff"efore an answer or a !oton for su!!ar# judg!ent has "een served on h! "# thedefendant. Cecond/ ds!ssal s dscretonar# on the court when the !oton for theds!ssal of the acton s fled "# the %lantff at an# stage of the %roceedngs other than"efore servce of an answer or a !oton for su!!ar# judg!ent. ,hle the ds!ssal n thefrst !ode ta(es effect u%on the !ere notce of %lantff wthout need of a judcal order/ thesecond !ode re-ures the authort# of the court "efore ds!ssal of the case !a# "eeffected. Ths s so "ecause n the ds!ssal of an acton/ the effect of the ds!ssal u%onthe rghts of the defendant should alwa#s "e ta(en nto consderaton.

In the case at "ar/ t s unds%uted that %ettoners fled a Moton to ,thdraw'o!%lant after res%ondent alread# fled ts answer wth countercla!. In fact/ the reason forther !oton for wthdrawal was the s%ecal defense of res%ondent n ts answer thatsu"sttuton was no longer %oss"le as t alread# "ought another %ro%ert# n leu of thesu"ject lots under the contract. It s/ therefore/ ne@%lca"le how %ettoners could argue thatther co!%lant was successfull# wthdrawn u%on the !ere flng of a Moton to ,thdraw'o!%lant when the# the!selves alleged n ths %etton that %rvate res%ondent o"jectedto the wthdrawal and the Tral 'ourt sustaned the o"jecton.

G.R. No. 13'5 J!n*!64 -1, -3

LAGRIMAS PACA7AGON8ALES, !s one o# $e e96s o# L*9!no P!!!, @e$9$9one6,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS !n2 MANUEL CARBONELL PHUA,6es@on2en$s.

FACTSC%ouses A!arllo regstered owners of su"ject lot 7746 located n 'e"u/ t was

conve#ed to Manuel 'ar"onell hua and A!arllo0s ttle was cancelled. More than a decadelater hers of acaRa cla! the lot and fled a co!%lant for ;ullt# of Ttle and Annul!ent of5eed of Cale. Cu!!ons together wth the co!%lant was served to the s%ouses A!arllo"ut not to the hua who was un(nown at hs gven address at Calnas 'o!%ound >ahug/'e"u 't#. Cervce of su!!ons to hua "# %ostal servce was served "ut the sa!e faled/then su!!ons "# %u"lcaton was resorted. It was %u"lsh once a wee( for *3+ threeconsecutve wee(s.

;o answer recevd "# hua wthn regle!entar# %erod. The &T' declared h! ndefault and the hers of acaRa were allowed to %resent ther evdence e@%arte. 5ecson

was served aganst the defendant "# %u"lcaton and the &egster of 5eeds of 'e"u 't#ssue a new transfer certfcate of ttle to acaRa.

hua fled for annul!ent of judg!ent n 'ourt f A%%eals/ "ecause when the casewas fled "# the acaRa he dd not receve an# su!!ons "ecause he was outsde thecountr#. 'A granted the %etton and the &T'0c decson were declared null and vod/ forlac( of jursdcton over the %erson.

ISSUE

34


35/51

1. ,hether or not the servce of su!!ons to hua was vald.2. ,hether or not the %u"lsher s of general crculaton.3. ,hether or not &T' ac-ure jursdcton.

HELD1. In rule 14 C


36/51

1. The &egonal Tral 'ourt was correct for non ad!ttance of hs *%ettoner0s+ answer"ecause t was fled late or "e#ond the regle!entar# %erod.

2. The &egonal Tral 'ourt was correct for not grantng h! the co%# of orders/"ecause when the &T' send the co%es to hs last (nown address he was not foundn the address.

3. Cervce "# %u"lcaton was %ro%er "ecause he was not found n hs last (nownaddress and s t s %ro%er "ecause accordng to rule&ule 14 *on Cu!!ons+ of the&ules of 'ourt %rovdesHCa"or Ar"ter of ;atonal >a"or &elaton 'o!!sson. rvate res%ondent fled a Moton for&econsderaton/ an e@%arte to wthdraw !oton for reconsderaton of the ds!ssal.&enstate!ent "e deleted.

ISSUES1. ,as the !oton for reconsderaton vald

2. ,as the court has jursdcton to decde the case

HELD1. The flng of the !oton for reconsderaton nterru%ted the runnng of the 1 da#

regle!entar# %erod/ ts wthdrawal left res%ondent n e@actl# the sa!e %oston asthe no !oton had "een fled at all/ t erases the tollng of regle!entar# %erod.

