Rule 1, Rules of Court 5.

Splitting a single cause of action and its effects

Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. v. Mayor Presbiterio, Jr.,

G.R. No. 174202, April 7, 2015, 755 SCRA 90
Facts:
 Petitioner Dynamic Builders participated on the bidding set by bids and awards
committee of Municipality of Valladolid Negros Occidental for the construction of
concrete sea wall along its shoreline, a local infrastructure project.
 3 other contractors submitted its bid on the project. Total of 4 bidders where considered
in the opening of bids including Dynamic Builders.
 Dynamic Builders lost to HLJ Construction because the bids and awards committee
finds the proposal of Dynamic Builders not substantially responsive.
 Dynamic Builders request for reconsideration but was denied by the committee.
Dynamic lodged its formal complaint to Mayor Presbiterio (head of procurement) to
set aside the result of the bidding. The complaint was likewise denied because of
Dynamic Builders negative Financial contracting capability.
 Simultaneously Dynamic filed petition for Certiorari before RTC assailing Mayor's
Decision and Resolution and filed petition for prohibition with application of
Temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the Supreme
Court.
 Dynamic contends that RA 9184 (Gov. Procurement Act) implicitly allowed
simultaneous filing for a Petition of certiorari before RTC and another petition before
SC for injunctive remedies and that Sec 58 confers with SC the sole jurisdiction to issue
TRO and injunctions relating to Infrastructure project of Government under RA 8975
in relation to its amendment in relation to PD 1818.
 Dynamic argues that the issuance of TRO or Preliminary injunction was of extreme
urgency for it was deprive of its constitutional right to due process and equal protection
of law

Issue: Whether or not Petitioner violated the rules against splitting of cause of actions?

Ruling: Yes.

The court ruled that Section 58 of RA 9184 could not have envisioned a simultaneous resort to this
court by one that had already filed an action before the Regional Trial Court without violating the basic
rules on proscription against the splitting of a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping.

Rule 2, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a] party may not institute more than one suit for
a single cause of action.” Moreover, Section 4 discusses the splitting of a single cause of action in that
“if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.” The
splitting of a cause of action “violate[s] the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective
[is] to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the courts.”

There is nothing in Republic Act No. 8975 or in Presidential Decree No. 1818 that allows the
simultaneous availment of legal remedies before the Regional Trial Court and this court.

Republic Act No. 8975, even when read with Presidential Decree No. 1818, does not sanction the
splitting of a cause of action in order for a party to avail itself of the ancillary remedy of a temporary
restraining order from this court.

Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Rule 8, Rules of Court – Manner of Making allegations in Pleadings

Heirs of Andres Naya v. Naya,

G.R. No. 215759, November 28, 2016
Facts:

 Case involves a parcel of land late Spouses Andres and Gregoria Naya located in Cebu City.

 Petitioners alleged that together with respondent Orlando Naya. They are the legitimate and
compulsory heirs of the Estate of Andres Naya.

 In 1965 respondent Orlando Naya allegedly sold the property under the name of his parents to
Alfonso Uy by means of deceit and fraud. After the title was transferred to Alfonso he later
sold it to Orlando who managed to have title under his name.

 1974 Orlando sold the property to respondent Honesimo Ruiz who according to petitioners is
not a buyer in good faith for acquiring the property only after the notice of adverse claim has
been annotated.

 Petitioners filed complaint for quieting of title, reconveyance of ownership, damages, and
attorney's fees before RTC. However, RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to state cause
of action. The RTC ruled that assailed transactions were conducted by deceit and fraud yet
petitioners did not give details which is a violation of sec 5 Rule 8 of Rules of Court.

 CA affirmed decision of RTC.

Issue: Whether or Not the complaint filed by petitioner fails to state cause of action?

Ruling: NO.

The court ruled that for quieting of title the initiatory pleading has only to set forth allegations showing
that
(1) the plaintiff has title to real property or any interest therein and
(2) the defendant claims an interest therein adverse to the plaintiff's arising from an instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact
invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable.

Thus, the averments in petitioners' complaint that:

( 1) they are the legitimate, compulsory heirs of Spouses Naya, the former registered owners of the
property; (2) the property is subject of intestate proceedings before the RTC, Branch 19 of
Cebu City; (3) they consented to the occupation of their co-petitioner, Teresita, of the property since
the time of death of Spouses Naya; ( 4) Orlando was able to fraudulently transfer the property in his
name; and ( 5) Spouses Ruiz subsequently purchased the property at an allegedly void sale
were sufficient to make out an action to quiet title under Article 47622 of the Civil Code.

In an action for reconveyance, all that must be alleged in the complaint are two facts which, admitting
them to be true, would entitle the plaintiff to recover title to the disputed land, namely, (1) that the
plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed the land in the concept of owner, and (2) that the
defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the land. The allegations in petitioners’ complaint certainly
measure up to the requisite statement of facts to constitute an action for reconveyance based on an
implied trust.

Petition is GRANTED. CA decision is set aside and case is REMANDED to RTC for trial.
Rule 14, Rules of Court – Summons

Green Star Express Inc. v. Nissin-Universal Robina Corp.

G.R. No. 181517, July 6, 2015

Facts:
 Van owned by Nissin- Universal Robina Corporation (NURC) owned figured in a vehicular
accident with petitioner Green Star Express, Inc.’s (Green Star) passenger bus, resulting in the
death of the van’s driver. The bus driver of Greenstar Fruto Sayson Jr was charge with reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. However, the criminal case was dismissed without prejudice
due to insufficiency of evidence.

 Sayson Jr and Green Star filed complaint for damages before RTC. The Summon was received
by NURC's cost accountant Francis Tinio.

 NURC filed Motion to dismiss before RTC for lack of jurisdiction. It argued that under Section
11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of service of summons upon a juridical entity, in cases where the
defendant is a domestic corporation like NURC, summons may be served only through its
officers.

 RTC denied the motion and ruled that there was substantial compliance in the service of
summons. NURC filed motion for reconsideration but likewise denied.

 NURC elevated case to CA via Petition for Certiorari. CA reversed the ruling of RTC and
granted Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or Not the summon was properly served to NURC?

Ruling: NO.

The court ruled that under the new Rules, service of summons upon an agent of the corporation is NO
longer authorized. In the past, the Court upheld service of summons upon a construction project
manager, a corporation’s assistant manager, ordinary clerk of a corporation, private secretary of
corporate executives, retained counsel, and officials who had control over the operations of the
corporation like the assistant general manager or the corporation’s Chief Finance and Administrative
Officer. The Court then considered said persons as “agent” within the contemplation of the old rule.

The rule now likewise states “general manager” instead of “manager”; “corporate secretary” instead of
merely “secretary”; and “treasurer” instead of “cashier. It has now become restricted, limited, and
exclusive only to the persons enumerated in the aforementioned provision, following the rule in
statutory construction that the express mention of one person excludes all others, or expressio unios est
exclusio alterius. Service must, therefore, be made only on the persons expressly listed in the rules.

It is a well-established rule that the rules on service of summons upon a domestic private juridical entity
must be strictly complied with. Otherwise, the court cannot be said to have acquired jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.

Petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.