Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COLLEGE OF LAW
MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Page 1 of 34
D. Procedural laws applicable to actions pending at the time of the promulgation
Panay Railways Inc. v. Heva Management and Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No.
154061, January 25, 2012
DOCTRINE: Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered
applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. Procedural laws and
rules are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The effect of procedural statutes and rules
on the rights of a litigant may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions.
This retroactive application does not violate any right of a person adversely affected. Neither is
it constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that, as a general rule, no vested right may
attach to or arise from procedural laws and rules. It has been held that “a person has no
vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the
trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure.”
Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v. Sps. Marilyn Lim, et al., G.R. No.191837, September
19, 2012
The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally construed. However,
in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a satisfactory and persuasive
explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal interpretation were able to hurdle that
heavy burden of proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It was never the Court’s
intent “to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.” This Court will
not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules. It is the duty of every member of the bar
to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek exceptions should they fail to observe
these rules and rationalize their omission by harking on liberal construction.
SM Land, Inc., et al. v. City of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 197151, October 22, 2012
DOCTRINE: Time and again, this Court has held that rules of procedure are established to
secure substantial justice. Being instruments for the speedy and efficient administration of justice,
they must be used to achieve such end, not to derail it. In particular, when a strict and literal
application of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification will result in a patent denial of
substantial justice, these may be liberally construed.
In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Lilibeth Ladaga v.
Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, et al., G.R. No. 189689 & G.R. No. 189691, November
13, 2012
DOCTRINE: The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rule-making
powers in response to the alarming rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances and
extrajudicial killings. It plays the preventive role of breaking the expectation of impunity in the
commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, as well as the curative role of
facilitating the subsequent punishment of the perpetrators.
3. Transcendental importance
United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification Administration,
G.R. NO. 187107, January 31, 2012
DOCTRINE: This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent
inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of
the Court’s docket.
Page 5 of 34
Fe V. Rapsing, et al. v. Hon. Judge Maximino R. Ables, et al., G.R. No.
171855, October 15, 2012
DOCTRINE: It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the
complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of
the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court
cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion
to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend
upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the
action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments in
the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted.
Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G.R. No. 165676, November 22, 2010
DOCTRINE: It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the
Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of
the parties, or acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or
omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is
neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being
legislative in character.
Remedios Antonino v. The Register of Deeds of Makati City, et al., G.R. No.
185663, June 20, 2012
DOCTRINE: This Court emphasized that only void judgments, by reason of
“extrinsic fraud” or the court’s lack of jurisdiction, are susceptible to being annulled.
Page 6 of 34
the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, a
party may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for
the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of
said party invoking the plea.
H. Barangay conciliation
Gegare v. CA, G.R. No 83907, September 13, 1989
DOCTRINE: The purpose of this confrontation is to enable the parties to settle their
differences amicably. If the other only contending party is the government or its
instrumentality or subdivision the case falls within the exception but when it is only one of
the contending parties, a confrontation should still be undertaken among the other parties.
Page 8 of 34
Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel v. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012
DOCTRINE: An amicable settlement reached at the barangay conciliation
proceedings, is binding between the contracting parties and, upon its perfection, is
immediately executory insofar as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public order and public policy.
I. Totality rule
Flores v. Mallare-Phillips, 144 SCRA 377
DOCTRINE: Where two or more plaintiffs sue one defendant in a single complaint or
one plaintiff sues several defendants in a single complaint, based on several causes of action
for or against each, respectively, the totality rule applies only where (a) the causes of action
arose from the same series of transactions; and (b) there is a common question of fact or
law among them.
A. Kinds of actions
1. Ordinary civil actions
2. Special civil actions
3. Criminal actions
4. Civil actions vs. special proceedings
Ramon Ching and Po Wing Corp. v. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 192828,
November 28, 2011
DOCTRINE: A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish
a status, a right, or particular fact; It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action
where a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong; To initiate a special proceeding, a petition and not a
complaint should be filed.
Page 9 of 34
Philippines, otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction
over his person is essential to make a binding decision.
Page 10 of 34
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of
damages.
Page 11 of 34
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment, through means other than by appeal or
certiorari.
Philippine National Bank v. Getway Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181485,
February 15, 2012
DOCTRINE: As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the
situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of
action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
d. Theodore and Nancy Ang, etc. v. Spouses Alan and Em Ang, G.R. No. 186993,
August 22, 2012
DOCTRINE: A real party in interest is the party who, by the substantive law,
has the right sought to be enforced.
