Jereka Rose B.

Mercado Civil Procedure

Case Digest on Introduction
Singson vs. Larrazabal
The appeal of the petitioner under Rule 43 was dismissed by the CA for several
technical defects which violate some procedural rule. The petitioner contends that the
said dismissal is not justified. Supreme Court held that procedural rules is designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases so court and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide
strictly by the rules. However, SC also stressed that every party litigant must be afforded
the fullest opportunity to properly ventilate and argue his or her case, "free from the
constraints of technicalities”. Hence, the error of the petitioner does not justify the
grounds for the said dismissal.

Mateo vs. DAR

Despite the knowledge on rejection of just compensation, respondents failed to
initiate summary administrative proceeding on the said matter prior at the time the
Mateos filed their suit before the SAC. The respondent contends that the said action
should be dismissed since it is still premature without the summary administrative
proceeding, it violates the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedy. The Court
ruled that while it recognizes the primacy of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies in our judicial system, it bears emphasizing that the principle admits of
exceptions, among which is when there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
irretrievably prejudices a complaint. DAR's delay and inaction had unjustly prejudiced
the Mateos and precluding them from filing a complaint before the SAC shall result in an
injustice, which the law never intends. Hence, the CA erred in dismissing the complaint
of the Mateos.

Jose vs. Javellana.

The Court meanwhile adopted the fresh period rule in Neypes v. Court of
Appeals, by which an aggrieved party desirous of appealing an adverse judgment or final
order is allowed a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the
RTC reckoned from receipt of the order denying a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration, pending the finality of the herein case. The Petitioner contends that
Javellana filed his notice of appeal out of time according to Sec. 3 Rule 41 of Rules of
Court. However, the Court held that fresh period rule may be applied to this case, for the
Court has already retroactively extended the fresh period rule to "actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person
who may feel that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as there are no vested rights in rules
of procedure. Hence, the notice of appeal of Javellana was not filed out of time.
Guyamin et. al. vs. Flores
The respondents filed an action to recover the land from the petitioner. However,
petitioner contends that the case should be dismissed since there was no official demand
that was made by the Flores. The Court petitioners raise purely procedural questions and
nothing more. In other words, petitioners aim to win their case not on the merit, but
on pure technicality.  Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights
of the other party. Hence, the procedural lapses of Flores does not render their claim
premature or invalid.

Panay Railways vs. Heva Management

The present Petition stems from the dismissal by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Iloilo City of a Notice of Appeal for petitioner's failure to pay the corresponding
docket fees. Petitioner contends that SC Circular No. 48-2000, which make non-payment
of docket fee cause of dismissal, should not be given retroactive effect. The Court held
that Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered applicable to
actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. Procedural laws and rules are
retroactive in that sense and to that extent. Hence, the RTC committed no error in
dismissing herein case on the said ground.

Martos, et. al. vs. San Jose Builders, Inc.

Petitioner failed to verify their complaints, except Matos. The petitioners asked on
whether they can invoked liberal construction of the rule. The Court held that iberal
construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some
excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not
subvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable attempt at
compliance with the rules. Considering that the dismissal of the other complaints by the
LA was without prejudice, the other complainants should have taken the necessary steps
to rectify their procedural mistake after the decision of the LA was rendered. Hence,
liberal construction cannot be applied with the herein case.

Rivera-Pascual vs. Sps. Lim

The petitioner and her counsel failed to comply with the necessary requirement on
the documents to be filed with the court that cause the CA to dismiss their case. They
claimed that the CA erred in dismissing the petition base on the said technical grounds.
The SC ruled that the CA did not err in dismissing Consolacion’s petition before it on the
ground of petitioner’s unexplained failure to comply with basic procedural requirements
attendant to the filing of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Notably, Consolacion and her counsel remained obstinate despite the opportunity
afforded to them by the CA to rectify their lapses. Absent valid and compelling reasons,
the requested leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules appears to be
an afterthought, hence, cannot be granted. The CA saw no compelling need meriting the
relaxation of the rules.

SM Land, Inc. vs. City of Manila

Petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the Rules of Court requiring
verification and submission of a certificate of non-forum shopping on their claim for tax refund.
The petitioners contends that the court should view their reason for their error as compelling to
justify the relaxation of the rules requiring verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
The Court ruled that the nullity of assailed Tax Ordinances upon which petitioners were
previously taxed, makes petitioners' claim for tax refund clearly meritorious. On this basis,
petitioners’ meritorious claims are compelling reasons to relax the rule on verification and
certification of non-forum shopping. It must be kept in mind that while the requirement of the
certification of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless, the requirements must not be
interpreted too literally and, thus, defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of
forum shopping.

Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago

Pinga and Saavedra were sued by Santiago for unlawfully entering their coco
farm, Pinga then submitted an Answer with Counterclaim asking for 2 Million Pesos. In
the trial case filed by Santiago, Pinga failed to present evidence thus prompting the RTC
to dismiss the petition for counterclaim, this was then elevated to the Court by Rule 45.
The Court said that The constitutional faculty of the Court to promulgate rules of practice
and procedure necessarily carries the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of
remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court. One of the notable changes
introduced in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the explicit proviso that if a complaint
is dismissed due to fault of the plaintiff, such dismissal is "without prejudice to the right
of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action."

