Civil Procedure: Rule 1 Purpose of Rules

LET’S START AT THE VERY BEGINNING

Angel of God, my Guardian dear

To Whom His Love entrusts Me here

Ever this day, be at my side

To Light and Guide, to Rule and Guard

Amen

DISCLAIMER:  This is not authoritative since this is based solely on the lecture notes, hence the frequent WITs (what is this?) NOTE: all WORD GAMES are not formal definitions but word for word transcriptions of L’s mind maps.  Hence, these are practical definitions just to juggle your memory according to SIr’s mental outline.

GILLIAN, IN A DIFFERENT VOICE. 

Jake:  Rule Based on Principle Based Resolution.  Apply the law, and make allowances for mistakes in the law.  Situation does not create the rule.

Amy:  Relational / Consensual / Processional Based Resolution

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN V. GUERRA.  Issue:  Re:  1978 California legislation re:  State mandated employee benefits but not for other temporary disabilities. Single mother lost her job as a receptionist after her maternity leave, and as a result of her unemployment, lost custody of her daughter.               Mother filed case to enforce maternity benefits:  employer challenged statute as inconsistent with Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) which treats pregnancy as similar with other temporary disabilities for employment purposes.

ACLU BRIEF.

Elimination of pregnancy-based distinctions valid re:  employment purposes since protectionist laws tend to promote stereotype of female childbearers and caregivers, and deter employers from hiring them or putting them in more responsible positions; they make women appear as more expensive, less reliable employees.

By making pregnancy comparable to other temporary physical conditions, Congress directs attention away from debilitating stereotypes and focus attention on workers’ need for disability leave itself.  Benefits should be provided on a gender-neutral basis.

COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE EQUALITY BRIEF. 

Though leave policies that are gender-neutral may affect the employment interests of both sexes, such policies place an additional burden on females with the fundamental non-employment right of procreative choice.

The law in question reduces the discriminatory impact of inadequate leave policies on women’s procreative rights, while conferring no special benefit on any group of employees, and imposing no special burden on others.

There is no inconsistency between the federal law’s goal of removing artificial barriers to equal employment opportunity between the sexes, and the California statute’s effect of equalizing male and female employees’ ability to exercise procreative choice w/o jeopardizing their jobs.

MENKEL.  PORTIA IN A DIFFERENT VOICE.

Re:  Gillian’s observations about M/F differences in moral reasoning re:  structure of legal system, practice of law, creation of laws, legal reasoning and law as part of the decision-making process; 2 questions:

1.  How has the exclusion, or at least the devaluation of women’s voices affected the choices made in the values underlying our current legal structures?  (Value system).

2.  Is there another set of values within existing legal structures?

Usually, tendency for one set of characteristics to mitigate the excesses of the other, therefore the harshness of law produced the flexibility of equity, and the abuse of flexibility gave rise to rules of law to limit discretion.  Still, the tendency for male-dominated or male-created forms  and values to control.

 

RULE 1

Purpose of Rules

Alonzo v. Villamor, 16 Phil 315, 321-322

Facts: Defendant members of the Municipal Board took over certain church & personal properties on the ground that the buildings were erected on the land owned by the municipality & therefore the municipality can administer & collect the revenues. The CFI granted recovery of the properties. One of the arguments posed by the defendants was that Fr. Alonso, the parish priest, was not the real party-in-interest but rather the Bishop of the diocese.

Held: The property in question at the time it was taken was Church property. It is undoubted that the Bishop is the real party. But by Code of Civil Procedure  §10, cts. are authorized & directed to allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action, in furtherance of justice. § 503 prohibits the reversal of any judgment on merely formal or technical grounds or for such error as has not prejudiced the rights of the excepting party, The error in CAB is purely technical. The plaintiff has asserted all throughout that he is prosecuting the case not for himself but for the Bishop. Substantially, no one is deceived. Substitution is not substantial but formal & mere defect in form cannot possibly prejudice so long as the substantial is clearly evident.

ALONZO V VILLAMOR.   misjoinder/non-joinder of parties not ground for dismissal.  Must allege lack of cause of action

Amendment allowed for matters of form; therefore, if parties acquiesce during trial, there may be no need for formal lesson.

Lesson in ALONZO:  If rules are clear, apply; if there is ambiguity, constr5uct so that there is justice for all

Jurisdiction

BP Blg. 128

RA No. 7691

RA No. 8369

 

Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992)

Facts: Javier filed a case vs. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. in  RTC Makati to avail of death benefits when her husband drowned off the coast of Spain. JMI’s new counsel instead of continuing the trial filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) on the ground that it is the POEA that has jurisdiction. RTC denied. JMI failed to appear at the hearing & RTC declared them as having waived right to cross-examine. Motion for Reconsideration was denied. JMI successfully appealed to CA. Javier’s MFR was denied.