2. ;atonal >a"or &elaton 'o!!sson has the e@clusve jursdcton to decderegardng an# la"or ds%utes/ whle the &T' has the jursdcton and the effectve!eans and also the ade-uate tool for arrvng at a just accurate assess!ent ofda!ages.

G.R. No. 1%(%3' Se@$e=be6 1%, -)

EDIN N. TRIBIANA, @e$9$9one6,vs.LOURDES M. TRIBIANA, 6es@on2en$

FACTS

36


37/51

ourdes fled her o%%oston to


38/51

vod. Cervce of su!!ons u%on the heren %ettoner s essental n order for the court toac-ure jursdcton over hs %erson.

ettoner s no longer resdng and found n the hl%%nes. As he left for the =ntedCtates. ence/ su!!ons !a# "e served on h! ether %ersonall# or "# %u"lcaton.owever/ snce the co!%lant fled aganst h! s one n %ersona! *a %ersonal acton+ and

does not nvolve the %ersonal status of the %rvate res%ondent/ nor an# %ro%ert# n thehl%%nes n whch %ettoner has a cla!/ or an nterest/ or whch the %rvate res%ondenthas attached/ su!!ons should "e served on h! %ersonall#. The de%ut# sherff can notserve the su!!ons "# su"sttuted servce.

G.R. No. 1)'1%- M!4 ', --

JOSEPHINE B. NG !n2 JESSE NG, @e$9$9one6s,vs.

SPOUSES MARCELO !n2 MARIA FE SOCO, !n2 MARVIN J. SOCO, 6es@on2en$s.FACTS

ettoners fled a co!%lant for accountng/ njuncton/ and da!ages wth wrt of%rel!nar# njuncton and te!%orar# restranng order aganst the res%ondent. ettoners

were the owners of Go0s 'hc(en $ar"e-ue *'hc(en Inato+ secret rec%e/ and that the sadrec%e s used "# %ettoner0s chan of restaurants n so!e ctes n ?sa#as and Mndanao.The# "oth entered nto a %artnersh% agree!ent that f ther %artnersh% dssolved onaccount for dsagree!ent and ownersh% thereof shall revert "ac( to %ettoners.

ettoners learned that Magno arca o%eratng a restaurant and that was !erel#used as a du!!# "# res%ondents n order to evade ther contractual o"lgaton. ettoner

fled wth the Tral court a !oton to ad!t a!ended co!%lant to !%lead arca as one ofthe defendants.

ISSUEThe onora"le 'ourt of A%%eals gravel# erred n holdngH that the a!ended

co!%lant whch !erel# see(s to nclude the du!!# of the res%ondents could not "ead!tted "ecause %ettoners theor# of the case s there"# changed and "ecause saddu!!# s not an nds%ensa"le %art#

HELDor!al and su"stantal a!end!ents to a %leadng !a# "e !ade at an#t!e "efore

a res%onsve %leadng has "een fled. Cuch a!end!ent s a !atter of rght. Thereafter/ and

durng tral/ a!end!ents !a# onl# "e done wth the %er!sson of the court.

The 'ourt has nvara"l# held that a!end!ents are not %ro%er and should "edened when dela# would arse/ or when a!end!ents would result n a change of cause ofacton or theor# of the case/ or would "e nconsstent wth the allegatons n the orgnalco!%lant. The court a quodened %ettoners a!ended co!%lant u%on fndng that t wllsu"stantall# alter the cause of acton or defense or theor# of the case

A/ALA LAND, INC.,petitioner,vs.

HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, 9n 9s !@!9$4 !s P6es929n+ J*2+e, RTCI=*s, B6!n-, ASB REALT/ CORP., !n2 E. M. RAMOS & SONS, INC., respondents.

FACTSAC$ &ealt# 'or%oraton alleged that


39/51

receved a letter fro! the chldren of

lantff AC$ su"se-uentl# fled a Moton/ for >eave to ta(e test!on# "# de%ostonu%on oral e@a!naton of I fled a Manfestaton and Moton%ra#ng that the date set "e cancelled and re:scheduled to another date. The tral courtreset the hearng.

