CIVIL PROCEDURE

ST. THOMAS MORE SCHOOL OF LAW AND BUSINESS

RULES
1. 1997 Revised Rules of Court (Rules 1-5 and 36-56)
2. A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) (Rules 6
to 35)
3. A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule)
4. A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (Efficient Use of Paper Rule)
5. 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
6. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases)
7. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts)-April 1,
2022.
8. Republic Act No. 1576 (An Act Further Expanding the Jurisdiction of MeTCS, MTCCS,
MTCs and MCTCs) (Signed into law on July 30. 2021. Will take effect 15 days following its
publication)

SUBSTANTIVE LAW VS. PROCEDURAL LAW

SUBSTANTIVE LAW PROCEDURAL LAW

· Creates, defines or regulates rights · Are provisions prescribing the

concerning life, liberty, property or the method by which substantive rights
powers of agencies or instrumentalities may be enforced in courts of justice.
for the administration of public affairs
· Can be waived or subject to the
· Cannot be waived. agreement of the parties.

REMEDIAL LAW
Bustos vs. Lucero
G.R. No. L-2068 [1948]
SC: It is a branch of law that prescribes the methods of enforcing rights and obligations created
by substantive law. It provides a procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion of
rights and violations of duties. It also prescribes rules as to how suits are filed, tried and decided
upon by the courts.

WHO REGULATES THE LAWS/RULES?

· For Substantive Law - Congress
· For Procedural Rules (Rules of Court) - Supreme Court

POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO AMEND AND SUSPEND PROCEDURAL RULES

Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago
G.R. No. 170354 [2006]
SC: The Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules of practice and procedure
and the amend o repeal the same necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial
precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court.

CIVIL PROCEDURE
· Provides for the manner by which civil claims are prosecuted, from filing to trial, judgment,
appeals and executions.
· Civil Procedure is covered by Rules 1 to 56.
· Other portions of the Rules of Court pertain to:
a. Provisional Remedies
b. Special Civil Actions
c. Special Proceedings
d. Evidence
e. Admission, Disbarment or Discipline of Judges

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

Source: Art. VIlI, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution
“The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
XXX XXX XXX
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.”

LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE-MAKING POWER

1. The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases;
2. The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade;
3. The rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

COURT
Q: What is a Court?
A: Is an entity or body vested with a portion of judicial power (Lontoc vs. Battung, 63 Phil. 1054)

Q: Why only a portion?

A: This is because the Constitution provides that "the judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such other lower courts as may be established by law." (Art. VIll, Section
1, 1987 Constitution).

CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS
Courts may be classified as:
1. Superior and Inferior (First-level Courts)
2. Courts of Original Jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction
3. Civil Courts and Criminal Courts
4. Courts of Laws and Courts of Equity
5. Constitutional Courts and Statutory Courts

SUPERIOR COURTS VS. INFERIOR COURTS

SUPERIOR COURTS INFERIOR COURTS
 · Otherwise known as Courts of · Otherwise known as Courts of
General Jurisdiction. Those which Special or Limited Jurisdiction.
take cognizance of all kinds of cases, Those which take cognizance of
whether civil or criminal, and posses certain, specified cases only.
supervisory authority over lower courts.

· Cognizance of all kinds of cases + · Limited + No supervisory authority

Supervisory Authority.

SUPERIOR COURTS VS. INFERIOR COURTS

Q: What court is superior? Inferior?
A: It depends on the viewpoint. From the viewpoint of the Constitution, there is only one
superior court which is the Supreme Court.
From another viewpoint, the CA and RTC may also be treated as superior
courts as they have supervisory authority over other courts
MTC is categorized as a first-level court as no other court is under it.

Q: Is the Lupong Tagapamayapa a court?

A: No.

ORIGINAL COURTS VS. APPELLATE COURTS

ORIGINAL COURT APPELLATE COURT

· The court where a commenced. · A court where a case is reviewed or

elevated.

CIVIL COURTS VS. CRIMINAL COURTS

CIVIL COURT CRIMINAL COURT

· Those which take cognizance of civil · Those which take cognizance of

cases only. criminal cases only.

COURTS OF LAW AND COURTS OF EQUITY

COURT OF LAW COURT OF EQUITY

· Tribunals that administer the law of · Tribunals which rule according to

the land precepts of equity or justice. (A.K.A.
Courts of Conscience)

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT VS. STATUTORY COURT

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT STATUTORY COURT

· Court created by the Constitution. · Created by law or congress.

(Ex. Supreme Court) (Ex. MTC, RTC and CA)

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction - is derived from two Latin words "Juris"' (law) and "Dico (to speak or say)." "/
speak by the law." The power of the court to hear, try and decide a case. In its complete aspect,
jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and decide a case but also the power to
enforce the judgment (14 Am. Jur. 363-364)

Q: What is the effect if the court has no jurisdiction?

A: It has no power or authority to try a case. Without jurisdiction, the trial is null and void as well
as the Judgment.

CONFERMENT AND DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION

Q: How is jurisdiction conferred?
A: It is conferred by law
Q: How is jurisdiction ascertained?
A: Whether a court has jurisdiction over an action brought to it is ascertained from and
determined upon the ultimate material facts pleaded in the complaint.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION
1. Original vs. Appellate
2. General vs. Special
3. Exclusive vs. Concurrent

ORIGINAL VS. APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL APPELLATE

· Is the power of the court to take · Is the power vested in a superior

cognizance of a case at its inception or court to review and revise the judicial
commencement. One can file the case action of a lower court.
for the first time.
· Refers to court where a case is
· Refers to court where a case arises reviewed.

GENERAL VS. SPECIAL JURISDICTION

GENERAL SPECIAL

· Courts which take cognizance of all · Those which can take cognizance of
cases, civil or criminal, of a particular special jurisdiction for a particular
nature, or courts whose judgment are purpose, or are clothed with special
conclusive until modified or reversed powers for the performance of specified
on direct attack, and which are duties, beyond which they have no
competent to decide on their own authority of any kind.
jurisdiction.

EXCLUSIVE VS. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

EXCLUSIVE CONCURRENT
 · Held by courts that have jurisdiction · Held by courts which have
over a subject matter to the exclusion jurisdiction over the same subject
of other courts. matter and within the same territory and
wherein litigants may in the first
instance resort to either court
indifferently. The court obtaining
jurisdiction first retaining it to the
exclusion of the others.

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

· The judicial system follows a ladderized scheme which in essence requires the lower
courts to initially decide on a case before it is considered by a higher court.

Santiago vs. Vasquez

G.R. Nos. 99289-90 [1993]
SC: A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts

Baritua vs. Mercader

G.R No. 136048 [2001)
SC: The doctrine means that once jurisdiction has attached to the court, it cannot be ousted by
the happening of subsequent events, although of a character which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired,
retains that jurisdiction until finally disposes of the case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY

· This principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with
each other's orders.
· This principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a
co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.

CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION/ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION

Baritua vs. Mercader
G.R. No. 136048 [2001]
SC: Once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events,
although the event is of such character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching
in the first instance. Once jurisdiction has been acquired by the court, it retains that jurisdiction
until it finally disposes of the case.

Gen. Rule: A law enacted during the pendency of a case which transfers jurisdiction to another
court does not affect cases prior to its enactment.

Exceptions:
1. When the new law expressly provides for retroactive application
2. When the change of jurisdiction is curative in character (Vda. De Ballesteros vs. Řural Bank
of Canaman, G.R. No. 176250, 2010)

ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Jurisdiction over the person or parties to the case
3. Jurisdiction over the res
4. Jurisdiction over the issues

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

- Is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 291)
- In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of the action.

Meaning of Subject Matter

Sps. Ley vs. Union Bank of the. Philippines
G.R. No.167691 [April 3, 2007]
SC: Subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning
which the wrong has been done, and it Is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under
dispute.

Gen. Rule: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be acquired by
agreement of the parties, waiver or failure to object to the same. When the court has no
jurisdiction, it has the power to dismiss the case.

Exception: When there is estoppel by laches as laid down in Tjiam vs. Sibonghanoy (April 15,
1968)

Rule: Jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceeding even for
the first time on appeal.

Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined?

A: By the allegations in the complaint. It does not depend upon the pleas or defense of the
defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss (Cardenas vs. Cardenas, L-19191, July 30, 1962)

Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter of the Action

● Any judgment, order or resolution issued without jurisdiction is void and cannot be given
any effect. This rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time
on appeal or even after final judgment (Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 171542, 2011).

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

· Is the power to render personal judgment through the service of process or by voluntary
appearance of a party during the progress of a cause which will bind the parties to the case.

· Jurisdiction over the person in civil vs. criminal cases.

Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person in civil cases?

A: It depends on the party. If it is the plaintiff, it is acquired from the moment he files a complaint
(MRR Co. vs. Attorney-General, 20 Phil. 253) If it is the defendant, it is acquired (1) upon
service on him of coercive process in the manner provided by law, or (2) by his or her voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired:

a. Valid service of summons
b. By voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (voluntary appearance).
 Rapid City vs. Villa
G.R. No. 184197 [February 11,2010]
SC: If there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant by virtue of the latter's voluntary appearance.

Exception: Special appearance.

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT VS. JURISDICTION OVER

SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
THE DEFENDANT MATTER

· Lack of jurisdiction may be cured by · Cannot be cured by failure to object

waiver, consent, silence or failure to or by silence, waiver or consent.
object.

JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

Res - Latin word for “thing.”

Q: A and B quarreled about a piece of land. What is the res of the case?
A: The land

Q: C is an illegitimate child. She filed a case against her father for compulsory
recognition. What is the res?
A: The status of C.