Held: EO 247 §3 (d) provides that the POEA shall have exclusive & original jurisdiction to hear & decide all claims arising out of an EE-ER relation or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment. Javier’s’ contention that JMI is estopped fr. assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC considering that the latter had actively participated in the proceedings before said ct. is unavailing since JMI had raised the question of jurisdiction in the RTC. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be properly invoked by Javier despite the participation of JMI at the initial stages of the trial proceedings as the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any time & at any stage of the action.

JAVIER V CA.  Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction:  file original and exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunal, even if possible to lead jurisdiction in both.  Exhaustion of administrative remedies is to give a chance for administrative functions to work.

 

Santos v. NW, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)

Facts:  Santos was bumped off his flight back to the USA despite confirmation. He sued in the Makati RTC for damages. NWOA filed a MTD for on the ground of lack of jurisdiction citing the Warsaw Convention Art. 28(1) w/c states that the complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before: (1) the ct. of the domicile of the carrier; (2) the ct. of the principal place of business; (3) the ct. where it has a place of business thru w/c the contract had been made; & (4) the ct. of the place of destination.  The suit was not filed in any of these places.

Held: The Warsaw Convention applies to all international transportation cases. A number of reasons tends to support the characterization of Art. 28 (1) as a jurisdiction & not a venue provision. First, the wording of Art. 32, w/c indicate the places where the actin for damages must be brought underscores the mandatory nature of Art. 28 (1). Second, this characterization is consistent wit one of the objectives of the Convention w/c is to regulate in a uniform manner the condition of international transportation by air. Third, the Convention does not contain any provision prescribing rules on jurisdiction other than Art. 28 (1) w/c means that the phrase “rules of jurisdiction” used in Art. 32 must refer only to Art. 28 (1). In fact, the last sentence of Art. 32 specifically deals w/ the exclusive enumeration in Art. 28 (1) as jurisdictions w/c as such cannot be left to the will of the parties regardless of the time when the damage occurred. The Constitutional right on free access to cts. refers to cts. w/ jurisdiction over the suit. The place of destination as determined by the contract is the ultimate destination w/c is San Francisco, not Manila. Domicile is where NWOA is incorporated. Important is the distinction between the country where the principal place of business is located & the country in w/c it has a place of business thru w/c the particular contract  in question was made.

 

SANTOS V NORTHWEST.  

Jurisdiction.  2 meanings:  a) place of filing and b) level of court.  Can’t be changed, set by law.

Venue.  Place of filing.  Can be changed by consent of parties subject to pertinent rules.

In the case at bar, the source of law is treaty, not contract.  Therefore, jurisdiction set by law.

Venue prescribed by process or Rules of Court (what does this mean?)

The difference between jurisdiction and venue.  Look at a) consequence and b) source of law.

 

Lopez v. NW, 223 SCRA 469

Facts: Lopez was bumped off her flight to New York by Northwest. She filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage w/ damages, alleging bad faith on the part of the airline. NW filed MTD on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention. RTC & CA denied: Art. 28 (1) prescribes venue for actions under Arts. 17-19 & does not cover carrier’s bad faith in absolutely  refusing to comply w/ contract of carriage; off-loading, & bumping off is not covered under the Warsaw Convention. Appeal in the SC failed. After trial on the merits, RTC directed parties to submit their respective memoranda for decision 30 days & it expired  Feb. 14, 1992. On July, NW filed MTD after SC ruling on Santos vs. NW. RTC granted.

Held: RTC had jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the complaint contains the allegation w/c may fall w/in Art. 28 (1). What is clear is that NW did not object to RTC’s order to submit evidence & declare case submitted for  decision pursuant to 1987 Consti, Art. 8, Sec. 15, Nos. 1 & 2. TC had 90 days fr. Feb. 15 to decide w/c was the only thing left for it to do. BY virtue of the SC’s resolution, RTC had prima facie jurisdiction. It was also not established that the facts in Santos were substantially the same. Besides, posterior changes in SC doctrines cannot be retroactively applied to nullify a prior SC ruling. Jurisdiction continues until termination. While jurisdiction over subject matter may be raised at any time, party may be barred on ground of laches/estoppel.

