Civil Procedure Case Ticklers Katarungang Pamabarangay

Galuba vs. Laureta repudiation of amicable settlement F: Wanted amicable settlement to be annulled so filed with RTC axn for annulment H: An amicable settlement under the Katarungang Pambarangay law may only be annulled by repudiation within 10d after the settlement AND NOT by filing a petition for nullifying the settlement with the court Morata v. Go scope of Katarungang Pambarangay F: When action assailed for noncompliance with PD 1508 (no certificate to file action), party alleged that PD 1508 is only applicable to actions under exclusive jurisdiction of MTC and not those by RTC H: With some exceptions (and in this case its not present), the lupon has authority to settle amicably ALL types of disputes INVOLVING PARTIES WHO ACTUALLLY RESIDE IN THE SAME CITY/MUNICIPALITY, NO DISTINCTION with respect to the classes of civil disputes that should be compromised Royales v. IAC Failure to undergo Katarungang Barangay proceedings is merely a condition precedent WHICH CAN BE WAIVED F: Dispute between parties already concluded, execution of judgment restrained due to petition questioning jurisdiction of the court for failure of the parties to undergo Katarungang Pambarangay (raised for the first time) H: [Note: case not dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction but for prematurity]. Noncompliance with condition precedent of undergoing Katarungang Pambarangay is fatal BUT if there was no timely objection to the courts exercise of jurisdiction (in a MD or in an ANSWER) then the party assailing the courts jurisdiction is ESTOPPED from assailing the jurisdiction of the court Abalos v. CA - Katarungang Pambarangay cannot be applied between parties residing in different cities or municipalities F: Initially in the complaint the parties were both from QC. Opposing party filed Answer, alleging noncompliance with katarungang pambarangay. Plaintiff amended complaint in their reply, alleged they live in Caloocan. Opposing party did not raise their katarungang pambarangay argument again. Plaintiff won.

H: Katarungang Pambarangay cannot be applied between parties residing in different cities or municipalities

Leonen

Javier v. CA-Primary Administrative Jurisdiction F: widow of employee who drowned while in work wanted to recover employees compensation from the ER by filing complaint with RTC. ER argued that the case is under the EOJ of POEA so RTC had no jurisdiction H: DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION (PAJ): the courts would not take cognizance of a case if a law expressly provides that the admin agency has EOJ over the subject matter of the dispute Santos v. NW where venue is jurisdictional F: Santos bought roundtrip tickets from SF-Mla-SF but was offloaded on his way to Mla? So filed axn for damages in Manila. NW moved to dismiss because under A28 of Warsaw Convention, Mla was not among the 4 places where case could be brought H: Venue is jurisdictional if a LAW (treaty deemed as part of the law of the land by incorporation clause so law) provides for the exclusive venues wherein an action may be brought *A28 Warsaw: where 1. domicile of owner 2. principal place of business 3. place of business through which contract was made 4. FINAL place of destination Lopez v. NW jurisdiction over subject matter determined by the allegations in the complaint F: similar to Santos v. NW. Even though initially assailed jurisdiction of RTC based on lack of jurisdiction, they did not reiterate this ground in their Answer then raised Santos v NW before the court in a MTD which caused the dismissal of axn H: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint and not made dependent upon the allegations in the answer or in the motion to dismiss. [Santos v. NW has not been decided yet at this time so Lopez cant invoke it, also no showing the facts of Santos v. NW were the same] Bulao v. CA Allegations in the pleading, NOT the prayer for RELIEF, determines jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Cases