Jurisdiction over the res - is that acquired by the court over the property or thing in
contest, and is obtained by seizure under legal process of the court whereby it is held to abide
such order as the court may make.

Q: How is jurisdiction over the res acquired?

A: By the following:
1. Actual or constructive seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into
the custody of the law; or
2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective (Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No.
161417, 2007)

Gomez vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 127692 [2004]
SC: If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not
required. What is required is jurisdiction over the res, although summons must be served upon
the defendant in order to satisfy the requirements of due process.

El Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca

G.R. No. L-11390 [March 26, 1918]
SC: In cases where jurisdiction over the person of a defendant cannot be acquired, the
preliminary seizure is to be considered necessary in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court.
Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res important?
A: Because it can sometimes be used as a substitute for jurisdiction over the person. There
are instances when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant like
when he is abroad but if the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, the case may proceed.

JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

· Refers to the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the
parties (Reyes vs. Diaz, G.R. No. L-48754, 1941).

Issue - a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their
several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision

Q: How is it acquired?
A: It is acquired after the defendant has filed an answer.

Lam vs. Chua

G.R. No. 131286 [March 18, 2004]
SC: A court cannot set itself in motion, nor has it the power to decide questions except as
presented by the parties in their pleadings. Anything that is decided beyond them is coram
non-judice and void.

Buce vs. Court of Appeals

332 SCRA 151
SC: This jurisdiction (over the issues) means that the court must only pass upon issues raised
by the parties in their pleadings. Hence, if the issue raised by the parties is possession, the
court has no jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of ownership because it is not an issue in the
case.

JURISDICTION OVER THE REMEDIES

Zosa vs. Consilium, Inc.
G.R. No. 196765 [September 19, 2018]
SC: Fundamental is the rule that the provisions of the law and the rules concerning the manner
and period of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional requirements; hence, cannot simply be
discounted under the guise of liberal construction.

People vs. Hilario

G.R. No. 210610 [January 11, 2018]
SC: Post-judgment remedies, such as an appeal, is neither a natural right nor is a component of
due process. It is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law.

JURISDICTION VS. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Herrera vs. Barretto
25 Phil. 245
SC: The authority to decide a case, not the decision rendered, is what makes up jurisdiction. It
does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the
decision made. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the resolution of
all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction.

ERROR OF JURISDICTION VS. ERROR OF JUDGMENT

 ERROR OF JURISDICTION ERROR OF JUDGMENT

· Occurs when the court exercises a · Occurs when a court or tribunal

jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law clothed with jurisdiction commits
or when a court or tribunal acts in mistakes in the appreciation of the
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave facts and evidence leading to
abuse of discretion. erroneous judgment.

· Correctible by certiorari. · Correctible by appeal.

JURISDICTION VS. VENUE

Venue - is the place, or the geographical area where an action is to be filed and tried
Jurisdiction - is the power and authority of the tribunal to hear, try and decide a case.

Venue Jurisdiction

A matter of procedural law. 1 A matter of substantive law.

Establishes a relation between 2 Establishes a relation between the

plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner court and subject matter
and respondent.

May be conferred by the act or 3 Fixed by law and cannot be conferred

agreement of the parties by agreement of the parties

May be waived 4
Cannot be waived

HIERARCHY OF COURTS
Supreme Court
I
Court of Appeals
I
Regional Trial Courts
I
MeTCs/MTCs/MTCCs/MCTCs

a. Regular Courts
b. Special Courts
c. Quasi-Courts
i. Constitutional Commissions
ii. Quasi-Judicial Agencies
iii. Others

REGULAR COURTS
A. Trial Courts
i. MeTCS/MTCIMTCC and MCTC
ii. Regional Trial Courts*
B. Appellate Courts
i. Court of Appeals
ii. Supreme Court

SPECIAL COURTS
1. Court of Tax Appeals (R.A. 1125)
2. Sandiganbayan (P.D. 1486, as amended)
3. Shari'a District Courts and Shari'a Circuit Courts (P.D. 1083)
4. Family Courts

QUASI-COURTS
A. Constitutional Commissions
1. Civil Service Commission
2. Commission on Elections
3. Commission on Audit

B. Quasi-Judicial Agencies
1. Civil Service Commission
2. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (Appeals on property assessments by LGUs)
3. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (registration of corporations)
4. Office of the President
5. Land Registration Authority
6. Social Security Commission
7. Civil Aeronautics Board
8. Intellectual Property Office (Patents and Trademarks)
9. National Electrification Administration
10. Energy Regulatory Board
11. National Telecommunications Commission
12. Department of Agrarian Reform (Tenancy and land distribution)
13. Government Service Insurance System
14. Employees Compensation Commission
15. Insurance Commission
16. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
17. Board of Investments
18. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
19. Ombudsman
20. National Labor Relations Commission
21. Bureau of Immigration
22. Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board/Department of Human Settlements and Urban
Development
23. National Commission on Indigenous People

C. Others
1. National Police Commission
2. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
3. Professional Regulation Commission
4. Department of Trade and Industry
5. Bureau of Mines

QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY
United Coconut Planters Bank vs. E. Ganzon, Inc.
 591 SCRA321
SC: A quasi-judicial agency is an organ of the government other than a court and other than
legislature, which affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rule-making.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Baviera vs. Paglinawan
515 SCRA 171 [2007]
SC: Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal when the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring specialized knowledge and expertise of said administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Delos Reyes vs. Hon. Flores
March 5, 2010
SC: Courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence

SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
a. Original
i. Original and Exclusive
ii. Original and Concurrent
b. Appellate

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Source: Article VII, Section 5 (Pars. 1 and 2) of the 1987 Constitution

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public

ministers and consuls, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus,
quo warranto and habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
or rules of court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation is in question.
(RTC to SC)

b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto.

c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;

d. All criminal cases in which the penally imposed is reclusion perpetua or

higher;* (See: People vs. Mateo, G R. No. 147678 [July 7, 2004)

e. All cases in which an error or question of law is involved.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

A. Original and Exclusive
Petitions for the Issuance of Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus against:
1. Court of Appeals
2. Commission on Elections

3. Commission on Audit
4. Sandiganbayan
5. Court of Tax Appeals

B. Original and Concurrent

With the Court of Appeals
1. Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against:
a. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
b. Civil Service Commission (CSC)
c. Quasi-judicial agencies
d. RTC and lower courts

2. Petitions for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan

Note: This is subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

With the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and RTC

1. Petition for writ of amparo;
2. Petition for writ of habeas data.

Note: For a petition for writ of habeas data, the action may be fled with the
Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of government offices.

With the Court of Appeals and RTC

1. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto;
2. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against
lower courts or bodies;
3. Petitions for issuance of writ of continuing mandamus in environmental
cases.

With the Regional Trial Courts

Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

Note: Under RA. 10660. the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction in criminal cases involving
officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Appellate
1. Appeal by Notice of Appeal
In criminal cases where:

a. The CA renders a judgment imposing reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment,

or a lesser penalty, the judgment is appealable to the SC by notice of
appeal filed with the CA (Dungo vs. People, G. R. No. 209464 [July 1,
2015])
 b. The Sandiganbayan decides case the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
the notice of appeal shall be filed with the Sandiganbayan and served upon
the adverse party.

2. Appeal by Certiorari/Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45)

In civil cases involving:

a. Appeals from the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, involving
pure questions of law;

b. Appeals from the following, involving questions of law, fact, or both:

i. Court of Appeals
ii. Court of Tax Appeals, en banc; and
iii. Sandiganbayan

c. Appeals in the following cases involving questions of law, fact, or both:

i. Petition for a writ of amparo

ii. Petition for a writ of kalikasan
iii. Petition for a writ of habeas data

In criminal cases where:

a. The Court of Appeals renders a judgment imposing reclusion perpetua, life

imprisonment, or a lesser penalty, and the appeal raises pure questions of
law.

b. The Sandiganbayan decides a case in the exercise of its appellate

jurisdiction, involving pure questions of law, fact, or both.

3. Special Civil Action of Certiorari within thirty (30) days [Rule 64]

Decision, order or ruling of:

1. Commission on Elections;
2. Commission on Audit

4. Appeal by Automatic Review

In criminal cases:

a. Whenever the CA finds that the penalty of death should be imposed, the CA
shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and
forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court
for review.

b. Where the judgment of the CA also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses
committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same
occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty
of death is imposed, and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included
in the case certified for review to the Supreme Court.
 c. Whenever the Sandiganbayan, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
imposes the death penalty, the records of the case, together with the
stenographic notes, shall be forwarded to the SC for automatic review and
judgment.

COURT OF APPEALS
A. Original and Exclusive
Actions for Annulment of Judgments of the RTC on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction.

B. Original and Concurrent

1. With the Supreme Court

a. Petitions for the Issuance of Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

against:
i. NLRC (However, the petitions should be filed with
the CA; otherwise, the case will be dismissed.)
ii. CSC
iii. Quasi- Judicial Agencies (However, petitions should
be filed with the CA)
iv. RTC and Lower Courts

b. Petitions for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan

2. With the Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan and RTC

a. Petition for Writ of Amparo

b. Petition for Writ of Habeas Data
c. Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto
d. Petitions for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus against
lower courts or bodies
e. Petitions for the Issuance of Writ of Continuing Mandamus in Environmental Cases

C. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Regular
Appeals from RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction

2. Special
i. Appeals from CSC
ii. Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Agencies:

a. SEC
b. Office of the President
c. Land Registration Authority
d. Social Security Commission
e. Civil and Aeronautics Board
f. Intellectual Property Office
g. National Electrification Administration
h. Energy Regulatory Commission
i. National Telecommunications Commission
 j. DAR under RA 6657
k. GSIS
l. Employees' Compensation Commission
m. Insurance Commission
n. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
o. Board of Investments
p. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
q. Voluntary Arbitrators authorized by law
r. Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
s. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

Note: Judgments and final orders of the CTA en banc are now appealable to the SC through a
petition for review under Rule 45, pursuant to RA 9282

Additional Power of the CA (Last Paragraph of Section 9, BP blg. 129)

"The CA shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within
its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new
trials or further proceedings.”