2. Indispensable party
Page 12 of 34
a. Simny G. Guy, et al., v. Gilbert Guy, G.R. No. 189486, September 5, 2012
DOCTRINE: Settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable parties is
compulsory being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power, and, it is
precisely “when an indispensable party is not before the court that the action
should be dismissed” for such absence 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 as to those present.
b. Living @Sense, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 193753,
September 26, 2012
DOCTRINE: An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no
final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined mandatorily
either as plaintiffs or defendants.
5. Necessary party
6. Indigent party
7. Alternative defendants
8. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties
9. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
10. Class suit
a. Borlasa v. Polistico, 47 Phil 345
DOCTRINE: The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil
action requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties wherever possible, and the
joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, the presence of those
Page 13 of 34
latter being a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power. The class suit
contemplates an exceptional situation where there are numerous persons all in the
same plight and all together constituting a constituency whose presence in the litigation
is absolutely indispensable to the administration of justice. Here the strict application
of the rule as to indispensable parties would require that each and every individual in
the class should be present. But at this point the practice is so far relaxed as to permit
the suit to proceed, when the class is sufficient represented to enable the court to deal
properly and justly with that interest and with all other interest involved in the suit. In
the class suit, then, representation of a class interest which will be affected by the
judgment is indispensable; but it is not indispensable to make each member of the
class an actual party.
Page 14 of 34
11. Suits against entities without juridical personality
12. Effect of death of party-litigant
a. Riviera Filipina v. CA, G.R. No. 117355, April 5, 2002
DOCTRINE: The failure of a counsel to comply with his duty under Section 16 of
Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, to inform the court of the death of his client and
no substitution of such is effected, will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment
thereon if the action survives the death of such party; The purpose behind the rule on
substitution of parties is the protection of the right of every party to due process.
D. Venue
1. Venue versus jurisdiction
Nocum and Philippine Daily Inquirer v. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23,
2005
DOCTRINE: Hon. Florenz D. Regalado, differentiated jurisdiction and venue
as follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the
place where the case is to be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive
law; venue, of procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court
and the subject matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner
and respondent; and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the
parties; venue may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties.
f. Complaint in intervention
g. Reply
2. Pleadings allowed and not allowed in small claim cases and cases covered by the
Rules on Summary Procedure
3. Parts of a pleading
a. Caption
b. Signature and address
c. Verification
Felix Martos, et al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650, October
24, 2012
DOCTRINE: The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to
secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and
not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the
pleading is filed in good faith.
Georgia T. Estel v. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 174082, January
16, 2012
DOCTRINE: Verification is deemed substantially complied with when, as in
the instant case, one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
Elsa D. Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720,
February 8, 2012
DOCTRINE: Where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share a
common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of the
petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will not deter
the court from proceeding with the action.
Vivian T. Ramirez, et al., v. Mar Fishing Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 168208,
June 13, 2012
DOCTRINE: Certification of Non-Forum Shopping; The lack of certification
against forum shopping is not curable by mere amendment of a complaint, but
shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. Indeed, the general
rule is that subsequent compliance with the requirements will not excuse a party’s
failure to comply in the first instance.
e. Effect of signature of counsel in a pleading
f. Effect of signing by a person not authorized to sign
Atty. Fe Q. Palmiano-Salvador v. Constantino Angeles, etc., G.R. No.
171219, September 3, 2012
DOCTRINE: If a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one]
who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed; hence, the court
should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the
complaint and the plaintiff.
4. Allegations in a pleading
a. Manner of making allegations
Ceroferr Realty Corp. v. CA, 376 SCRA 144
DOCTRINE: The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as
constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged the court
can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof;
If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint
can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that
may be assessed by the defendants.
Page 18 of 34
Asian Construction & Development Corp. v. Lourdes K. Mendoza, G.R. No.
176949, June 27, 2012
Spouses Fernando & Ma. Elena Santos v. Lolita Alcazar, etc. G.R. No.
183034, March 12, 2014
DOCTRINE: By the admission of the genuineness and due execution [of such
document] is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed
it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; that at the time it
was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the
party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formal
requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp,
which it lacks, are waived by him.
b. Ultimate facts
Tantuico, Jr. v. Republic, G.R. No. 89114, December 2, 1991
DOCTRINE: The term ‘ultimate facts’ as used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules
of Court, means the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A
fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out, without leaving the statement of the
cause of action insufficient, x x x”, (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 1,1963 ed., p.