I. AC$ fled ts &e%l#. A>I thereafter fled ts &ejonder and AC$ts Cur:rejonder. The tral court ssued ts rder settng asde the o%%oston of A>I andad!ttng n evdence the de%oston of I agan elevated the case tothe 'ourt of A%%eals "# wa# of etton for &evew on Certiorari. the 'ourt of A%%ealsds!ssed the %etton for lac( of !ert. A>I fled a Moton for &econsderaton whch waso%%osed "# %rvate res%ondents AC$ and


40/51

ts rght to su"ject under a%%ro%rate test the assertons rased "# the wtness n hsde%oston.

G.R. No. 115- Dee=be6 1), 1''-

SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA, @e$9$9one6,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, GERTRUDES B. MAGISA, =!669e2 $o !n2!ss9s$e2 b4 PEDRO MAGISA, 6es@on2en$s.FACTS

ettoner Calvador 5. $r"onera/ fled a co!%lant for Annul!ent of 5ocu!ent and5a!ages/ wth %ra#er for %rel!nar# njuncton andKor te!%orar# restranng order aganst%rvate res%ondent ertrudes $. Mag:sa/ wth the &egonal Tral 'ourt of asg. In due

t!e/ %rvate res%ondent ertrudes $. Mag:sa/ as defendant/ fled her answer/ after ssuesn the case had "een joned/ %ettoner served on the %rvate res%ondent Mag:sa a re-uestfor ad!sson

ettoner fled a Moton for su!!ar# Gudg!ent/ cla!ng that the Answer to&e-uest for Ad!sson was fled "# %rvate res%ondents "e#ond the ten *1+ da# %erodf@ed n the re-uest and that the answer was not under oathF that/ conse-uentl# the %rvateres%ondents are dee!ed to have ad!tted the !ateral facts and docu!ents su"ject of there-uest for ad!sson. The %rvate res%ondents fled an o%%oston to the !oton forsu!!ar# judg!ent/ whle the %ettoner fled a re%l# to sad o%%oston.

The %ettoner thereu%on fled wth the 'ourt of A%%eals a %etton for certiorari/

%roh"ton and $anda$usto annul and set asde the order of the court a quo/ allegng thatthe sad order was ssued wth grave a"use of dscreton a!ountng to lac( of jursdcton.The 'ourt of A%%eals ds!sses the %etton. ettoners !oton for reconsderaton havng"een l(ewse dened.

ISSUE,hether or not the a%%ellate court erred n holdng that the !atters of fact and the

docu!ents re-uested to "e ad!tted are !ere reteratons andKor re%roductons of thosealleged n the co!%lant.

HELD

e cla!s that the !ateral facts and docu!ents descr"ed n the re-uest forad!sson are relevant evdentar# !atters su%%ortve of hs cause of acton. e furtherargues that the %rvate res%ondents have !%ledl# ad!tted the !ateral facts anddocu!ents su"ject of the re-uest for ad!sson on account of ther falure to answer there-uest for ad!sson wthn the %erod f@ed theren/ and for sad answer not "eng underoath.

The %etton cannot "e u%heldF the %ettoners contentons are devod of !ert.

The !ateral !atters and docu!ents set forth n the re-uest for ad!sson are thesa!e as those set forth n the co!%lant whch %rvate res%ondents ether ad!tted ordened n ther answer. t wll "e noted that the re-uest for ad!sson was not served u%on

the %rvate res%ondent Mag:sa "ut u%on her counsel/ Att#. Alfredo A. Alto. rvateres%ondent Mag:sa/ therefore/ cannot "e dee!ed to have ad!tted the facts anddocu!ents su"ject of the re-uest for ad!sson for havng faled to fle her answer thereto

wthn the %erod f@ed n the re-uest. The %etton should "e/ as t s here"#/ 5


41/51

G.R. No. 13)55. J*"4 -5, -3

LUDIG H. ADA8A,petitioner,vs.SANDIGANBA/AN :$e F96s$ DIVISION o=@ose2 o# J*s$9es GREGORIO S. ONG,CATALINO R. CASTANEDA, JR. !n2 FRANCISCO H. VILLARU8, JR. !n2 THE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 6e@6esen$e2 b4 SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE,respondents.

FACTS5e%art!ent of u"lc ,or(s and ghwa#s *5,+ of 1st5strct of Ba!"oanga del

;orte awarded to arents and Teachers Assocaton *TA+of Manawan ;atonal ghCchool *M;C+ a contract for the constructon of a school "uldng at an agreedconsderaton of 111/319.. =%on the co!%leton of the %roject/ TA faled to receve thelast nstall!ent %a#!ent a!ountng to 2/847.17.