Cha. Mendoza

F: Complaint brought about by defendants putting a dam over property of plaintiff, causing the wilting of the crops of the plaintiff. Defendant assailed jurisdiction of the court after he was declared to be in default, saying that the relief asked by plaintiff is under jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council H: Allegations of fact set forth in the complaint and NOT the prayer for relief will determine the nature of an action Tijam v. Sibonghanoy Estoppel by laches (not an exception) F: After effectivity of Judiciary Act of 1958, Tijam filed axn for recovery of money vs. Sibonghanoy. Writ of Attachment to be dissolved, Sibonghanoy filed counterbond with Manila Surety. When judgment rendered in favor of Tijam (and after Tijam demanded payment from Sibonghanoy), Manila Surety opposed writ of execution and , moved to quash writ of execution, moved for extension of timecase pending for 15 years then finally surety assailed jurisdiction of the court H: Even when a court has NO jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, if after a lapse of an unreasonable length of time ONLY will a party file a MTD based on lack of jurisdiction, then the party is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the court. [notes] Sir said that this is NOT an EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT the jurisdiction of the court may be assailed any time since the issue here is WON PARTY CAN RAISE THE ISSUE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION (not WON the court has jurisdiction) even after 15 yrs! Reqs for Jurisdiction by Estoppel/laches: 1. unreasonable length of time 2. unable to raise lack of jurisdiction 3. other party was lead to believe that the other party would not raise it as a ground for dismissal different from Estoppel by deed: even if the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, if the contesting party sought AFFIRMATIVE reliefs from the court then he is estopped from assailing courts jurisdiction Abalos v. CA Estoppel, failure to comply with condition precedent may be waived as a defense F: plaintiff initially alleged they lived in QC (and so does defendants) but when defendants raised Katarungang Barangay

Civil Procedure Case Ticklers

req, plaintiff changed address to Caloocan and defendants did not contest. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs H: Once a party to a case submits to the jurisdiction of the court and participates in the trial on the merits, he cannot thereafter, upon a judgment unfavorable to his cause, take a total turn about and say that the condition precedent of compliance with PD 1508 had not been met

Leonen

Flores v. Mallare Philips Totality rules applies when allowed under ROC F: Flores brought complaint for collection of tire payments against 2 persons arising from different transactions, arguing totality rule in BP 129 H: Theres misjoinder of parties here so totality rule does not apply. TOTALITY RULE only applies when theres a proper joinder of COA and of parties as provided under the rules of court Ortigas v. CA issue of ownership removes from jurisdiction of MTC a case of unlawful detainer? This applies the OLD Rules on Civil Procedure F: Ortigas and Belmonte entered into a conditional sale contract wherein Belmonte would be allowed to construct improvements on the land pending full payment. Belmonte defaulted on some of the downpayments and Ortigas wanted to forfeit the previous payments and the improvement built by Belmonte on the land, plus eject them filed case before MTC for ejectment H: As the issue of ownership is required to be determined for the resolution of the action, MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. [question: what about Section 33. b? Couldnt the MTC resolve issue of ownership only to determine issue of possession?] [Maam Avena: RTC has jurisdiction because the forfeiture to Ortigass improvements involves an interpretation of the lease contract and is thus incapable of pecuniary estimation] Dy v. CA due process in execution of judgment F: Motion for immediate execution of judgment ejecting petitioners were granted on the same day and satisfied the following day without the petitioners receiving the copy of said order of execution H: There should be proof of service of a copy of judgment or order on the parties to determine if the period for appeal had lapsed and before a motion of execution may be granted and implemented Isa pang Dy v. CA (mas tama to though iba citation)

Cha. Mendoza

F:

Civil Procedure Case Ticklers

Laperal Development Co v. CA Barfel Devt Co. v. CA Oposa v. Factoran Mathay et. Al. v. Consolidated Bank

Leonen

Manchester Devt Co v. CA Sun Insurance v. Asuncion Brgy. San Roque Talisay Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor Sps. Diu v. Ibajan Zabat v. CA Crusaders Broadcasting System Inc. v. NTC Rivera v. Santiago DAR v. Cuenca Southern Cross v. Cement Maufacturers