213). “Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either directly
form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the
wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details
of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are
to be established. It refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the
existence of which, the entire cause of action rests.”
D.M. Ferrer & Associates Corp. v. UST, G.R. No. 189496, February 1,
2012
DOCTRINE: In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a
cause of action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test
is whether the court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the
facts alleged and the prayer asked for. Indeed, the elementary test for failure to
state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would
justify the relief demanded. Only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or
evidentiary facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint in the first place,
are considered for purposes of applying the test.
c. Alternative Causes of action
La Mallorca v. CA, 17 SCRA 739
d. DCOTRINE: The complaint contained an allegation for quasi-delict. The inclusion of
this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract
of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which
allows a plaintiff f to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with
Page 19 of 34
each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and
determined.
e. Condition precedent
f. Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of the mind,
judgments, official documents or acts
g. Pleading an actionable document
Ledda v. BPI, G.R. No. 200868, November 21, 2012
Section 7, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: SEC. 7. Action or
defense based on document.—Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in
the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an
exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like
effect be set forth in the pleading. Clearly, the above provision applies when the action is
based on a written instrument or document. BPI’s cause of action is not based only on the
document containing the Terms and Conditions accompanying the issuance of the BPI
credit card in favor of Ledda. Therefore, the document containing the Terms and
Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is not an actionable document
contemplated in Section 7, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
h. Specific denials (effect of failure to make specific denial, when a specific denial requires
an oath)
5. Effect of failure to plead
a. Failure to plead defenses and objections
b. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
Financial Building Corp. v. Forbes Park PARK Association, G.R. No.
133119, August 17, 2000
DOCTRINE: The instant case is barred due to Forbes Park’s failure to set it
up as a compulsory counterclaim in Civil Case No. 16540, the prior injunction
suit initiated by Financial Building against Forbes Park. A compulsory
counterclaim is one which arises out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. If
it is within the jurisdiction of the court and it does not require for its adjudication
the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, such
compulsory counterclaim is barred if it is not set up in the action filed by the
opposing party.
6. Default
a. When declaration of default is proper
Natividad Lim v. National Power Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 178789,
November 14, 2012
DOCTRINE: Lim points out that an answer-in-intervention cannot give rise
to default since the filing of such an answer is only permissive. But Section 4, Rule
Page 20 of 34
19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the original parties to file an
answer to the complaint-in-intervention within 15 days from notice of the order
admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. This changes
the procedure under the former rule where such an answer was regarded as
optional. Thus, Lim’s failure to file the required answer can give rise to default.
Leticia Diona, etc. v. Romeo A. Balangue, et al., G.R. No. 173559, January
7, 2013
DOCTRINE: While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a
Petition for Annulment of Judgment may be based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, jurisprudence recognizes lack of due
process as additional ground to annul a judgment
Page 21 of 34
DOCTRINE/s: Although the payment of the docketing fee of P60.00 was
found to be insufficient, nevertheless, it was held that since the payment was the
result of an "honest difference of opinion as to the correct amount to be paid as
docket fee" the court "had acquired jurisdiction over the case and the proceedings
thereafter had were proper and regular." Hence, as the amended complaint
superseded the original complaint, the allegations of damages in the amended
complaint should be the basis of the computation of the filing fee. In the present
case no such honest difference of opinion was possible as the allegations of the
complaint, the designation and the prayer show clearly that it is an action for
damages and specific performance. The docketing fee should be assessed by
considering the amount of damages as alleged in the original complaint.
Case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of actual date
of filing in court.
Where the action is for the recovery of property rather than for specific
performance, the docket fee should be based on the value of the property sought to
be recovered.
Page 22 of 34
Re: In the Matter of Exemption From Payment of All Court and Sheriff’s Fees
of Cooperatives Duly Registered in Accordance with RA NO. 9520, [A.M.
No. 12-2-03-0, March 13, 2012]
Ricardo Rizal, et al., v. Leoncia Naredo, et al., G.R. No. 151898, March 14,
2012
DOCTRINE: With the exception of pauper litigants, without the payment of the
correct docket or filing fees within the reglementary period, jurisdiction over the subject-
matter or nature of the action will not vest in the trial court.