 

Bulao v. CA, 218 SCRA 321 (1992)

Facts: Santiago Belleza sued Honorio Bulao for damages in MuTC for having built a dam on an  irrigation canal,  causing the waterflow to divert to Belleza’s land,  resulting into  crop damage. Bulao filed a MTD on the ground that RTC had jurisdiction – denied. He then argued that it was the National Water Resources Council that had jurisdiction – denied. MuTC declared Bulao in default & ruled for Belleza. Bulao appealed to the RTC -denied.

Held: MuTC had jurisdiction. But to resolve this, determine first the nature of the action. This can be ascertained  fr. the ultimate facts averred in the complaint constituting the  COA. Allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action & consequently the jurisdiction of the cts.. It is clear fr. a reading of the complaint that it is an action for damages predicated on  quasi-delict Although the title of the complaint (“Damages”) is not necessarily determinative of the nature of the action, it would nevertheless indicate that what was contemplated was an action for damages. Allegations of the facts set forth in the complaint & not the prayer for relief  determine the nature of the action.

BULAO V CA. The wonderful thing about the servient’s estate’s complaint was the allegation that the dominant estate “maliciously put a dam” and this phrase placed it within the court’s jurisdiction.  To place the case within the National Water Resources Council (NWRC)’s jurisdiction, allege that dominant estate set up dam without a permit in violation of PD 1067 and took control of the water, in effect appropriated water illegally.

Name game:  Jurisdiction is prescribed by law and acquired by court.

 

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA

Facts: The Tijams filed a civil case against the  Sibonghanoys for recovery of P1,900 + interest.  The Sibonghanoys filed an answer w/ counterclaim, to w/c the Tijams filed a reply.  The CFI Cebu ruled in the Tijam’s favor. A writ of execution was returned unsatisfied so the Tijams filed a motion for execution against the  Manila Surety & Fidelity Co.,  w/c was denied due to lack of demand. A demand later  made was unsatisfied,  so the ct., upon motion, issued a writ of execution. Appeal w/ the CA failed.  MFR filed, alleging that the CFI had no jurisdiction bec. 1 month before the case was filed, RA 926, or the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1948, took effect, Sec. 88 of w/c places original & exclusive jurisdiction in inferior cts. over all civil actions where the value of the subject matter is £P2T. CA set aside decision by certifying the case to the SC,  w/c has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases in w/c the jurisdiction of inferior cts. is at issue.

Held: Although objections to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, in the CAB, it took almost 15 years before the Surety filed its MTD (1963),  raising lack of jurisdiction for the first time. It is now barred by laches. From the time it became a quasi-party upon filing of a counter bond in 1948, it could have raised the objection. Instead,  at several stages of the action, it invoked the jurisdiction of said cts. to obtain an affirmative relief. It was only when the CA ruled adversely that it finally raised the question of jurisdiction. SC frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision & then accepting the judgment only if it is favorable & attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.

TIJAM V SIBONGHANOY.   The trial court, after 15 years, can act motu proprio and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.  Estoppel by laches does not apply to judge.

 

Abalos v. CA, 30 April 1991

Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name. The squatters, against whom the action was filed,  lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the CA on the ground that the RTC erred in not dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the Katarungang Barangay conciliation procedure. CA granted.

Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as their address. But they were able to change it to Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents objecting. The requirement of conciliation cannot be enforced since the property is in QC, where the respondents reside, while the Abalos spouses live in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20).  Respondents effectively waived their right when they failed to object to the correction of the Abalos’ residence fr. QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the merits. The fact that they argued their case & adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he cannot thereafter,  after an unfavorable judgment, take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD 1508 was not made.

ABALOS V CA.  Ruling (acc. to L):  Amendment already happens implicitly when parties acquiesce

Q:     Is failure to undergo Katarunggang Pambaranggay a ground for dismissal for failure to comply with condition precedent?

L:       Abalos fails to clarify this.  Formerly, grounds for MTD in ROC Rule 16 provided “failure to state a cause of action”.  Now clarified by Revised ROC Rule 16 (j) which now states “failure to comply with condition precedent”

NOTE:    In this class, L is synonymous with A in Q & A; but more often, he prefers to be Q.  All Qs are Ls unless otherwise indicated

Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627

 

LECTURE ON JURISDICTION

RA 8369:  Changes jurisdiction for cases

Jurisdiction, remedy, relief, cause of action, subject matter  (what is this?)

Place:  Rules prescribing place to file may not necessarily refer to venue but to jurisdiction as well

P20T/P50T           — subject matter

P100T/P200T       — relief

If allegations not coMplete, vulnerable to MTD

Judicial power:  sum total of all courts comprising the judiciary power of judicary of make decisions on actual controversies.