Veterans Manpower and Protective Services v. CA

Venue
Diaz v. Adiong

Pleadings
Gerales v. CA F: Car owned by Gerales hit by car owned by Fideldia and Driven by Pimentel. Civil Case for damages filed before MTC San Fernando then Criminal Case v. Pimentel filed before RTC Bataan. Amicable Settlement reached in Criminal Case so Criminal Case dismissed. Summons served on Civil Case, Pimentel sent a LETTER to RTC Bataan COC alleging the mutual settlement of the Criminal Case but he was still required to file answer. Pimentel declared in default. RTC for Gerales but CA reversed. H: Letter by Pimentel should be considered a responsive pleading as the allegations in it, if proven, would constitute an affirmative defense that would extinguish Gerales claim. Pleadings, as well as REMEDIAL LAWS, should be liberally construed in order that the litigant may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and possible denial substantial justice, due to technicalities, may be avoided. Tantuico v. Republic F: Tantuico was made defendant in the amended complaint of the Republic vs. Marcos sps, making general averments in their complaint so Tantuico filed a MBP to clarify the allegations against him. H: Motion should be granted as MBP proper when the allegations in the complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions

Summary Procedure
Del Rosario v. CA

Actions in General
Joseph v. Bautista City of Bacolod v. SMB Bayang v. CA Enriquez v. Ramos Cuevas v. Pineda

Parties
Filipinas Industrial Corporation v. San Diego Aranico-Rabino v. Aquino

Cha. Mendoza

OBITER COMPLAINT: concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting plaintiffs COA; its office/purpose/function is to inform defendant CLEARLY and DEFINITELY of the CLAIMS made against him SO THAT HE MAY BE PREPARED TO MEET THE ISSUES AT THE TRIAL 2 KINDS OF FACT 1. UF: essential facts constitution plaintiffs COA which, either directly from the primary right and duty or directly, make up the wrongful acts/omissions of the defendant 2. EF: facts which are necessary for the determination of the UF -they are the premises upon which the conclusion of the UF are based MetroBank v. Quilts F: President and Secretary of Quilts executed a Secretarys Certificate which made it appear that Quilts Board of Directors authorized the President to execute a mortgage over Quilts property in favor of the personal loan for President. After failing to extinguish the mortgage over their property, Quilts filed complaint for annulment/cancellation of the mortgage vs. Metrobank, President, and Secretary. MTD by Metrobank granted but MFR denied. CA upheld jurisdiction of RTC, suspended proceedings against Metrobank pending the decision of the SEC case vs. President and Secretary. H: Complaint by Quilts does not sufficiently state a COA vs. Metrobank as it merely allege facts pertaining to the ultra vires acts of the President and Secretary, no allegation of conspiracy on the part of Metrobank with the President and tne Secretary, Metrobank merely relied on the Secretarys Certificate and cannot be faulted for it. Mathay v. Consolidated F: Mathay et. Al failed to state in their complaint the number of stockholders they claimed to be representing in their class suit. They also did not allege that they were entitled to subscribe to capital stock nor showed that they were qualified under law to become stockholders. H: Test for sufficiency of the COA: base on the complaint: determine WON the facts alleged in the complaint (which is hypothetically admitted when theres a MD based on lack of COA) are sufficient to constitute a COA such that the court may render a valid judgment upon facts alleged therein. Should allege UF that would constitute COA (all elements of COA should be complete)

Civil Procedure Case Ticklers

Leonen

Donato v. CA F: Heirs of the original owner were claiming Lot 5145 CAD 325-D vs. the occupants who bought Lot 4145, CAD 325-A from the Rural Bank of Urbiztondo from the foreclosed mortgage of a certain Carolina Abrigo. Abrigo allegedly bought the land from a Jose Ochave, who was allegedly the atty-in-fact of the original owner. To prove the atty-in-fact, the defendants showed an SPA. No reply but during the trial, the heirs presented a witness to dispute the validity of the SPA + other documents H: The GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION of an actionable document does not need to be specifically denied under oath IF THE PARTIES ASSAILING IT ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE INSTRUMENT BEING ASSAILED. PHILAMGEN V. Sweet lines F: Philamgen, already subrogated to the rights of Tagum Plastics Inc., filed a complaint for recovery of lost/damaged shipment + damages vs. Intl Common Carrier and Sweet Lines. In the defendants answer, they alleged that the action was already barred as it exceeded the prescriptive period specified in the provision of the bill of lading. In Philamgens reply, they merely said that the agreement are considered contracts of adhesion, contrary to law and public policy. TC ruled for PHILAMGEN but CA reversed. H: There was a denial pregnant with admission (NEGATIVE PREGNANT): denial pregnant with admission of the substantial facts in the pleadings responded to which are not squarely denied, in effect an admission of the averment it is directed to. Director of Lands v. CA F: Pastor filed an application for confirmation of her imperfect title which was opposed by the Director of lands. CFI for Pastor so Director of Lands appealed, RAISING FOR THE 1ST TIME THE DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA H: All defenses not interposed in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived. In this case, there is no res judicata so the appeal would still be denied. BA Finance v. CA F: BA Finance filed action to recover sum of money vs. Rufino Co., Rufino Co filed answer and compulsory counterclaim for their alleged overpayments to BA Finance. During PRETRIAL, BA Finance repeatedly did not appear so Rufino Co. moved to dismiss the