Linger & Fisher vs. IAC

125 SCRA522
SC: The power of the Court of Appeals to receive evidence refers only to incidental facts which
were not 100% touched upon, or matters which were simply overlooked by the trial court.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Summary of Jurisdiction of the RTC

1. Original and Exclusive

2. Original and Concurrent
3. Appellate Jurisdiction

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

I. Original and Exclusive
1. Civil actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
2. Civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Four Hundred Thousand
(P400,000.00) Pesos*
3. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds Two
Million (P 2,000,000.00) Pesos*
4. Matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
Two Million (P 2,000,000.00) Pesos*
5. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
6. Actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations.
7. Civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Special Agrarian Courts as now provided
by law.
8. Other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy,
exceeds Two Million (P2,000,000,00) Pesos. *
Note: If the claim for damages is the main action, the amount thereof shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.

Other Cases:
a. Actions for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or for vacation, setting
aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award, and any application with a court for
arbitration assistance and supervision.

b. Action for determination of just compensation to land under the CARL

Il. Original and Concurrent

a. With the Supreme Court
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.

b. With the SC and CA

i. Issuance of Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition,
Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Habeas Corpus, and Injunction
which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions.

ii. Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Continuing

Mandamus in environmental cases.

c. With the SC, CA and Sandiganbayan

i. Petition for Writ of Amparo
ii. Petition for Writ of Habeas Data

B. Appellate Jurisdiction
Cases decided by the MeTC, MTC, MTCC and MCTC in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.

C. Special Jurisdiction
The SC may designate certain branches of the RTC to handle exclusively criminal
cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do
not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special
cases as the SC may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.

FAMILY COURTS
Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is 15 to less than 18 years old, or
where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense.
2. Petitions for Guardianship, Custody of Children, Habeas Corpus in relation to the
latter.
3. Petition for Adoption of Children or Revocation thereof.
4. Complaints for Annulment of Marriage, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and those
relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife, or those living with together
under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership or
gains.
5. Petitions for Support and/or acknowledgment.
 6. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of the Family Code of the
Philippines.
7. Petitions for Declaration of Status of Children as Abandoned Dependent, or Neglected
Children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases
cognizable under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, Authorizing the DSWD to take protective
custody of child prostitutes and sexually exploited children, and for other purposes.
8. Petitions for Constitution of the Family Home.
9. Cases against minors cognizable under R.A. 9165.
10. Violations of the Child Abuse Law.
11. Cases of Domestic Violence against Women and Children.

ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation - "cannot be expressed in terms of money."

Russel vs. Vestil

304 SCRA 745 [2005]
F: A complaint filed with the RTC for declaration of nullity and partition. It was alleged that a
deed of partition was executed by the respondents who later divided the properties among
themselves to the exclusion of the petitioners who are also heirs.

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the total assessed
value of the land subject matter of the case was only P 5,000.00 which, under BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691, falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
I: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

SC: Yes. The action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts
or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
The main purpose of the petitioners in filing the complaint is to declare null and void the
document in question. While the complaint also prays for the partition of the property, this is just
incidental to the main action.

Examples:
1. Specific Performance
2. Support
3. Foreclosure of Mortgage
4. Annulment of Judgment
5. Action questioning the validity of a mortgage
6. Annulment of Deed of Sale or Conveyance
7. Rescission of Contract
8. Declaratory Relief

Q: What if there are two (2) causes of action? For example, an action for declaration of
nullity and partition where the value of the property is at P5,000.00?

A: Determine the principal action or remedy being sought.

Q: What if the two or more causes of action are in the alternative?

A: Rule 2 provides that: "A party in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party subject to the following conditions:
xxx (c) where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues
or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of the said court and the venue lies therein.”

CASES FALLING WITHIN THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

Court of Agrarian Relations - formerly handled cases involving tenancy, agricultural leasehold
agreements, agricultural lands, etc. These cases are now transferred to the DAR under the
CARL (RA 6657)

Agrarian Cases left to the Jurisdiction of the RTC:

a. Payment of just compensation of properties taken under the CARL; and
b. Prosecution of criminal offenses for violation of the CARL,

JURISDICTION OF THE DARAB

Laresma vs. Abellana
G.R. No. 140973 [November 11, 2004]
SC: For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship
between the parties:

In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish
all its indispensable elements, to wit:

a. That the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
b. That the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land.
c. That there is consent between the parties to the relationship.
d. That the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production.
e. That there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee.
f. That the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee.

DAMAGES AND MONEY CLAIMS

"In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property exceeds P2,000,000.00.”

Mendoza Vs. Soriano

June 8, 2007
F: An action for damages arising from a case of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
Petitioner argued that the amount claimed by the respondents is within the jurisdiction of the
MTC. According to the petitioner, in order to determine the jurisdictional amount, the following
should be considered: P22,250 for funeral services, P45,000 for the burial lot, P15,150 for
interment and lapida, P8,066 for hospitalization and transportation, P28, 540 for food and drinks
during the wake, and P60,000 indemnity for the death of Soriano. She maintains that the sum of
P179,006
is below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC. Petitioner claims that the other amounts claimed
such as P200,000 for moral damages, P500,000 for lost income, P50,000 exemplary damages
and P25,000 attorney's fees plus P500 per court appearance be excluded.
I: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction,

SC: The RTC has jurisdiction. Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts, as in this case, are
primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the damages for the
tortious acts committed. In this case, respondents’ claim of P926,006 in damages and P25,000
attorney’s fees plus P500 per court appearance represents the monetary equivalent for
compensation of the alleged injury. These money claims are the principal reliefs sought by the
respondents in their complaint for damages.

The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount
under BP Blg. 129, as amended, applies to cases where damages are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main
action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.

Q: A boarded a passenger bus which met an accident. He sustained injuries and is claiming for
damages or breach of contract of carriage amounting to P5,000,000.00. Where will he file his
case?

A: RTC because the claim exceeded P2,000,000.00.

Q: X fled a case against Y to recover a piece of land worth P 100,000. X likewise sought for
damages in the amount of P3,000,000. Where will he file the case?

A: MTC. The claim for damages is merely incidental to the main action for recovery of land.

Ortigas & Co. Ltd vs. Herrera

120 SCRA 89 [1983]
SC: When a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of money upon
compliance with the latter of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith may what is
legally due him under the written contract be demanded, the action is not capable of pecuniary
estimation. Therefore, jurisdiction is with the RTC.

I: What if the complaint was entitled “for sum of money?"

SC: The title to the action is not determinative of jurisdiction of the court. The factual allegations
prevail over the designation of the complaint.

CASES NOT FALLING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL

"In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions.”

Ex. Annulment of judgment of MTCS.

Sandoval vs. Cañeba

190 SCRA 77 [1990]
SC: It is the HLURB not the RTC or MTC which has jurisdiction to hear a case involving
non-payment of installments over subdivision lots.

Machete vs. Court of Appeals

250 SCRA 176
SC: Collection of back rentals from leasehold tenants is an agrarian dispute which is exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.

Lupangco vs. Court of Appeals

160 SCRA 848 [1988]
F: Petitioners assailed Resolution No. 105 which was issued by the PRC prohibiting CPA
examinees to attend review classes and conferences because of reported leakages. Petitioners
sought for an injunction and declaration of the resolution as unconstitutional before the RTC.
PRC moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction as the case should be fled with the Court
of Appeals.

SC: Jurisdiction is with the RTC. The assailed resolution of the PRC was issued pursuant to its
purely administrative function. It was a measure to preserve the integrity of licensure
examination.

The authority of the CA to review resolutions of all quasi-judicial bodies pursuant to law does not
cover rules and regulations of general applicability issued by administrative body to implement
its purely administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105.

Jurisdiction of RTC falls under Par. 1 (incapable of pecuniary estimation) or Par. 6 (not within the
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasj-judicial functions.)

Note: Under E.O. 172, disputes between an operator or dealer and an oil company regarding
dealership agreements shall be under the jurisdiction of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB)

Bernardo vs. Calte Philippines

216 SCRA 17 J (1990]
SC: A dispute between an operator/dealer and an oil company is within the jurisdiction of the
RTC as the only issue is the manner by which Caltex shall perform its commitment to Bernardo.
The dispute arose out of their relationship as debtor and creditor.

INTRA-CORPORATE CONTROVERSIES
Under Sec. 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code, it is provided that the RTC has jurisdiction
over "Intra-corporate disputes, election and appointment of officers, petition for suspension of
payment and rehabilitation of corporations, partnerships or associations.”

GD Express Worldwide N.V. & Amihan Management vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 136978 [May 8, 2009]
SC: It must be emphasized that pursuant to Section 5.2 of RA. 8799, the SEC's jurisdiction over
intra-corporate controversies has been transferred to the RTC as Special Commercial Courts
designated by the Court pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC promulgated on 21 November 2000.