TA %resdent el@ Mejorda *Mejorda+ was nfor!ed "# a)el eRaranda/ 5, 'asher/that the chec( for 2/847.17 had "een released to >udwg . Ada)a *Ada)a+.

Cu"se-uentl#/ Mejorda found out that ac(nowledgng rece%t of the chec( "ears hs na!eand sgnature whch was not hs. e l(ewse notced that Ada)aWs sgnature was aff@ed onthe voucher. 5urng that t!e/ Ada)a was !unc%al !a#or of Gose 5al!an. =%one@a!naton of 5$ 'hec( ssued to %a#ee/ Mejorada notced that there were twosgnatures at the dorsal %orton of t/ hs forged sgnature and another whch he found to "ethat of Arstela Ada)a *Arstela+/ wfe of Ada)a.

The ffce of the !"uds!an fled two Infor!atons aganst Ada)a. TheCadgan"a#an found Ada)a gult# of the offense charged. It thereafter ssued a $ench,arrant of Arrest. ence/ the flng of ths %etton.

ISSUE

,hether or not Candgan"a#an has jursdcton over the falsfcaton case aganst Ada)awhch was not n relaton to hs %oston as !unc%al !a#or

HELDIn the nstant case/ there s no showng that the alleged falsfcaton was co!!tted

"# the accused/ f at all/ as a conse-uence of/ and whle the# were dschargng/ offcalfunctons. The nfor!aton does not allege that there was an nt!ate connecton "etweenthe dscharge of offcal dutes and the co!!sson of the offense. . . .

'learl# therefore/ as the alleged falsfcaton was not an offense co!!tted nrelaton to the offce of the accused/ t dd not co!e under the jursdcton of theCandgan"a#an. It follows that all ts acts n the nstant case are null and vod ab initio.

CALIFORNIA AND HAAIIAN SUGAR COMPAN/ PACIFIC GULF MARINE, INC. !n2C.F. SHARP & COMPAN/,petitioners,vs.PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURET/ CORPORATION, respondent.

FACTSM? DC=A& IC>A;5


42/51

the ground that res%ondent0s cla! s %re!ature/ the sa!e "eng ar"tra"le. rvateres%ondent fled ts %%oston thereto and %ettoners fled ther &e%l# to %%oston. &T'ssued an rder deferrng the hearng on the Moton to 5s!ss untl the tral and drectng%ettoners to fle ther Answer. ettoner !oved to reconsder "ut s dened "# &T' on theground that t was a !atter of defense whch the# !ust %rove wth ther evdence.

ISSUES1.,hether or not nsurer/ as su"rogee of the consgnee/ s "ound "# the charter

%art# whch s ncor%orated and referred to n the "ll of ladng.2. ,hether or not the !oton to ds!ss should "e granted on the ground that a

condton %recedent has not "een co!%led wth/ "ased on the ar"traton clausencor%orated n the "ll of ladng.

3. ,hether or not the 'ourt of A%%eals erred n holdng that the tral court dd notco!!t grave a"use of dscreton n den#ng %ettoners0 !oton for %rel!nar# hearng.

4. ,hether or not the tral court can defer the resoluton of a !oton to ds!ss onthe ground that the ground reled u%on s ndu"ta"le.

. ,hether or not the %ettoners have resorted to an !%ro%er re!ed# whch!a(es the! res%ons"le for dela#ng the case.E

In the denal of %ettoners0 Moton for rel!nar# earng.

HELDrst IssueH Preli$inary /earing o# A##ir$ative 0e#ense

At the outset/ we !ust e!%has)e that the cru@ of the %resent controvers# s the tralcourt0s rder den#ng %ettoner0s Moton to Cet for rel!nar# earng the affr!atvedefense of lac( of cause of acton. ;ot -uestoned here s the sad court0s rder holdng na"e#ance the hearng of %ettoner0s Moton to 5s!ss.

A##ir$ative 0e#ense May 1e aisedIn the %resent case/ however/ the tral court dd not categorcall# resolve %ettoners0

Moton to 5s!ss/ "ut !erel# deferred resoluton thereof.