Cha. Mendoza

complaint, then moved to set the reception of evidence which was denied by RTC but was granted by CA. H: Dismissal of the main action by defendant for non-appearance of the plaintiff carried with it the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim, it being auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and merely derives its juridical support therefrom. Reyes v. CA F: Kalaw leases out his premises to Reyes, et.al. but sent notices to the lessees for them to vacate, then started demolishing the premises so Reyes et al filed COMPLAINT FOR FORCIBLE ENRY with city court + writ of preliminary injunction and damages; Kalaw filed a Counterclaim for ejectment and damages. Compromise agreement entered by Kalaw and some of the lessees so counterclaim dismissed. Appeal to CFI, CIF dismissed complaint and all claims and counterclaims; CA affirmed CFI deci. H: The counterclaim should be dismissed as it is not compulsory, the amount claimed by Kalaw exceeds the jurisdiction of the inferior court. Maceda v. CA F: Maceda as lessee proposed to make improvements over the land of the Monserrats, which the latter approved. However, Maceda still introduced more improvements over the land. The property was sold to another person but Maceda did not want to vacate the premises so an ejectment case was filed against him which was dismissed. Property was resold then another ejectment case was filed vs. Maceda, Maceda raised the defense that he was entitled to retain possession over the property until his expenses have been reimbursed. Property was resold to Cement Center then 3rd ejectment case filed vs. Maceda. Maceda now filed a COUNTERCLAIM for the value of his improvements. MTC ordered Maceda to vacate premises. Appeal to RTC, RTC dismissed ejectment case until Maceda has been reimbursed.CA modified RTC deci setting aside payment and right of retention of Maceda then affirming order for ejectment. It also ruled that the counterclaim is beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC. H: Jurisdiction of MTC in a civil action for a sum of money is limited to the demand not exceeding the courts jurisdictional amount. The counterclaim may only prosper if the amount claimed is within the jurisdiction of the court before which it is pleaded (in cases not in RTC)

Civil Procedure Case Ticklers

Shafer v. RTC Judge F: Shafer, who had a TPL with Makati Insurance, was made a defendant in the criminal case for reckless imprudence, and in civil case. Shafer filed a Third Party Complaint vs. Makati Insurance which was granted. Makati Insurance moved to vacate and dismiss TPC. TPC dismissed for prematurity: Shafer not yet liable so no COA for TPC vs. Makati Insurance. H: In TPL, the occurrence of the injury to a third party immediately gives rise to the liability of the insurer under its policy. A Third Party Complaint is a device allowed by the rules of procedure by which defendant can bring into the original suit a party against whom he will have a claim for indemnity or remuneration as a result of a liability established against him in the original suit.