Examples:
a. Cases involving devices and schemes employed by or any acts of the BOD, business
associations, its officers o partnership, amounting to fraud of misrepresentation which may
be detrimental to the interest the public, and/or of the stockholders, partners, members of
associations organizations registered with the SEC.

b. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among

stockholder-members or associates, between any or all of them and the corporation or
partnership or associations of which they are stockholders, members or associations,
 respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar
as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity.

3. Controversies in the elections and appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of

such corporations, partnerships or associations.

4. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of

suspension of payments in case where the corporation, partnership or associations, possesses
sufficient property to cover all debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they
respectively fall due or in case where the corporation, partnership or associations has no
sufficient assets to cover liabilities, but is under the management of the rehabilitation receiver or
a management committee.

Atwel vs. Concepcion

G.R. No. 169370 (Apn1 14, 2008]
SC: To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy to be heard and
decided by the RTC, two (2) elements must concur. (a) the status or relationship of the parties
and (b) the nature of the question that is subject matter of their controversy.

The first element requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate or
partnership relations (a) between any or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, (b) between any or all of
them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members
or associates, and (c) between such corporation, partnership or associate and the State insofar
as it concerns their individual franchises.

The second element requires that the dispute among the parties be intrinsically
connected with the regulation of the corporation. If the nature of the controversy involves
matters that are purely civil in character, necessarily, the cases does not involve an
intra-corporate controversy.

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

MTC - MTCS/MeTC, MTCC and MCTC

Summary of Jurisdiction of MTCS

1. Original - Section 33 of B.P. BIg. 129

2. Delegated - Section 34 of B.P. Blg. 129
3. Special - Section 35 of B.P. Blg. 129

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF MTC

Source: B.P. Blg. 129 and R.A. No. 11576 (An Act Further Expanding the Jurisdiction of
MTCs)

Civil Cases
1. Civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate or
amount of demand does not exceed Two Million (P 2,000,000.00) Pesos, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
amount of which must be specifically alleged.
2. Actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein
where the assessed value of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four
Hundred Thousand " (P 400,000.0) Pesos exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared
for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value
of the adjacent lots.
3. In admiralty and maritime actions where the demand or claim does not exceed Two
Million (P 2,000,000.00) Pesos.
4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer regardless of the value of the property involved.*
5. Inclusion and exclusion of voters

Rule: Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties,
embodies in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in
all the causes of action irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or
different transactions.

Rule: Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees must be specifically alleged. They
shall likewise be included in the determination of filing fees.

DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF MTC

Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One Hundred Thousand (P
100,000.00) Pesos, such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax
declaration of the real property.

Note: These cases are assigned and not automatically designated.

Note: Judgments of MTCs in these cases are appealable to the CA.

SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC

In the absence of all RTC judges in a province or city:

a. Hear and decide petitions for writ of habeas corpus

b. Hear and decide applications for bail in criminal cases.

Note: Authorization from the SC no longer required.

COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION
It is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court (Rule 1, Section 5).
It can be instituted by the filing of the complaint by:

a. Personal filing
b. Registered mail
c. Accredited courier
d. Electronic mail
e. Other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court. (Sec. 3 in relation to Sec.14
[a], Rule 13)

Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor

G.R. No. 140954 [April 12, 2005]
SC: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment
of the prescribed docket fees that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of the action.

Sec. 5, Rule 1: When an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
commenced with regard to him on the date of fling of such later pleading.”

FILING FEES
· A complaint is not considered as filed unless the filing fees are paid.

Manchester Development Corp.vs.Court of Appeals

149 SCRA 562 [1987)
F: Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages and paid the necessary filing fees. He did not however
specify in his complaint the amount he was claiming and merely stated thereon that he is asking
for moral damages in such amount that the court will grant. Defendant questioned the fling as
according to him, the amount should be specified in order to determine the correct amount of
filing fees. The plaintiff thus amended his complaint and paid the balance of the filing fees.

I: W/N the amendment cured the defect

SC: No. The action should be dismissed. The court acquired no jurisdiction over the case and
the remedy of the plaintiff is to refile the complaint and pay again the correct amount of fees.
The prior payment is forfeited in as much as the defect in the first complaint is incurable.

Sun Insurance Office Ltd vs. Court of Appeals

170 SCRA 274 [1989]
SC: 1. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket
fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive period.
2. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the fling of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee, but subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same has been left for the determination
by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment.

FILING FEES OF CASES WITH TWO OR MORE CLAIMS

Tacay vs. RTC Tagum
180 SCRA 433 [1989]
F: The complaint filed was for recovery of land with damages.

I: How will the filing fees be assessed?

SC: Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages, the legal fees
shall be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the property, and (b) the total amount of
related damages sought.

FILING FEES
Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs Court of Appeals
171 SCRA674 [1989]
F: Dela Paz sued all oil companies in the Philippines for infringement of patent with prayer for
payment of reasonable compensation and damages. As for the filing fees, the court assessed
him the amount of P945,636.90. Since he had no money to pay, he questioned it. The court later
allowed Dela Paz to file the case on the condition that the docket fees shall be deducted to any
judgment award thereof.

SC: There is no such thing as file now, pay later. Filing fees are intended to take care of court
expenses in handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe
benefits of personnel, etc. The payment of said fees, therefore, cannot be made dependent on
the result of the action taken, without entailing tremendous losses to the government.

Suson VS. Court of Appeals

278 SCRAT 284 [August 21, 1997]
F: Plaintiff filed a case against the defendant in Leyte. After filing, the court dismissed the case
as the proper venue was Cebu. Plaintiff then wrote a letter the OCA asking that the docket fee
paid in Leyte be applied to the complaint filed in Cebu. The OCA granted plaintiff’s request.

SC: The OCA has neither the power or authority to exempt any party not otherwise exempt
under the law or under the Rules of Court in the payment of prescribed docket fees. In the case
at bar, plaintiff’s complaint cannot be deemed to have been refiled in Cebu because it was not
originally filed in the same court but in the RTC of Leyte. When his complaint was docketed by
the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Cebu, it became an entirely separate case from that dismissed
by the RTC of Leyte due to improper venue.

CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULES 1 TO 56 OF THE RULES OF COURT

APPLICATION
Rule: The Rules of Court shall apply to all courts.
Exception: Unless otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.

Cases where the Rules of Court do not apply:

a. Cases governed by Summary Rules
b. Cadastral Proceedings
c. Election cases
d. Land Registration Proceedings
e. Naturalization Proceedings
f. Insolvency Proceedings
g. Other cases not provided in the Rules of Court

Exception: By analogy or in a suppletory character or whenever practical or convenient.

CASES GOVERNED BY THE RULES

Rule: The Rules of Court shall govern the procedure to be observed in the following actions:
a. Civil
b. Criminal
c. Special Proceedings

Action - a formal demand of one's legal rights in a court of justice in a manner prescribed by the
court or by the law. It is governed by ordinary rules.

Civil Action - one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong
 Note: A Civil Action may be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules
on ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.

Criminal Action - one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.

Special Proceeding - a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, right, or a

particular fact.

Special Civil Action - It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection
of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong wherein it has special features not found in
ordinary civil actions

ACTION VS. SPECIAL PROCEEDING

ACTION SPECIAL PROCEEDING

· To protect a right or prevent or · To establish a status, right or

redress a wrong. (Civil Action) particular fact.
· To prosecute a person for an act or · Requires the application of specific
omission punishable by law. (Criminal rules as provided for in the ROC
Action) · Heard by courts of limited
· Ordinary rules supplemented by jurisdiction.
special rules · Initiated by an application and
· Heard by courts of general responded by an opposition.
jurisdiction
· Initiated by a pleading and
responded by an answer.

Heirs of Gabatan vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 150206 [March 13, 2009]
F: Filing of an ordinary civil action together with a special proceeding.

SC: The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in a proper
special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and
possession of property. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a
declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made
in a special proceeding.

Dr. Nixon L. Treyes vs. Antonio Larlar, et al

G.R. No. 232579 [September 8, 2020]
SC: The rule laid down in Ypon. Portugal, Reyos, Heirs of Gabatan vs. Court of Appeals, and
other similar cases, which requires a prior determination of heirship in a separate special
proceeding as a pre-requisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership
rights acquired by virtue of succession, is abandoned.

CLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL ACTIONS

A. As to Nature
1. Ordinary Civil Action
2. Special Civil Action
B. As to Cause or Foundation
1. Real Action
2. Personal Action
3. Mixed Action

C. As to Place of Filing
1. Local Action
2. Transitory Action

D. As to Object
1. Action in Personam
2. Action in Rem
3. Action Quasi in Rem

CLASSIFICATION AS TO NATURE
1. Ordinary Civil Action -- one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong.

2. Special Civil Action – one containing special features not found in ordinary civil actions.

Note: SCAs are actions falling under Rules 62 to 71 of the Rules of Court.

Rule: SCA are governed by ordinary civil actions, subject to specific rules (Rule 1, Section 3 [a]
[2]).

LIST OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER THE RULES OF COURT

1. Rule 62 - Interpleader
2. Rule 63 - Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
3. Rule 64 - Review of Judgments or Final Orders or Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA
4. Rule 65 - Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
5. Rule 66 - Quo Warranto
6. Rule 67 - Expropriation
7. Rule 68 - Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
8. Rule 69 - Partition
9. Rule 70 - Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
10. Rule 71 - Contempt

APPLICATION OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Amberti vs. Court of Appeals
195 SCRA 659 (1999)
F: A SCA for certiorari under Rule 65. Before the respondent could answer, petitioner withdrew
his petition. Later, the petitioner changed his mind and refiled the petition.