Indeed/ the %resent &ules are consstent wth Cecton / &ule 16 of the %re:1997&ules of 'ourt/ "ecause "oth %resu%%ose that no !oton to ds!ss had "een fledF orn thecase of the %re:1997 &ules/ f one has "een fled/ t has not been unconditionally denied.ence/ the ground nvo(ed !a# stll "e %leaded as an affr!atve defense even f thedefendant0s Moton to 5s!ss has "een fled "ut not defntel# resolved/ or f t has "eendeferred as t could "e under the %re:1997 &ules.

0enial o# the Motion #or a Preli$inary /earing 2as a 3rave Abuse o# 0iscretionThe !ore crucal -ueston that we !ust settle here s whether the tral court

co!!tted grave a"use of dscreton when t dened %ettoners0 Moton for a rel!nar#

earng on ther affr!atve defense of lac( of cause of acton. =ndena"l#/ a %rel!nar#hearng s not !andator#/ "ut su"ject to the dscreton of the tral court. In the lght of thecrcu!stances n ths case/ though/ we fnd that the lower court co!!tted grave a"use ofdscreton n refusng to grant the Moton. ,e note that the tral court deferred the resolutonof %ettoners0 Moton to 5s!ss "ecause of a sngle ssue. It was a%%arentl# unsure

whether the charter %art# that the "ll of ladng referred to was ndeed the $alt!ore $erthran 'harter art# su"!tted "# %ettoners.

'onsderng that there was onl# one -ueston/ whch !a# even "e dee!ed to "e thever# touchstone of the whole case/ the tral court had no cogent reason to den# the Motonfor rel!nar# earng. Indeed/ t co!!tted grave a"use of dscreton when t dened a%rel!nar# hearng on a s!%le ssue of fact that could have %oss"l# settled the entre

case. ?erl#/ where a %rel!nar# hearng a%%ears to suffce/ there s no reason to go on totral. ne reason wh# doc(ets of tral courts are clogged s the unreasona"le refusal to usea %rocess or %rocedure/ l(e a !oton to ds!ss/ whch s desgned to a""revate theresoluton of a case.

G.R. No. 1331 A*+*s$ 1, -)

42


43/51

JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., INC., @e$9$9one6,vs.S@o*ses SUHARTO MANGUDADATU !n2 MIRIAM SANGandol Internatonal 'o./ Inc. *G>I+.The %ettoner had countered wth a Moton to 5s!ssF "ut when ths was dened/ t fled tsAnswer. The %artes su"!tted ther res%ectve retral $refs. Tral %roceeded wthout the%artc%aton of %ettoner/ had led the tral court to declare t n default. ettoner receved aco%# of the &T'0s 5ecson. t fled an !n"us Moton for ;ew Tral and 'hange of ?enue.Ths Moton was dee!ed su"!tted for resoluton "ut was eventuall# dened "# the tralcourt. ettoner receved a co%# of a ,rt of


44/51

defendant0s re!ed# s a !oton for reconsderaton. An affdavt of !ert s not re-ured to"e attached to such !oton/ "ecause the defense has alread# "een lad down n theanswer.

In the %resent case/ %ettoner dd not fle a !oton for reconsderaton after the tralcourt had allowed res%ondents0 e@ %arte %resentaton of evdence. The &ules of 'ourt does

not %roh"t the flng of a !oton for a new tral des%te the avala"lt# of a !oton forreconsderaton. $ut the falure to fle the latter !oton :: wthout due cause :: s a factor ndeter!nng whether to a%%l# the l"eralt# rule n lftng an order that allowed the e@ %arte%resentaton of evdence. In ts !otons and %ettons fled wth ths 'ourt and the lowercourts/ %ettoner dd not e@%lan wh# t had faled to fle a !oton for reconsderaton.The la%se of t!e t shows the neglgence of %ettoner and ts counsels.

-on+eceipt o# the 6rderettoner fals to convnce us that t has not receved the tral court0s rder den#ng

ts Moton for ;ew Tral. There s a ds%uta"le %resu!%ton that offcal dutes have "eenregularl# %erfor!ed. n ths "ass/ we have ruled that the %ost!aster0s certfcaton %revalsover the !ere denal of a law#er. Ths rule s a%%lca"le here. ettoner has faled to

esta"lsh ts non:rece%t of the tral court0s rder den#ng ts Moton for ;ew Tral.