Jurisdiction:  a particular court exercising power over a specific controversy

 

Flores v. Mallare Philipps, 144 SCRA

Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name. The squatters, against whom the action was filed,  lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the CA on the ground that the RTC erred in not dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the Katarungang Barangay conciliation procedure. CA granted.

Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as their address. But they were able to change it to Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents objecting. The requirement of conciliation cannot be enforced since the property is in QC, where the respondents reside, while the Abalos spouses live in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20).  Respondents effectively waived their right when they failed to object to the correction of the Abalos’ residence fr. QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the merits. The fact that they argued their case & adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he cannot thereafter,  after an unfavorable judgment, take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD 1508 was not made.

FLORES V MALLARE-PHILIPPS:  Example where it is possible to allege facts in pleading that gives rise to 2 causes of action: misjoinder of parties

L:  lack cause of action a separate case (WIT?)

Strategy:  file answer for 1st cause of action; file MTD for 2nd cause of action

CALIMLIM V RAMIREZ.  Res judicata:  bar by prior judgment (diff. From estoppel)

L:  General Rule:  Jurisdiction is conferred by law and thus it can be raised at any point in the proceedings even on appeal

TIJAM rule:  Estoppel by laches occurs when 2 requisites concur

a. passage of an unreasonable length of time

a. party sleep on its rights to make other party believe that the former has abandoned his rights

Therefore, party can’t raise question of jurisdiction if he is guilty of estoppel by laches

CALIMLIM rule:  W/N party asked for affirmative relief irrelevant; what matters is whether party was led to believe that the other party slept on his rights.  A rule on equity.

General Rule:  Court can dismiss case for lack  of jurisdiction motu proprio

 

Ortigas & Co. v. CA 106 SCRA

Facts:  Ortigas & Co. sold to Maximo Belmonte a piece of land. Terms: Belmonte would be considered a lessee until full payment & in case of default he would be ejected as trespasser or unlawful detainer. Belmonte failed to pay so an action for unlawful detainer was field in the San Juan MuTC, where Ortigas prayed that the residential building constructed by Belmonte be forfeited in its favor. Belmonte lost so he appealed to the CFI Rizal by filing an MTD under ROC 40 Sec. 11 w/c,  if granted, would in effect dismiss the case & render judgment  by MuTC invalid for lack of jurisdiction. It was denied but an appeal to the CA set aside the MuTC & CFI rulings. On appeal, the SC ruled that the issues were purely legal & should have been brought directly to the SC, but it proceeded to adjudicate the case anyway as if brought for the first time.

 

Held: MuTC had jurisdiction according to the ruling in Fuentes & Goter vs. Muñoz-Palma. An action for unlawful detainer,  w/c is a summary proceeding to wrest possession fr. one who has no right thereto, is applicable only when the issue is that of possession. According to the Judiciary Act Sec. 44 (b), the CFI has original jurisdiction in all civil actions w/c involve title to or possession of real property,  except actions of forcible entry & detainer over lands or buildings where original jurisdiction is conferred upon city or municipal cts.. This case involves not merely right of possession but also rights of ownership over the improvements as indicated in the prayer. CFI should have dismissed the case when its was brought on appeal bec. it could only have entertained the same  if the parties did not object to nor raised the question of jurisdiction.

 

Dy v. CA, 195 SCRA

Facts: Ramon Roxas filed an ejectment suit in the MeTC Makati vs. Andres & Gloria Dy where he won. Dys appealed to the RTC,  but failed. MeTC  granted immediate execution,  so  the next day, the Sheriff & some policemen ejected the Dys by throwing their belongings to the street. They filed a motion to quash/recall of the writ of execution on the ground that  they had not received a copy of the RTC decision. MeTC denied. CA appeal failed.

Held: There must first be copy of the RTC decision served on the losing party before judgment is executed. Refer to ROC 39 Sec. 1,  Rules on Summary Procedure Sec. 12 &  BP 129 Sec. 22. Proof of service of copy of judgment determines whether or not the appeal period has  lapsed. If no appeal was filed after the copy is served, then the decision is immediately executory as a matter of right. A petition for review by CA of RTC judgment may be filed only after notice of RTC judgment has been served on the losing party. If no notice was served, the losing party has no legal remedy against an illegal judgment nor does the CA have the power to prevent the execution of an illegal order. However, the Dys cannot have the relief prayed for since they failed to appeal after they were served notice. Nothing is more settled than the rule that in every litigation, the parties thereto are entitled to due process,  & if there is a denial thereof, then the validity of the proceedings is open to question.