I: What is the applicable rule as regards actions filed under Rule 65 where the petition is
withdrawn before the respondent could submit an answer?

SC: There is NO provision in Rule 65 with regard to withdrawals of petitions

The withdrawal is with prejudice. The petition could no longer refile the case. "Certiorari similar
to appeal although it is really not an appeal. If the rule on appeal under Rule 50 would be
applied by analogy, it provides that if the appeal is withdrawn, the judgment appealed from will
become final and executory.

CLASSIFICATION AS TO CAUSE OR FOUNDATION

Importance of the classification: Venue

Real Action - action where the issue or subject matter involved is title, ownership, possession
or interest over a real property.

Ex. Accion publiciana, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, foreclosure of mortgage over real
property, partition of real property.

Personal Action - one which is not founded upon the privity of real rights or real property.

Ex. Actions for sum of money, damages, enforcement or resolution of a contract, recovery of
personal property.

Mixed Action - a mixture of real and personal actions. Those which pertain in some degree to
both real and personal and therefore are properly reducible to neither of them.

Ex: Recovery of land with damages. (See: Tacay Case)

RULES ON VENUE AS TO REAL ACTIONS

a. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court, which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

b. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the MTC of the
municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

RULES ON VENUE AS TO PERSONAL ACTIONS

a. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides; or
b. Where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides; or
c. In case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff

CLASSIFICATION AS TO THE PLACE OF FILING

a. Local Action - one which must be brought in a particular place where the subject property
is located unless there is an agreement to the contrary (Section 4, Rule 4).

b. Transitory Action - one which is dependent on the place where the party resides
regardless of where the cause of action arose . Subject to Section 4, Rule 4.

Note: Real actions are automatically local actions. Personal actions are transitory.

CLASSIFICATION AS TO OBJECT
a. Action in Rem - a proceeding to determine title, status or condition of property within its
borders.

b. Action in Personam - A proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought

against the person.
c. Action Quasi in Rem - A proceeding to subject the property of the named defendant or his
interests therein to the obligation or lien burdening it.
IN REM VS. IN PERSONAM VS. QUASI IN REM
Action in Rem Action in Personam Action Quasi in Rem

· A proceeding to bar · To impose through · Deals with the status,

indifferently All who the judgment of a court, ownership or liability of
might be minded to some responsibility or a particular property but
make any objection liability directly upon the which are intended to
against the right sought person of the defendant. operate on these
to be enforced, hence questions only as
the of the judgment · Directed against between the particular
therein is binding particular persons. parties to the
theoretically upon the proceedings and not to
whole world. · Judgment is binding ascertain or cut-off the
only upon the parties rights and interests of all
· Directed against the impleaded or their possible claimants.
thing itself instead successors-in-interests
against the person. but not upon strangers. · Directed against
particular persons with
· Judgment is binding · Jurisdiction over the respect to the res
upon the whole world. person of the defendant
is required. · Judgment will be
· Jurisdiction over the binding only upon the
person of the defendant 1. Specific performance litigants, their
is not required. 2. Breach of contract successors-in-interest,
3. Sum of money but the judgment shall
1. Probate proceedings damages be executed against a
2. Cadastral proceedings particular property. The
3. Land registration res involved will answer
proceedings for the judgment.

· Jurisdiction over the

person is not required
as long as jurisdiction
over the res is acquired.

1. Partition
2. Accounting
3. Attachment
4. Foreclosure of
mortgage

CLASSIFICATION AS TO OBJECT
The distinction between actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem is important in
determining the following:
a. Whether jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required; and
b. The type of summons to be employed
IMPORTANCE OF CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIONS
The following matters are dependent on the nature of the action:
a. The law on jurisdiction
b. The rules on venue and prescription
c. Defenses against the action
d. Payment of docket fees
e. Service of summons

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES

Gen. Rule: The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing
a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

Santos vs. Court of Appeals

198 SCRA 806
SC: Procedural rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but, indeed, to
provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner and at
the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they
acknowledge.

Exception: When the rule is intended precisely to minimize delay (strictly construed)

Ex. Filing of an Answer or Filing of an appeal.

RULE 2- CAUSE OF ACTION

Sec. 1. Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.

Cause of Action - is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another (Sec. 2,
Rule 2). It is also referred to as "the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to
judicial interference in his behalf."

Swagman vs. Court of Appeals

455 SCRA 175 [2005]

F: Plaintiff filed a complaint for sum of money which was assailed by the defendant as at the
time it was filed, none of the three (3) promissory notes was due although two (2) matured
during the pendency of the case.

SC: A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an
amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while
the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is therefore a groundless suit
which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion seasonably fled by the defendants.

ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Legal right in favor of the plaintiff
2. A Correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff; or
constituting a breach of the' obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff or which the latter may
maintain the pertinent action.
4. **Damage suffered by the plaintiff

Q: What is the effect if one of the elements is not present?

A: If one of the elements is absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action. (Development Bank of the Phils. vs. Silverio
Casillo, G.R. No. 163827, August 17, 2011.)

Note: The new rules deleted Rule 16.

CAUSE OF ACTION
Q: Why is it important that a complaint should state a cause of action?

A: Because simple justice demands that a defendant must know what the complaint him is all
about. (Virata vs. Sandiganbayan et al, G.R. No 114331, May 27, 1997)

Q: Of the four (4) elements, which is the most important?

A: The third element (violation) is the most important since it is only upon the occurrence of this
element that a cause of action arises

Q: ls cause of action required in all types of cases?

A: No. It is only required in Ordinary Civil Actions.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND RIGHT OF ACTION

Right of Action - Right of a plaintiff to bring an action and to prosecute that action until final
judgment (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil. 373).

Requisites:
a. A good cause of action.
b. Compliance with all the conditions precedent to the bringing of the action;
and
c. Right to bring and maintain the action must be in the person instituting it.**

Note: A right of action may prescribe (statute of limitation, estoppel or other circumstances
which do not affect the cause of action) but a cause of action will not.

TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE OF ACTION

Misamis Occidental II Coop. vs. David
G.R. No. 129928 [August 25, 2005]
Test: Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in
accordance with the prayer the complaint.

Gen. Rule: The sufficiency of the statement of cause of action must appear on the face of the
complaint, and its existence is only determined by the allegations of the complaint (Viewmaster
Construction vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 133576, July 13, 2000).

Exception: In some cases, the Court considered, in addition to the complaint, the appended
annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records (Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries Association vs. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, October 6, 2008).
Note: The truth or falsity of the allegations is beside the point because the allegations in the
complaint are hypothetically admitted. (PNB vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121251, June 26,
1998)

ONE SUIT FOR SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION RULE

Sec. 3. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.

Sec. 4. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the
fling of one or judgment upon the merits in any one is available as ground for the
dismissal of the others.

Splitting of Cause of Action - is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into
several parts or claims and bringing several actions thereon (Quadra vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 147593, July 31, 2006). This practice, which applies not only to complaints but also to
counterclaims and cross-claims, is discouraged.

REMEDIES AGAINST SPLITTING CAUSE OF ACTION

The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on either of the following grounds:
a. Litis Pendentia - there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause; or
b. Res judicata - if the first action has already been terminated – “that the cause of action
is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations.”

Note: Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping have similar elements. If there is litis pendentia,
move for dismissal on the ground of forum shopping.

TESTS TO DETERMINE SINGLENESS OF CAUSE OF ACTION

It is determined by the singleness of the delict or wrong committed by the defendant and not by
the number of remedies that the law grants the injured party. (Ex. Breach of contract with
remedies of specific performance or rescission, Non-payment of loan with remedies of
foreclosure or collection of the loan)

a. Evidence - Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and
second causes of action (Same Evidence Test)

b. Defenses - Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint
in the other.

c. Existence - Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing of
the first complaint (Umale vs. Canoga Park Development, G.R. No. 167246, July 20, 2011)

Application: Contracts
Rule 1: A contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be violated only once,
even if it contains several stipulations (Quiogue vs. Bautista, February 28, 1962)

Rule 2: A contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at different times
gives as rise to as many causes of actions as there are violations (Larena vs. Vilanueva, 53
Phil. 923)
Rule 3: All obligations which have matured at the time of the suit must be integrated as one
cause of action in one complaint, and those not so included would be barred. (Larena vs.
Vilanueva, 53 Phil. 923)

Rule 4: When the failure to comply with one of several stipulations in a continuing contract
constitutes a total breach (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp., 55 Phil. 226)

DOCTRINE OF ANTICIPATORY BREACH

· An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract, though the performance thereof
is not yet due, may, if the renunciation goes into the whole contract, be treated as a
complete breach which will entitle the injured party to bring his action at once.

Ex. When the defendant will claim forgery or deny his signature in a contract containing
several stipulations which are to be performed at different times.

RULE AGAINST SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION

Rationale:
a. Breeds multiplicity of suits
b. Clogs court dockets
c. Leads to vexatious litigation
d. Operates as an instrument of harassment
e. Generates unnecessary expenses to the parties

JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

Sec. 5. "A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of
action as he may have against an opposing party subject to the following conditions.”

Joinder of Causes of Action - is the provision of the Rules which allows a party to join in one
pleading two or more causes of action against the opposing party. It is the process of uniting two
or more demands or rights of action in one action.

Principle: A plaintiff cannot file more than one case when he has only one cause of action but
the law allows the plaintiff to file one case for more than one cause of action.

HOW MAY CAUSES OF ACTION BE JOINED?

1. Alternatively - exists when the cause of action is against either one or the other
defendant. The plaintiffs not seeking relief from both.