F. Summons
1. Effect if court has not validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant
Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No. 195619, September 5,
2012
2. Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem, and
quasi-in rem
3. Voluntary appearance
Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010
Oaminal v. Castillo, G.R. NO. 1527756, October 8, 2003
Optima Realty Corporation v. Hertz Phil Exclusive, Inc. G.R. No. 183035, January
9, 2013
4. Personal service
5. Substituted service
Page 23 of 34
Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No. 195619, September 5,
2012
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 499 SCRA 21
Robinson v. Miralles, 510 SCRA 678
6. Extraterritorial service, when allowed
7. Service by publication
8. Service upon
a. Entity without juridical personality
b. Prisoners
c. Minors and incompetents
d. Domestic private juridical entity
E.B. Villarosa & Partner Ltd. V. Benito, 312 SCRA 65
e. Foreign private juridical entity
f. Public corporations
g. Defendant whose identity or whereabouts unknown
h. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines
G. Motions
1. Motions in general
a. Definition of motion
b. Motions versus pleadings
c. Notice and hearing of motions
United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. Acropolis Central Guaranty Corp., G.R.
No. 171750, January 25, 2012
d. Omnibus motion rule
Heirs of Mariano Favis, et al., v. Juana Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 185922,
January 15, 2014
2. Motion for bill of particulars
a. Purpose and when applied for
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 540 SCRA 431
b. Actions of the court
c. Compliance with the order and effect of non-compliance
3. Motion to dismiss
a. Grounds
b. Resolution of motion
c. Remedies of plaintiff when the complaint is dismissed
d. Remedies of defendant when the motion is denied
Republic, et al. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, G.R. No.
192975/192994, November 12, 2012
e. When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses
f. Instances of motu proprio dismissal
Heirs of Mariano Favis, et al., v. Juana Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 185922,
January 15, 2014
Page 24 of 34
H. Dismissal of actions
1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff; two-dismissal rule
Go v. Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 58986, April 17, 1982
2. Dismissal upon motion by plaintiff; effect on existing counterclaim
3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff
Shimizu Philippines Contractor, Inc. v. Mrs. Leticia B. Magsalin, et al., G.R. No.
170026, June 20, 2012
Ma. Mercedes L. Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University, G.R. No. 193857, November
28, 2012
Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. and Trebel International Inc. v. BDO Universal Bank, et
al., G.R. No. 192716, June 13, 2012
I. Pre-trial
1. Concept of pre-trial; nature and purpose
2. Notice of pre-trial
3. Appearance of parties; effect of failure to appear
4. Pre-trial brief; effects of failure to file
5. Distinction between pre-trial in civil cases and criminal cases
6. Effect of failure to set case for pre-trial
7. Court Annexed Mediation (CAM)
Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay Corporation, G.R. No. 175862, October 13,
2010
8. Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)
9. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (Special Rules of Court on ADR [A.M. No.
07-11-08-SC])
J. Intervention
1. Definition and nature
2. Requisites for intervention
3. Time to intervene
4. Remedies if motion for intervention is denied
K. Subpoena
1. Subpoena duces tecum
2. Subpoena ad testificandum
3. Service of subpoena
4. Compelling attendance of witnesses; contempt
5. Viatory right of witnesses
6. Quashing of subpoena; grounds
L. Modes of discovery
Page 25 of 34
1. Depositions pending action
2. Depositions before action or pending appeal
3. Interrogatories to parties
4. Request for admission by adverse party
5. Production or inspection of documents or things
6. Physical and mental examination of persons
7. Consequences of refusal to comply with modes of discovery
M. Trial
1. Notice of trial
2. Adjournments and postponements
3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial
4. Order of trial; reversal of order
5. Consolidation or severance of trial
6. Trial by commissioner
N. Demurrer to evidence
1. Nature of demurrer to evidence
Nenita Gonzales, et al. v. Mariano Bugaay, et. Al., G.R. No. 173008, February 22,
2012
2. Ground
3. Effect of denial or grant of demurrer
4. Waiver of right to present evidence
5. Demurrer to evidence in civil cases versus demurrer to evidence in criminal cases
P. Post-judgment remedies
1. Before finality
a. Motion for new trial or reconsideration
o When to file
o Grounds for new trial
o Grounds for motion for reconsideration
o Remedy when motion is denied
Neypes v. CA G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005
b. Appeal
o Judgments and final orders subject to appeal
o Matters not appealable
o Modes of appeal
Ordinary appeal
Petition for review
Petition for review on certiorari
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., et al,
G.R. No. 193986, January 15, 2014
o Period to appeal
o Perfection of appeal
o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC
o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC
o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA
o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CTA
o Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial bodies
Perez v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131445, May 27, 2004
2. After finality
a. Relief from judgment
o Grounds
o Time to file
Page 27 of 34
o Contents of petition
b. Annulment of judgment
o Grounds
Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas Blvd, Inc. v. Far East Bank and
Trust Co., et al., G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014
Leticia Diona, etc. v. Romeo Balangue, et al., G.R. No. 173559,
January 7, 2013
o Period to file action
o Effects of judgment of annulment
c. Collateral attack of judgment
R. Provisional remedies
Ma. Carminia Calderon, etc. v. Jose Antonio F. Roxas, G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013
1. Nature of provisional remedies
Estares v. CA, 459 SCRA 604
2. Purpose of provisional remedies
3. Preliminary attachment
Davao Light v. CA, 204 SCRA 343
a. Grounds for issuance of preliminary attachment
Equitable v. Special Steel, G.R. No. 175 350 , June 13, 2012
b. Requisites; issuance and contents of order of attachment; affidavit and bond
c. Purpose of ex parte issuance of writ of attachment
d. Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of summons
e. Manner of attaching real and personal property; when property attached is
claimed by third person
f. Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond
Peroxide Philippines Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 92813, July 31, 1991
g. Purpose of counter-bond
Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tri-Infante, 468 SCRA 526
h. Satisfaction of judgment out of property attached
Page 29 of 34
4. Preliminary injunction
Palm Tree Estates, Inc. v. PNB, G.R. No. 159370, October 3, 2012
a. Definition and differences: preliminary injunction, temporary restraining
order, and status quo ante order
b. Requisites of preliminary injunction
c. Kinds of injunction
d. When writ may issue
Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 127930, December 15,
2000
Executive secretary, et al. v. Forerunner Multi Resources, Inc., G.R. No.
199324, January 7, 2013
TML Gasket Industries, Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No.
188768, January 7, 2013
e. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction
f. Purpose of injunction
Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village, 471 SCRA 358
g. When preliminary injunction improper
Spouses Nicasio Marquez and Anita J. Marquez v. Spouses Carlito Alindog
and Carmen Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014
h. When can a temporary restraining order issue
Bacolod City Water District v. Labayen, G.R. No. 157494, December 10,
2004
i. Requisites of temporary restraining order
Strategic Alliance Development Corp. v. Star Infrastructure Corp., G.R. No.
187872, April 11, 2011
j. Period of effectivity of temporary restraining order
Australian Professional, Inc. v. Municipality of Padre Garcia, 668 SCRA
253
k. Limitations on the issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunction
5. Receivership
a. Purpose
b. Cases when receiver may be appointed
c. Nature of the duty of a receiver; general powers of a receiver
d. Recruitments before issuance of an order or receivership
e. Kinds of bond
f. Termination of receivership
6. Replevin
a. Nature of replevin
b. When may writ issue/requisites
c. Affidavit and bond; redelivery bond
d. Remedy of adverse party
Page 30 of 34
e. Sheriff’s duty in the implementation of the writ; when property is claimed
by third party
f. Rule in case writ was issued in favor of the Republic: bond not required
7. Support pendente lite
Page 33 of 34
a. Definitions and distinctions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer
Nunez v. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010
Dela Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 139442, December 6, 2006
Sarmiento v. Manalite Home Owner’s Association, G.R. No. 182953, October 11,
2010
Juanita Ermitano, etc. v. Lailanie Paglas, G.R. No. 174436, January 23, 2013
b. When demand is necessary
c. Nature of the proceedings (Summary Procedure; prohibited pleadings)
Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes, G.R. No. 178096, March 23, 2011
d. Issue of ownership merely incidental
Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia v. Dimatulac, G.R. No. 142015, April 29, 2003
e. How to stay immediate execution of judgment
Herminia Acbang v. Hon. Jimmy Luczon, Jr. et al., G.R. No. 164264, January 15,
2014
11. Contempt
Lorenzo Shipping v. Distribution Association, 656 SCRA 331
Siy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158971, August 25, 2005
Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Anthony Parungao, et al., G.R. No. 197507,
January 14, 2013
Regalado v. Go, 514 SCRA 616
a. Kinds of contempt (Direct and Inderect)
Encinas v. National Bookstore, G.R. No. 162704, July 28, 2005
Re: Letter dated 21 Feb. 2005 of Atty. Noel Sorredo, A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC July 22,
2005
Cruz v. Gigoyon, 658 SCRA 254
SBMA v. Rodriguez, 619 SCRA 176
b. How contempt proceedings commenced
c. Where to file
d. Penalties and remedies against direct and indirect contempt
e. Contempt against quasi-judicial bodies
Robosa v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176085, February 8, 2012
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Listana, 408 SCRA 328
Page 34 of 34