*2+ Cecond Issue!he !a.ing o# 0epositions

The %resent case nvolved a crcu!stance that fell under the Cecton 4*c+*2+ of &ule23 :: the wtnesses of %ettoner n Metro Manla resded "e#ond 1 (lo!eters fro! Cultanudarat/ the %lace of hearng. ettoner offered the de%ostons n su%%ort of ts Moton toJuash *the ,rt of


45/51

ISSUE,hether the 'ourt of A%%eals gravel# a"used ts dscreton when t ds!ssed

outrght %ettoners0 %etton for revew on the sole techncal ground that t does not contanthe affdavt of servce as re-ured "# Cecton 11 n relaton to Cecton 13/ &ule 13 of the1997 &ules of 'vl rocedure.

HELDCectons 3 and / &ule 13 of the 1997 &ules of 'vl rocedure/ as a!ended/

%rescr"e two !odes of flng and servce of %leadngs/ !otons/ notces/ orders/ judg!entsand other %a%ers. These areH *a+ "# %ersonal delver#/ governed "# Cecton 6 of the sa!e&uleF and *"+ "# !al/ under Cecton 7 thereof. owever/ Cecton 11 of &ule 13 re-uresthat Dwhenever %ractca"le/E the flng of %leadngs and other %a%ers n court/ as well as theservce of sad %a%ers on the adverse %art# or hs counsel/ !ust "e done D%ersonall#.E $ut fsuch flng and servce were through a dfferent !ode/ the %art# concerned !ust su"!t aDwrtten e@%lanatonE wh# the# were not done %ersonall#.

There s no -ueston that %ettoners volated Cecton 11 of &ule 13 "# falng toa%%end the affdavt of servce to ther %etton for revew fled wth the 'ourt of A%%eals.

ettoners/ u%on rece%t of the 'ourt of A%%eals0 challenged &esoluton ds!ssng outrghtther %etton due to such o!sson/ %ro!%tl# fled a !oton for reconsderaton/ readl#ac(nowledgng ther %rocedural la%se and attachng therewth the re-ured affdavt ofservce. &ules of %rocedure !ust "e fathfull# followed e@ce%t onl# when for %ersuasvereasons/ the# !a# "e rela@ed to releve a ltgant of an njustce not co!!ensurate wth hsfalure to co!%l# wth the %rescr"ed %rocedure.

G.R. No. 1)(%)'. Feb6*!64 1%, -)

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORIT/

VS.ALA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

FACTSThe contract for the structural re%ar and water%roofng of the IT and I'T "uldng

of the ;AIA ar%ort was awarded/ after a %u"lc "ddng/ to res%ondent A>A. &es%ondent!ade the necessar# re%ar and water%roofng. After su"!sson of ts %rogress "llngs tothe %ettoner/ res%ondent receved %artal %a#!ents. rogress "llng re!aned un%addes%te re%eated de!ands "# the res%ondent. Meanwhle %ettoner unlaterall# rescndedthe contract on the ground that res%ondent faled to co!%lete the %roject wthn the agreed

co!%leton date. &es%ondent o"jected to the rescsson !ade "# the %ettoner andreterated ts cla!s. The tral court drected the %artes to %roceed to ar"traton. $oth%artes e@ecuted a co!%ro!se agree!ent and jontl# fled n court a !oton for judg!ent"ased on the co!%ro!se agree!ent.

The 'ourt a -uo rendered judg!ent a%%rovng the co!%ro!se agree!ent. or%ettoner0s falure to %a# wthn the %erod st%ulated/ res%ondent fled a !oton fore@ecuton to enforce ts cla!. ettoner fled a co!!ent and attr"uted the dela#s to ts"eng a govern!ent agenc#. The tral court dened the res%ondent0s !oton. &eversng thetral court/ the 'A ordered t to ssue a wrt of e@ecuton to enforce res%ondent0s cla!. Thea%%ellate court ratocnated that a judg!ent rendered n accordance wth a co!%ro!seagree!ent was !!edatel# e@ecutor#/ and that a dela# was not su"stantal co!%lance

therewth.

ISSUES1+ ,hether or not decson "ased on co!%ro!se agree!ent s fnal and

e@ecutor#.2+ ,hether or not dela# "# one %art# on a co!%ro!se justfes e@ecuton.

HELD

4


46/51

1. A co!%ro!se once a%%roved "# fnal orders of the court has the force of resjudcata "etween the %artes and should not "e dstur"ed e@ce%t for vces of consent orforger#. ence/ a decson on a co!%ro!se agree!ent s fnal and e@ecutor#. Cuchagree!ent has the force of

Documents

Civ Pro Cases by Jean Pango