2. Cumulatively - exists when the plaintiff is seeking relief from both.

REQUISITES OF JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

1. The party shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties (Sec. 6, Rule 3):
a. Right to relief exists in favor of or against several persons;

b. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transaction;

and

c. There is a common question of law or fact.

2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules.
3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues
or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided on of the causes of action
falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and

4. Totality Test: Where the claims in all causes of action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test for jurisdiction.

JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

Rule: A joinder of causes of action is only permissive, not compulsory; hence a party may desire
to file a single suit for each of his claims.

Q: A sued B and C in one complaint in the RTC of Tagum, the cause of action against B being
an overdue promissory note for P5,000,000.00 and that against C being an alleged balance of
P50,000.00 on the purchase of goods sold on credit. Does the RTC of Tagum have jurisdiction
over the case?

A: No. For a joinder of causes of action against several defendants to be proper, the joinder
must comply with the rules on joinder of parties under Sec. 6 of Rule 3. This rule requires that
the causes of action joined should arise out of the same transactions and there exists a
question of law or facts common to both.

MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

· This happens when to or more causes of action were joined in one complaint when they
should not be joined.

· This is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on
motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately
by filing a motion in relation thereto.

· However, if the plaintiff refuses to sever the misjoined cause of action, the complaint may
be dismissed pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules
on Civil Procedure.

RULE 3 - PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Q: Who may be parties to a civil action?
A: (1) Natural persons

(2) Juridical persons

a. The State and its political subdivisions
b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose,
created by law; and
c. Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to
which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of
each shareholder, partner or member (Art. 44, NCC)

3. Entities authorized by law

a. Corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying its existence and the
members thereof can be sued and be held liable as general partners (Sec.
21, Corporation Code)
 b. A contract of partnership having a capital of P300,000.00 or more but which
fails to comply with the registration requirements is nevertheless liable as a
partnership to third persons (Art. 1772 in relation to Art. 1768, NCC).

c. Estate of a deceased person (Limjoco vs Intestate Estate of Fragrante, April

27, 1948)

d. A legitimate labor organization may sue and be sued in its registered name
(Art. 242 [e], Labor Code of the Philippines)

e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as to its properties, the
archbishop or diocese to which they belong (versoza vs. Hernandez,
November 22, 1926); and

f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it

provided that the suits:
i. Occur within three (3) years
after its dissolution; and
ii. The suits are in connection
with the settlement and closure of its affairs (Sec.
112, Corporation Code).

REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
Sec. 2. A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise
authorized by law or the Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party-in-interest.

Ex. In an action for recovery of land, file the complaint against the owner thereof and not its
tenant.

Gen. Rule: In an action for breach of contract, the real parties-in-interest are the parties thereof.

Exception: Stipulation Pour Autrui. (A stipulation in favor of a third person e.g. TPL)

REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
Salonga vs. Warner Barnes
88 Phil. 125 [Bar]
SC: An attorney-in-fact cannot use his own name in the complaint as he is not the real
party-in-interest. (A plaintiff, represented by B, attorney-in-fact vs. C, defendant).

Rural Bankers vs. Tanghal-Salvaña

G.R. No. 175020 [October 4, 2007]
F: Only one of the three petitioners is the real party-in-interest.
I: Valid?
SC: No. To give due course to the petition would condone, and even encourage, the shotgun or
trial-and-error approach, leaving it to chance that, the appeal may be given due course to at
least one of them.

RULE 3 - PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Ejercito, et al vs. M.R. Vargas Construction
 G.R. No. 172595 [Apri 10, 2008]
SC: A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the
personality of the owner of the enterprise. The law does not vest separate legal personality on,
the sole proprietorship or empower it to file a defend an action in court.' Hence, the injunction
suit may be instituted against its owner.

Litonjua Group of Companies vs. Vigan

G.R. No. 143723 [June 28, 2001]
SC: The Litonjua Group of Companies cannot be a party to this suit for it is not a legal entity
with juridical personality but it merely a generic name used to describe collectively the various
companies in which the Litonjua family has business interest.

ACTION IF THE PARTY IS NOT AUTHORIZED

It can be raised as an affirmative defense based on the following grounds:

1. Plaintiff not authorized - the ground that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue (Section
12 [a], Rule 8 of the Rules).

2. Defendant not authorized - the ground that the "pleading asserting a claim states no cause
of action." (Section 12 [a], Rule 8 of the Rules)

Note: A complaint cannot possibly state a cause of action against one who cannot be a party to
a civil action.

LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE VS. LACK OF LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE

LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE LACK OF LEGAL PERSONALITY TO
SUE

· Refers to plaintiff’s general disability · The plaintiff’s not the real

to sue such as on account of minority, party-in-interest.
insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical
personality or any other general · Remedy: File Answer and raise as
disqualifications of a party. (Columbia an affirmative defense that the
Pictures, Inc.vs.CA, G.R. No. 110318) complaint states no cause of action
(Sec. 12, Rule 8)
· Remedy: File Answer and raise as
an affirmative defense lack of capacity
to sue. (Sec. 12, Rule 8)

RULES PERTAINING TO RIGHT OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO BRING SUIT IN

PHILIPPINE COURTS
a. If it does business in the Philippines with the required license, it can sue before Philippine
courts on any transaction (Agilent Technologies vs. Integrated Silicon, G.R. No. 154618)
b. If it does business in the Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine
courts.
c. If it is not doing business in the Philippines, it needs no license to sue before Philippine
courts on an isolated transaction or on a cause of action entirely independent of any
business transaction.
d. If it is without license to do business and is not doing business in the Philippines, it is not
disqualified from fling and prosecuting an action for unfair competition and may be sued for
acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines, or may be sued in Philippine
courts.
e. If it does business in the Philippines without a license, a Philippine citizen or entity which
has contracted with said corporation may be estopped from challenging the foreign
corporation's corporate personality in a suit brought before Philippine courts. (Herrera, 2007)

REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES
Sec. 3. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case
and shall be deemed to be the real party-in-interest. A representative may be a trustee of an
express trust, a guardian, executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules.
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be
sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.

Ching vs. Court of Appeals

181 SCRA 9
F: A sued B for sum of money. A however was not certain of B's whereabouts or if he was still
alive. To be sure, filed case against B and/or t the estate of B. A later obtained judgment against
B.

When the judgment was being enforced, it was found out that B was already dead but left some
properties but the heirs of B questioned the same.

I: W/N there was a valid judgment against B?

SC: No. The decision of the court insofar as the deceased is concerned is void for lack of
jurisdiction over B's person. B was not, and could not have been validly served with summons.
He had no more personality. B's juridical personality, that it his fitness to be the subject of legal
relations, was lost through his death.

I: How about the estate of B as defending party?

SC: The same conclusion would still be inevitably reached notwithstanding the joinder of B's
estate as co-defendant. It is a well-settled rule that an estate can sue or be sued through an
executor or administrator in his representative capacity

MIAA Vs. Rivera Village Homeowners Association

471 SCRA 358 [2005]
F: RVH association, through its president who was authorized with a board resolution to
sue, fled a case against MIAA
I: Valid?
SC: Yes. The petition filed with the court sufficiently averred that the homeowners association,
through its president, is suing in representative capacity. Although the names of the individual
members who are the beneficiaries and real parties-in-interest in the suit were not indicated in
the title of the petition, this defect can be cured by the simple expedient of requiring the
association to disclose the names of the principals and amend the title and averments of the
petition accordingly

SPOUSES AS PARTIES
Gen. Rule: Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (Sec. 4,
Rule 3)

Reason: Because the spouses are co-administrators of the community property under the
system of absolute community of property, as well as the conjugal partnership property.

Exceptions:
1. Arts. 101 and 108 Family Code - A spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails
to comply with his or her obligations to the family with respect to marital, parental or property
relations.
2. Art. 111 Family Code - A spouse of age mortgages, encumbers, alienates or otherwise
disposes of his or her exclusive property.
3. Art. 145 Family Code - The regime of separation of property governs the property relations
between spouses.
4. Art. 135 Judicial Separation of Property
5. Art. 142 - Administration of exclusive property of either spouse may be transferred by the
court to the other spouse.

KINDS OF PARTIES IN A CIVIL ACTION

1. Real parties-in-interest
2. Indispensable parties
3. Representatives as parties
4. Necessary parties
5. Indigent parties
6. Pro-forma parties

INDISPENSABLE PARTY
· Party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action. (Sec. 7,
Rule 3).
· Is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so
inextricably intertwined with other parties that his legal presence as a party to the
proceeding is an absolute necessity. (Benedicto-Muñoz vs. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No.
179121, November 9, 2015).

Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, et al

G.R. No. 166302 [July 28, 2005]
SC: The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is
necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is "authority to hear and determine a cause,
the right to act in a case.”

Rule: The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null
and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present.
(Riano)

TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PARTY IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY

1. Can relief be afforded to the plaintiff without the presence of the other party?
2. Can the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the other party?
(Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003)

Divinagracia vs. Parilla, et al

G.R. No. 196750 [March 11, 2015]
SC: In instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them
and not to dismiss the case.

PRO-FORMA PARTY
· One who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has any real interest
in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded, but merely because the technical
rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on record (Samaniego vs. Agulia, G.R.
No. 125567, June 27, 2000)

NECESSARY PARTY
· Those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as parties:
1. If complete relief is to be accorded to those already parties; or
2. For a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject matter of the action. (Sec.
8, Rule 3)

Note: Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the
pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. (Sec. 9, Rule 3).