BP Oil vs. Total Distribution

BP Oil is a Singaporean Company who contracted with Total Distribution to act
as their exclusive agent for the sales of distribution of the latter, when Total failed to
reach the quota, BP informed them that they will look for another agent and asked for the
due payments in which Total agreed with 10 Million compensation that escalated to 40
million pesos before they release the 36 Million Profit of BP Oil. RTC ruled in favor of
BP, while CA ruled in favor of Total which prompted both to appeal to the SC. SC ruled
in the said case even though it is not a court trier of facts because this case involves an
exception, as said: Generally, the Rules of Court require that only questions of law should
be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. This court is not a trier of facts. It will not
entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are "final,
binding, or conclusive on the parties and upon this court" when supported by substantial
evidence. Factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed on
appeal to this court, except if there is conflicting ruling of the lower and appellate court.

De Lima vs Guerrero
The DOJ panel filed 4 different complaints against Sen. Leila De Lima over drug
charges, De Lima in turn filed a motion to dismiss such complaints, while still pending
CA recommended the filing of the information against De Lima, after that DOJ Panel
already issued an arrest warrant against her. De Lima then filed an appeal directly to SC,
contending that since her motions are not yet resolved, she did not submit a counter
affidavit, such appeal is frowned upon. The Court ruled the doctrine that requires respect
for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure that every level of the
judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner. Nonetheless,
there are recognized exceptions to this rule and direct resort to this Court were allowed in
some instances and De Lima’s case was not one for exceptions. Thus, rendering her
appeals null.

Audi vs. Mejia

An instant petition for certiorari was file by the petitioner directly to the SC. The
petitioner contends that the SC has the original jurisdiction on the said petition. The
Court ruled that Petitioner, by filing directly with this Court its petition, has ignored the
established rule on hierarchy of courts. It must be stressed that the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. Such
rule is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's precious time and
attention which are better devoted to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to
prevent further overcrowding of the Court's docket. Thus, petitioner should have filed
with the Court of Appeals its petition, not directly with this Court.

COMELEC vs. Quijano-Padilla

An instant petition for certiorari was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General
after the issuance by the RTC Judge of the second assailed Resolution denying the
COMELEC’s Omnibus Motion and, this time, granting PHOTOKINA’s application for a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. PHOTOKINA filed a Comment with Motion to
Dismiss on the ground that the petition violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The
Supreme Court ruled that anent the alleged breach of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,
suffice it to say that it is not an ironclad dictum. On several instances where the Supreme
Court was confronted with cases of national interest and of serious implications, it never
hesitated to set aside the rule and proceed with the judicial determination of the case. The
case at bar is of similar import where it involves the disbursement of public funds and the
modernization of our country’s election process, a project that has long been overdue. It
is in the interest of the State that questions relating to government contracts be settled
without delay.

De Castro vs. Carlos

De Castro filed the petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto seeking to
oust respondent Emerson Carlos from the position of assistant general manager for
operations (AGMO) of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)
directly with the Supreme Court citing urgent demands of public interest, particularly the
veritable need for stability in the civil service and the protection of the rights of civil
servants. The issue in the instant case was whether or not a presidential appointee can file
a petition for quo warranto under Rule 66 directly with the Supreme Court. The SC ruled
in the negative citing that although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court is not exclusive but is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals
and regional trial court and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum. A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the
outright dismissal of a petition.

Sinter Corporation vs. Cagayan Electric Power

To restrain the execution of the ERB Decision, PSC and PIA filed a complaint for
injunction against CEPALCO with the Regional Trial Court. The petitioner contends that
injunction lies against the final and executory judgment of the ERB. The Court ruled
that an injunction to stay a final and executory decision is unavailing except only after a
showing that facts and circumstances exist which would render execution unjust or
inequitable, or that a change in the situation of the parties occurred. Herein case failed to
provide the said exception. To disturb the final and executory decision of the ERB in an
injunction suit is to brazenly disregard the rule on finality of judgments. 

Omictin vs. Court of Appeals

The authority of the petitioner to demand the return of a vehicle is being
challenged pending the proceeding for Estafa. The CA contends that SEC should rule on
the validity of the petitioner’s appointment and the dissolution of Saag Phils. first to
determine the existence of Estafa. The Court ruled that court cannot or will not determine
a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question demands the exercise of sound...
administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services in
determining technical and intricate matters of fact. Hence, SEC should assume first the
primary jurisdiction to settle the herein case.

Republic vs. Lacap

COA disapproved the final release of funds for the payment of the contractor on
the ground that the contractor's license of respondent had expired at the time of the
execution of the contract which leads to the respondent to file a case before the RTC.
COA contends that the case should be dismissed claiming that they have the primary
jurisdiction on the case. The Court ruled that doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound
public policy and practical considerations is not applicable with the herein case. The
COA performed an unreasonable delay or official inaction that irretrievably prejudice the
complainant.

Abad vs. RTC of Manila

The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Philippines American General
Insurance Company, Inc. (PHILAMGEN) for the enforcement of contract and recovery
of loss of money basically praying for, among other things, payment of the money value
of the respective accumulated sick leave with pay of the separated employees of
respondent company either thru retirement, retrenchment or resignation. RTC of Manila
motu proprio dismissed the complaint, declaring that it lacked jurisdiction over the
subject matter, being money claims arising from employer-employee relations. Art. 217
of the Labor Code provides that the same is within the jurisdiction of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiters (LAs). The issue in the case at bar
is whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the monetary claim of labor. The Supreme Court
ruled in the negative stating that following the judicial reorganization, CFIs / RTCs no
longer have jurisdiction over aforesaid monetary claims of labor. The rule of adherence
of jurisdiction until a cause is finally resolved or adjudicated does not apply when the
change in jurisdiction is curative in character.