Leonen

Javier v. IAC F: Gutierrez issued a check in favor of Javier but it was dishonored and was not paid by Gutierrez even after demands so Javier filed an information for Estafa based on BP 22 vs. Gutierrez in RTC Makati. Gutierrez filed a separate complaint for Damages vs. Javier in RTC Catarman, alleging that Javier tricked him into signing the check. Javier filed MD in RTC Catarman alleging litis pendentia but it was denied. Javier appealed denial but IAC affirmed denial. Gutierrez moved to suspend Criminal Case in RTC Makati but was opposed. H: RTC Catarman should have dismissed civil case. Civil action deemed instituted in Criminal Case so Gutierrez should have refuted the claim for damages by filing a COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM. Since Gutierrez failed to set up the counterclaim in the criminal case, it is barred. Meliton v. CA F: Zigas filed a complaint for rescission of the contract of lease over the land vs. Meliton for the latters failure to pay rentals and construction of concrete wall. Meliton filed Answer to Complaint, claiming the value of the improvements she made. Ziga moved to dismiss the complaint as it was already moot and academic (lease contract expired). Complaint dismissed, counterclaim also dismissed BUT FOR FAILURE TO PAY DOCKET FEES so without prejudice. Meliton filed a separate action for recovery of the amounts of the improvements but Ziga filed MD based on bar by prior judgment. H: In actions for ejectment or for recovery, defendants claim for the value of improvements on the property or necessary expenses

Cha. Mendoza

for its preservation are REQUIRED to be interposed in the same action as COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS. With re barring of counterclaims: GR: a counterclaim is not setup is barred if it arises out of/is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim X: Counterclaims dismissal without prejudice based on nonpayment of docket fees (therefore court thought it was MERELY PERMISSIVE and NOT COMPULSORY), can still be claimed in a separate action. Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete F: Former common-law wife of the deceased partner sought the accounting of the property and money of the Partnership. Defendants filed a single answer with counterclaim. During Pretrial, the other defendants did not appear (it being their belief that they were all compulsory parties and the defense of 1 is the defense of all of them) so plaintiff filed a motion to declare them in default which was granted. During trial, plaintiff filed Motion to drop the 2 remaining defendants but none of the defaulted defendants were notified regarding said motion. The defaulted defendants filed Motion to quash then the dropped defendants filed Petition for certiorari but then they all filed petition for certiorari before court abandoning their motion to quash. H: if a counterclaim has been pleaded before service upon defendant of plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, the action is NOT DISMISSED unless counterclaim is permissive. Visayan Packing v. Reparations F: Visayan Packing and Reparations Commission entered into a contract of conditional purchase and reparations of goods but VisPac did not pay first installment, alleging that the date when 1st installment would be due is vague filed Axn for Declaratory Relief for it. For its nonpayment, RepaCom filed axn for collection. Vispac filed MTD based on pendency of declaratory relief. Axn for Collection ruled in favor of REPACOM so Vizpac appealed, alleging that collection for money should have been filed before the Declaratory Relief Action H: Although the general rule is that the claim for the payment should have been claimed in a counterclaim in the declaratory relief action, where it appears that the said DRA was filed to obstruct and delay payment and it was pending for a considerable

Civil Procedure Case Ticklers

time, the axn for collection should be allowed to achieve substantial justice.

Leonen

BA Finance v. CO F: BA Finance filed action to recover sum of money vs. Rufino Co., Rufino Co filed answer and compulsory counterclaim for their alleged overpayments to BA Finance. During PRETRIAL, BA Finance repeatedly did not appear so Rufino Co. moved to dismiss the complaint, then moved to set the reception of evidence which was denied by RTC but was granted by CA. H: Dismissal of the main action by defendant for non-appearance of the plaintiff carried with it the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim, it being auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and merely derives its juridical support therefrom. Re: remedies of Defendant in case Axn dismissed due to fault of plaintiff: 1. move to declare plaintiff as non-suited + in default on compulsory counterclaim 2. reserve right to maintain counterclaim to present evidence ex parte Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago (not assigned but abandoned ruling in BA Finance) F: Defendant moved to dismiss action based on failure of plaintiff to prosecute his case (did not appear for trial for a long time). H: Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In fact, the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the right of defendants to prosecute the counterclaim. Go v. CA Pascual v. Bautista Balbastro v. CA Republic v. Central Surety De Dios v. Balagot

Service Cha. Mendoza

Civil Procedure Case Ticklers

Eschaus vs. CA

Leonen

Cha. Mendoza