INDISPENSABLE PARTY VS. NECESSARY PARTY

INDISPENSABLE PARTY NECESSARY PARTY

· Parties-in-interest without whom no · Should be joined whenever

final determination can be had of an possible; however, the action can
action. proceed even in the absence because
his or her interest is separable from
· Must be joined under any and all that of the indispensable party.
conditions because the courts cannot
proceed without him or her. · The case may be determined in
court but the judgment therein will not
· No valid judgment if they are not afford a complete relief in favor of the
joined. prevailing party.

INDISPENSABLE AND NECESSARY PARTIES

Examples of Indispensable Parties
a. Joint debtors (as to his own share) but he can be a necessary party with respect to the
share of the others.
b. All the co-owners in an action for partition of land

Examples of Necessary Parties

a. The principal debtor in an action for collection of sum of money instituted by the creditor
against the surety.
b. The guarantor or surety in an action for recovery of debt instituted by the creditor against
the debtor.

Q: A and B are joint debtors of C in the amount of P100,000.00 (50-50 sharing). Both did not
pay C. C files a case against A only. Can the case proceed without B?

A: Yes but C can only collect from A up to P50,000.00 because the obligation is joint.
Q: A and B are solidary debtors of C in the amount of P100,000.00 (50-50 sharing). Both did not
pay C. Can C file a case against A only?

A: Yes and C can collect the full amount from A because the obligation is solidary. Then A can
proceed against B for reimbursement.

NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTY

Sec. 9. Whenever in any pleading in which the claim is asserted a necessary party is not
joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted.
Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the
inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be
deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.

The non-inclusion o f a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in
the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party.

RULE WHEN THE DEFENDANT'S NAME OR IDENTITY IS UNKNOWN

· He may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as
the case may require. However, when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading
must be amended accordingly. (Section 14, Rule 3)

UNWILLING CO-PLAINTIFF
Sec. 10. If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained,
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.

Resident Mammals of Tañon Strait vs. Sec. Reyes

April 21, 2015
I: W/N former President GMA may be impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner?
SC: No. The unwilling party's name cannot be simply included in a petition without her
knowledge and consent, as such would be a denial of due process.

INDIGENT PARTY
He/she is one:
1. Whose gross income and that of his immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee.
2. Who does not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the
current tax declaration of more than P300,000.00 (Sec. 19, Rule 141 as
amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC).

Rule: An indigent party shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees.

An indigent litigant shall be exempt from:

a. Docket and other lawful fees; and
b. Transcript of Stenographic Notes.

CLASS SUITS
· Is an action where one or some of the parties may sue for the benefit of all if the
requisites for said action are complied with.
Requisites:
a. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;
b. Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court;
c. Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and
can fully protect the interests of all concerned; and
d. Representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all.

WHEN CLASS SUIT PROPER

Borlaza vs. Polistico
47 Phil. 345
F: A group decided to form an association called "Turnuhang Polistico." One can become a
member of the association by contributing a certain amount and then every Sunday after mass,
half of the money collected will go to the association and the other half will be raffled off. Time
came when the funds one association became huge and some of the members decided to file a
case for the officers of the association to render an accounting of the funds.

I: ls the suit filed a class suit?

SC: Yes. To require all the members to sue will be impractical. A number of them may sue for
the benefit of all.

Oposa vs. Factoran

224 SCRA 12 [1983]
F: A case against the DENR secretary was filed by minors and parents of some minors for the
cancellation of timber license agreements. Plaintiffs were suing in their behalf and in behalf of
other citizens who are their age because they will stand to suffer if the environment will
deteriorate. They aver that they represent their generation and generations yet unborn.
,
to suffer if the
SC: This is a class suit. The personality of the minors to sue for the succeeding generations is
based on the concept of inter-generational responsibility insofar as a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned. Every generation has a responsibility to preserve the ecology.

Juana Complex | Homeowners Association vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., et al

G.R. No. 152272 [March 5, 2012]
F: A complaint filed by commuters and motorists who use the La Paz Road.
SC: This is a class suit. The subject matter of the instant case, i.e. the closure and excavation of
t the La Paz Road, is initially shown to be of common or general interest to many persons.

Mathay vs. Consolidated Ban & Trust

58 SCRA 559
SC: It is not also a common question of law that sustains a class suit but a common interest in
the subject of the controversy.

WHEN IS CLASS SUIT NOT PROPER

Sulo ng Bayan vs. Araneta, Inc.
72 SCRA 347 [1976]
F: SNB is an association of squatters who occupy the land owned by Araneta, Inc. In this case,
they are questioning the title of Araneta, Inc. Since the property was vast, they subdivided it.
I: W/N the action was filed in the name of the real party-in-interest?
SC: No. SNB is not the real party-in-interest. It is the members who occupy the land and not
SNB.

I: W/N the action is a class suit?

SC: No. In a class suit, the subject matter must be of common interest to all. The interest of a
member in this case is only with respect to the land he or she is occupying. As to the portion of
the other members, he or she has no interest therein.

WHEN CLASS SUIT NOT PROPER

Bulig-Bulig Kita Kamag-Anak Association, et al vs, Sulpicio Lines
May 19, 1989
F: Re: Doña Paz tragedy. The survivors and relatives filed a case against Sulpicio Lines in
behalf of everyone who died including those who were not identified.
SC: Not a class suit. The survivors and relatives have no interest in the death of the other
passengers. The interest in this case is individual.

1. Recovery of damages for personal reputation, i.e., in a libel case in behalf of a specific
individual (Newsweek, Inc. vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-63559, May 30, 1986);
2. In an action for recovery of real property individually held (Ortigas & Company, Ltd. vs. Hon.
Vivencio M. Ruiz, et al, G.R. No. L-33952, March 9, 1987).

Remedy if class suit is not proper: If the class suit is not proper, the remedy of the parties is
either to bring suit individually or join them all as parties under the rule on permissive joinder of
parties.

SUITS AGAINST ENTITIES WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY

Sec. 15. When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality
enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the
persons composing said entity must all be revealed.

Note: Persons associated in an entity without juridical personality, however, cannot sue under
the name, because as stated in the Rules, its authority to be a party is confined only to being a
defendant, as is evident from the words “they may be sued.”

EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY LITIGANT

Sec. 16. Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it
shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the
fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives.
Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. xxx

The court shall forth with order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so
named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party,
within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate
of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The
court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs.
DUTY OF COUNSEL TO INFORM THE COURT OF CLIENT'S DEATH
Judge Sumaliag vs. Sps. Literato
G.R. No. 149787 [June 18, 2008]
SC: Incidentally, this is the only representation that the counsel can undertake after the death of
a client as the fact of death terminates any further lawyer-client relationship.

Regalado vs. Regalado

G.R. NO. 196919 [June 6, 2011]
SC: (Sec. 16) is intended to protect every party's right to due process. No adjudication can be
made against the successor of the deceased if the fundamental right to a day in court is denied

Capitolina Napere vs. Barbarona

G.R. No. 160426 [January 31, 2008]
SC: It is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not represented
by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the resulting
judgment therein

Vda.de Salazar vs. Court of Appeals

250 SCRA 303 [November 23, 1995]
F: The court was not informed of the death of the defendant.
SC: The judgment is valid where the heirs themselves appeared before the trial court and
participated in the proceedings. It is undeniably evident that the heirs themselves sought their
day in court and exercised their right to due process.

EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY LITIGANT

A. Purely Personal Action - death of either of the parties extinguishes the claim and the
action is dismissed.
B. Action that is Not Purely Personal - claim is not extinguished and the party should be
substituted by his heirs, executor or administrator. In case of minor heirs, the court may
appoint a guardian ad litem for them.
C. Action for Recovery of Money Arising from Contract and the Defendant Dies Before
Entry of Judgment - It shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until
entry of judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in the
manner provided in the rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person
(Rule 86) (Section 20, Rule 3)

Atty. Sarsaba vs. Vda. De Te

G.R. No. 175910 [July 30, 2009]
SC: Since the action survives the death of the defendant, the case shall not be dismissed and
the Court shall merely order the substitution of the deceased defendant.

Note: The substitute defendant need not be summoned. The order of substitution shall be
served upon the parties substituted for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party.
If there is notice of death, the court shall await the appointment of legal representative;
otherwise, the subsequent proceedings are void.

CLAIMS THAT SURVIVE VS. CLAIMS THAT DO NOT SURVIVE

CLAIMS/ACTIONS THAT SURVIVE CLAIMS/ACTIONS THAT DO NOT
SURVIVE
 · Recovery of contractual · Purely personal (e.g. Legal
money/claims (oral or written). Separation).
· Recovery/protection of property · Performance that cannot be purely
rights delegated.
· Recovery of real or personal · Claim that cannot be instituted by
property or interest. executor or administrator.
· Enforcement of lien.
· Recovery of damages for an injury to
person or property and suits by reason
of the alleged tortious acts of the
defendant.
· Actions and obligations arising from
delicts (Aguas vs. Llemos, G.R. No.
L-18107, August 30, 1962)
· Ejectment case (Tanhueco vs.
Aguilar, G.R. No. L-30369, May 29,
1970)

Cruz vs. Cruz

G.R. No. 173292 [September 1, 2010]
SC: The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action
and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained of affects
primarily and principally property and property rights, the injures to the person being merely
incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the
person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental.

Purpose of non-survival of claims

The reason for the dismissal of the case is that upon the death of the defendant a testate or
intestate proceeding shall be instituted in the proper court wherein all his creditors must appear
and file their claims which shall be paid proportionately out of the property left by the deceased.

