You are on page 1of 5

FORMAT: PORTRAIT MARGIN: .

.75 (TOP,RIGHT,BOTTOM), 1 inch (LEFT, para sa pagpapahard bound) TWO COLUMNS PAPER SIZE : *DETAILS: CENTERED ANG CASE CITATIONS PROVIDE FOR: TITLE GR NO. DATE OF PROMULGATION SCRA/ PHIL CITATION PONENTE NO FALLO NEEDED FOLLOW THE SAME FORMAT FOR THE FONT STYLE, SIZE, ETC. AS PROVIDED IN THE NEXT PAGES INDENTED LAHAT NG FIRST LINES NG PARAGRAPHS 1 SPACE LANG LAHAT, PLS. REFER TO THE SAMPLE. PAGSUNOD-SUNODIN NA LANG LAHAT NG CASES, PAG MAY SPACE PA, ISUNOD NA YUNG NEXT CASE ITALICIZED LAHAT NG DIRECT QUOTATIONS (i.e. Section 4, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court provides: The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he has a meritorious defense

LINA vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-63397 April 9, 1985 35 SCRA 637 RELOVA, J.: Facts: Private respondent Northern Motors, Inc. filed with the then CFI of Rizal a case for sum of money with damages. Petitioner Alex Lina was served with summons together with a copy of the complaint. When no answer or motion to dismiss was filed by petitioner, Northern Motors, Inc. filed a motion to declare him in default. The motion was then set for hearing on May 21, 1982. On May 19, 1982, petitioner filed his opposition to the aforesaid motion inviting attention to the fact that he had filed a motion for extension of time to file responsive pleading within the reglementary period. On May 26, 1982, respondent judge issued an order declaring petitioner in default and allowing private respondent to adduce its evidence ex parte. Petitioner filed his answer to the complaint. The trial court rendered its decision in favor of plaintiff. On August 11, 1982, petitioner filed a motion to set aside decision dated July 28, 1982. On August 25, 1982, respondent judge issued an order denying petitioner's motion to set aside decision which was affirmed by the appellate court. Petitioner filed with the then Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari/prohibition, which was denied. Issues: I. II. Whether or not the order of default was issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; Whether or not certiorari is proper in a case where judgment by default was rendered without an order of default being furnished petitioner and where meritorious defenses exist, which are for the trial court to evaluate and which evaluation was not done in this case

Held: I. No. The granting of additional time within which to file an answer to a complaint is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. While trial courts are persuaded, as a matter of policy, to adopt a basically flexible attitude in favor of the defendant in this area of our adjective law, the defense should never be lulled into the belief that whenever trial courts refuse a second request for extension to file an answer, the appellate courts will grant relief. II. No. Under the Rules of Court, the remedies available to a defendant in the CFI are: a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he has a meritorious defense; (Sec. 3, Rule 18) b) If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial under Section 1 (a) of Rule 37; c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he may file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41) Petitioner in this case did not avail himself of any of the above remedies. Instead, he went to the appellate court on certiorari/prohibition. Where the judgment rendered by the respondent court is the one sought to be annulled, a petition for relief, under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court, which is a remedy in the ordinary course of law, could have been just as plain, adequate and speedy as certiorari. Such a remedy could have been granted by the respondent court. And if the respondent court still denies the petition, then petitioner can take an appeal on the order denying the petition, and in the course of such appeal petitioner can also assail the judgment on the merits upon the ground that it is supported by the evidence, or it is contrary to law.