DEATH OR SEPARATION OF A PARTY WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICER

The action may be continued and maintained by or against the successor in the public office if
the following requisites are present:

a. The public officer is a party to an action in his official capacity

b. During the pendency of the action, he either dies, resigns or ceases to hold office
c. It is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party, within 30 days after the successor takes
office, that there is substantial need for continuing or maintaining the action
d. That the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor
e. The party or officer affected has been given reasonable notice of the application therefor
and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (Rule 3, Section 17)

RULE 4 - VENUE OF ACTIONS

Venue - is the place, or geographical area, in which a court with jurisdiction may hear and
determine a case

Purpose
Baritua vs. Court of Appeals
 G.R. NO. 100748 [February 3, 1997]
SC: The situs for bringing real and personal actions are fixed by the rules to attain the greatest
convenience possible to the party litigants by taking into consideration the maximum
accessibility to them of the courts of justice.

Q: Can a complaint be dismissed by the court motu propio based on improper venue?
A: No. Improper venue is not one of the grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu
proprio. (Universal Corp. vs. Lim, G.R. No. 154338, October 5, 2007). Improper venue is an
affirmative defense which the defendant may raise in his or her answer seasonably, else it is
deemed waived

Heirs of Lopez vs. de Castro

G.R. No. 112905 [February 3, 2000]
SC: In civil cases, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction.

VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS

· The venue of local; hence the venue if the place where the real property involved, or any
portion thereof, is situated

Chua vs. Total Office Products and Services

G.R. No. 152808 [September 30, 2005]
SC: An action for annulment of a real estate mortgage is a personal action. Therefore, the
proper venue of the action to nullify the subject loan and real estate mortgage contracts is the
place where the parties reside at the election of the plaintiff. An action for annulment of
mortgage is a real action if there has already been a foreclosure sale.

VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS

Sec. 2. All other actions must be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.

Note: Venue is transitory under Section 2.

Note: The residence of a person must be his personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual
residence and abode. It does not mean fixed permanent residence.

RESIDENCE UNDER RULE 4

Jose Baritua vs. Court of Appeals, et al
G.R. No. 108547 [February 3, 1997]
SC: Actual residence signifies personal residence, i.e., physical presence and actual stay
thereat. This physical presence, nonetheless, must be more than temporary and must be with
continuity and consistency

Venue as to Non-Resident Plaintiff

Theodore and Nancy Ang vs. Sps. Alan and Em Ang
G.R. No. 186993 [August 22, 2012]
SC: In personal actions, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such
case may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides. There can be no
election as to the venue of the fling of a complaint when the plaintiff has no residence in the
Philippines
PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
Rule: When there are more than one plaintiff in a personal action, the residences of the
principal parties should be the basis for determining proper venue.

Reason: To prevent the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor plaintiff or defendant as
the venue. A nominal or formal party does not have the degree of interest in the action which
would warrant and entail the desirably active participation expected of litigants in a case.

RESIDENCE OF JURIDICAL ENTITIES

Clavecilla Radio System vs. Antillon
19 SCRA39 [1967]
SC: Any person, whether natural or juridical, can only have one residence. Therefore, a
corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions in a place other than its principal place of
business unless such place is also the residence of a co-plaintiff or defendant.

VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS

A. Defendant does not reside but is found in the Philippines
Personal Actions - the venue is where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the non-resident defendant may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4)

Real Actions - shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof
is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4)

B. Defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines

· The action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff
resides or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.

Actions that can be filed against a Non-Resident Defendant who is not found
in the Philippines
a. Action that affects the personal status of the plaintiff
b. Action that affects the property or portion thereof the defendant situated in
the Philippines.

WHEN RULES ON VENUE DO NOT APPLY

1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise (e.g. an action for damages arising
from libel); or
2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue (Sec. 4, Rule 4)

EFFECTS OF STIPULATIONS ON VENUE

The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is:
1. In writing;
2. Exclusive as to venue; and
3. Made before the fling of the action.

Universal Robina Corp. vs. Lim

G.R. No. 154338 [October 5, 2007]
SC: The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them
resides.

STIPULATIONS ON VENUE
Polytrade Corp vs. Blanco
30 SCRA 157
F: A and B are residents of Davao City. They executed a promissory note which contained a
clause that in case of a suit arising from the note, the parties agree to sue and be sued in the
City of Manila. Because of the non-payment of the loan, A filed a case against B in Davao City.
This was assailed by B as there was a clause in the promissory note that the venue is Manila.

I: Can the case be filed in Davao City?

SC: Yes. When the parties stipulate the venue of a civil action other than those found in the
Rules, the stipulated venue is considered merely as an additional venue to where the parties
reside unless the stipulation contains restrictive words showing the intention of the parties to
limit the place stipulated as the exclusive venue. (Ex. City of Manila only or to sue and sued
exclusively in the City of Manila)

Briones vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 204444 [January 14, 2015]
SC: A complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound
by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the
general rules on venue

Sweet Lines Vs. Teves

83 SCRA 361
F: Passengers sued Sweet Lines in Cagayan de Oro City despite the clause in the ticket which
stated that "in case of a civil action arising from the contract of carriage, the venue of the action
shall be the City of Cebu only and no other place.”

I: Can the case be heard in Cagayan de Oro City?

SC: Yes. The clause was stated in the ticket. The passengers have no hand in the preparation
of the ticket (Contract of Adhesion). A stipulation on venue is void and unenforceable when it is
contrary to public policy.

Arquero vs. Flojo

168 SCRA 540
F: Arquero is a lawyer and municipal mayor of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan Valley. He filed a case
against a telegram company in his hometown. The company however questioned the venue as
in its telegram forms, there is a stipulation that "venue of any action shall be in the court of
Quezon City alone and in no other courts.” Arquero cited the case of Sweet Lines vs. Teves

SC: The ruling in Sweet Lines do not apply. Arquero is bound by the stipulation when he signed
the telegram forms. As a lawyer, he is expected to know what he is signing.

RULE 5 - UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

Sec. 1. The procedure in Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial
Courts, except where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either
of said courts, or in civil cases governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES
Source: A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Rules on Expedited Procedures in First Level Courts)
Date of Effectivity: April 11, 2022.

Scope: The Rule shall govern the procedure in actions before the MTCs for payment or
reimbursement of a sum of money where the value of the claim does not exceed One Million
(P1,000,000.00) Pesos. The claim or demand may be for money owed under a contract of
lease, loan and other credit accommodations, services and sale of personal property. The
recovery of personal property is excluded unless made a subject of a compromise agreement
between the parties. The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlements and arbitration
awards where the money claim does not exceed P1,000,000.00 is likewise covered.

Commencement of small claims action: By filing with the court an accomplished Statement
of Claim/s with Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause
of Action, and Multiplicity of Suits and duly certified photocopies of the actionable documents
subject of the claim, affidavits of witnesses, and other evidence to support the claim.

Note: No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim/s is necessary to initiate a small
claims action.

· The plaintiff may join that in a single statement of claim one or more separate small
claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and
costs, does not exceed P1, 000, 000.00.

· Dismissal of the Claim. - After the court determines that the case falls under the Rule, it
may from an examination of the allegations of the SOC and such evidence attached thereto,
on its own initiative, dismiss the case outright on any of the following grounds:
a. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause
c. The action is barred by prior judgment
d. The claim is barred by the statute of limitations
e. The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
f. Venue is improperly laid
g. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
h. The SOC states no cause of action
i. That a condition precedent fort filing the claim has not been complied with;
and
j. Plaintiff failed to submit the required affidavits, as provided Section 7 of the
Rule.

· If the case does not fall under the Rule, but falls under summary or regular procedure, or
if the case is filed under summary or regular procedure but falls under this Rule, the case
shall not be dismissed. Instead, the case shall be re-docketed under the appropriate
procedure, and returned to the court where it was assigned, subject to payment of any
deficiency in the applicable regular rate of filing fees,

· Summons. If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall issue summons within
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the SOC, directing the defendant to submit a verified
response.
· Service of Issuances and Notices. The service of court issuances and filings by the
parties may be made through email, facsimile, and other electronic means. Notices may also
be served through mobile phone calls, SMS, or instant messaging software applications.
The consent to, and chosen mode of, electronic service and notice shall be indicated in the
SOC or Response, as the case may be.

· Response. The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a duly
accomplished and verified Response within a non-extendible period of ten (10) calendar
days from receipt of summons.

· Effect of Failure to File Response. Should the defendant fail to file Response within the
required period, and likewise fail to appear on the date set for hearing, the court shall render
judgment within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of the hearing, as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the SOC and its attachments.

Should the defendant fail to file Response within the required period but appear on the
date set for hearing, the court shall ascertain what defense he/she/lit has to offer, which shall
constitute his/her/its Response, proceed to hear the case on the same day as if a Response has
been filed, and, thereafter, render judgment within twenty-four (24) hours from the termination of
the hearing.

Filing of a counterclaim is allowed provided:

a. It is within the coverage of the Rule, exclusive of interests and costs;
b. Arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiffs claim;
c. Does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and
d. Is not the subject of another pending action.

Note: If not filed as counterclaim, the defendant shall be barred from suing on such
counterclaim.

Note: The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not arise
out of the same transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and nature thereof are
within the coverage of the Rule.

Note: Any amount pleaded in a counterclaim in excess of P1,000,000.00 excluding interests

and costs, shall be deemed waived.

Note: No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the
attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.

Non-Appearance of Parties. Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of
the SOC without prejudice. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment on the counterclaim. Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the
dismissal with prejudice of both SOC and the
counterclaim.

Decision. The decision of the MTC shall be final, executory and unappealable