BAUTISTA vs. MAYA-MAYA COTTAGES, INC. GR No. 148361 November 29, 2005 476 SCRA 416 SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J.: Facts: Sps. Bautista are the registered owners of a lot located at Natipuan, Nasugbu, Batangas. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc. (MMCI), respondent, filed with the RTC of Nasugbu, Batangas a complaint for cancellation of petitioners title and damages, with application for a preliminary injunction. Respondent alleged inter alia that without any color of right and through dubious means, petitioners were able to obtain OCT in their names. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that since the property is an alienable public land, respondent is not qualified to acquire it except by lease. Thus, it has no cause of action. Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration with motion for leave to file an amended complaint for quieting of title. Respondent alleged that the technical description in petitioners title does not cover the disputed lot. Thereupon, petitioners filed their opposition, contending that the amended complaint does not also state a cause of action and if admitted, respondents theory of the case is substantially modified. The trial court issued an Order denying petitioners motion to dismiss, thus, reversing its Order of August 30, 1996 dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 371. Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition alleging that the amended complaint does not cure the defect in the original complaint which does not state a cause of action. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition. Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting respondents amended complaint Held: No. Section 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides: SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. The above provision clearly shows that before the filing of any responsive pleading, a party has the absolute right to amend his pleading, regardless of whether a new cause of action or change in theory is introduced. It is settled that a motion to dismiss is not the responsive pleading contemplated by the Rule. What they filed was a motion to dismiss. It follows that respondent, as a plaintiff, may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal is not yet final as in this case. Verily, the Court of Appeals correctly held that in issuing the assailed Order admitting the amended complaint, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion. Hence, neither certiorari nor prohibition would lie. PAESTE vs. JAURIGUE G.R. No. L-5711 December 29, 1953 94 Phil.179 REYES, J.: Facts: Pedro Paeste and Felix Carpio brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province against Jaurique for the annulment of two documents, copied in the complaint, which it is alleged, Felix Carpio and his son Maximo Carpio had been compelled to sign through force and intimidation and against their will. The complaint also alleges that, since the execution on the documents above referred to, defendant with the aid of armed men has repeatedly entered another

piece of land described as "lot No. 1488, Cad 251" in the same barrio, which was in the possession of plaintiff but different from one mentioned in the documents in question, and against plaintiff's will, gathered coconuts and that defendant be sentenced to pay them damages and attorney's fees. On motion of the defendant, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that plaintiffs' action had already prescribed. It also denied reconsideration and disallowed the amended complaint whereupon plaintiffs brought the case to the Supreme Court by way of appeal, alleging that the appeal involves a purely legal question. Issues: I. Whether or not lower court erred in not admitting their amended complaint II. Whether or not the lower court erred in holding that their action had already prescribed Held: I. Yes. Amendments to pleadings are favored and should be liberally in the furtherance of justice. Moreover, under section 1 of Rule 17, Rules of Court, a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course, that is, without leave of court, at any time before a "responsive pleading. As plaintiff amended their complaint before it was answered, the motion to admit the amendment should not have been denied. It is true that the amendment was presented after the original complaint had been ordered dismissed. But that order was not yet final for it was still under reconsideration. II. Yes. It is evident that, with the allegations in the amended complaint that the plaintiffs had executed the documents in question through force and intimidation, that defendant had been threatening plaintiffs with death if they took the matter to the authorities and that these threats lasted until 1951, plaintiff's action does not appear to have prescribed, for in these cases prescription does not begin to run until the party affected is perfectly free to go to court as he wishes. The original complaint claims damages for fruits gathered from 1945 to 1951 from land held by defendant but different from the one covered by the documents in question. Not all of this claim is barred by prescription.

SAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS: 140. Lina vs. Court of Appeal..........12 141. Abc vs. Juan .......203 *DETAILS:

140 CASE NO. BASED SA PAGKAKASUNOD SUNOD ( REFER SA LIST NG CASES NA BINIGAY NI JUDGE SANDOVAL) MAY DOTS TALAGA SYA PARA MADALING MAKITA YUNG PAGE NO.

* FONT DETAILS: YUNG CASE TITLE HINDI CAPSLOCK LAHAT. FONT STYLE: TIMES NEW ROMAN, ITALICIZED FONT SIZE: 12 Follow the sample for format.

You might also like