 

Manchester Dev. Co. v. CA, 149 SCRA

Facts: MDC filed a complaint for damages & specific performance against City Land to compel the latter to push through w/ the sale of the land. The amount of damages was not specified in the prayer but was alleged in the body of the complaint. Thus, a docket fee of only P410 was paid  on the presumption that  the amount involved was not capable of pecuniary estimation,  when in fact it was. MDC’s second counsel deleted all mention of damages. SC ordered the reassessment of docket fees. Reduced damages were still not specified in the prayer. CA ruled that docket fees should be based on the orig. comp.

Held: A case is deemed filed only upon payment of docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing in ct.. Thus, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction w/ the payment of the P410 docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not vest jurisdiction,  much less payment of the docket fee, based on the amount averred in the amended pleading. The design to avoid payment is obvious since it misled the docket clerk. All complaints, petitions, answers, & similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the pleading but also in the prayer & said damages should be considered in the assessment of the filing of fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply w/ this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, &  shall be expunged fr. the record.

 

Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA

Facts:  Sun Insurance filed a complaint in the RTC for consignation of a premium fund on a private fire insurance policy against Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Manuel filed for a refund of the premium but the amount of damages was not specified in the prayer, although  it could be inferred in the body. Thus, only P210 docket fee was paid. SC ordered reassessment of the docket fees. The amended complaint stated a claim of not less than P10M in the prayer  but a second amendment raised the amount to P44M+ w/c was admitted in ct.. Sun questions this order.

Held: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. The contention that Manchester ruling cannot apply retroactively to this case is untenable. Statutes regulating the procedure of the cts. will be construed to apply to actions pending & undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense & to that extent. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or pleading but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests the trial ct. w/ jurisdiction over the subject matter  or nature of the action. Where the TC acquires  jurisdiction over a claim w/ the filing of the appropriate pleading & payment of the prescribed filing fee, but subsequently the an  award of an amount not specified in the pleading, or if specified,  the same has been left for determination by the ct., the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien & assess  the additional fee.

Katarungang Pambarangay

See RA 7160 provisions

 

Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444

Facts:  This was a case for the recovery of a sum of money plus damages = P49,400.00.  AA MTD was filed bec. of failure to undergo conciliation proceeding in the brgy.  The MTD was opposed on the ground that the  law on KP covers only to those cases falling w/in the exclusive juris. of the MTCs.

Held:  There is no distinction whatsoever w/ respect to the classes of civil  dispute that should be compromised at the brgy level as contradistinguished w/ that of the criminal cases.

Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA 470

Facts:  This is an ejectment case again in the MTC.  R, the lessee, participated in the trial & even cross-examined the petitioner.  R, then, filed a certiorari & prohibition w/ preliminary injunction when the decision was adverse to him.

Held: Petition denied.  A party who has affirmed & invoked the jurisdiction of a ct. in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief cannot, afterwards, deny the same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.

 

LECTURE ON KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

General Rule.  All civil actions, regardless of amount of relief, between parties of the same baranggay, should undergo Katarunggang Pambaranggay

Remedy: a) Don’t arrive at a settlement

b) File case v. Lupon to compel them to dismiss objectinable Lupon member

(This case need not undergo KP re sec. 408 (b) and sec. 406 (a)) (WIT?)

MANCHESTER rule:  full payment of docket fees necessary for court to acquire jurisdiction

All prayers must be in the complaint, not just in the body

Overruled LEGASPI re: installment payments no longer allowed

SUN INSURANCE: bar problem.  If there is an honest difference of opinion as to amount of docket fees and P is in good faith, court can grant period of time to allow payment.  Qualifies MANCHESTER only to that extent

MANCHESTER:  if award to judgment creditor is greater than the amount prayed form, difference in docket fees constitutes first lien.

NOTE:  but no payback of excess fees even if awarded less

L:  Remember to bill your client for “incidental” or “out of pocket” costs for sheriff’s transportation, food and vitamins

JURISDICTION (power to hear, try and decide cases)

Conferred by law.  Law can only be changed by passing through Congress.  Party can’t amend rules on jurisdiction by agreement or voluntary act  Jurisdiction can be raised at any time even on appeal, after termination of case of decision becomes final and executory, subject to rules on prescription.  Raise issues of jurisdiction via a MTD (Rule 16) but court can act motu proprio.  Rule on place not necessarily a rule on venue.

TIJAM.  Bar problem.  Qualifies who can raise matters of jurisdiction.  If estopped by laches, can’t file MTD in equity

JURISDICTION.  May be subject to nature of

1. Cause of action – eg. Admiralty cases, domestic violence

1. Relief

1. Subject matter (thing over which the rights and duties occur – eg. rights or title to real property > P50 T; claims incapable of pecuniary estimation

1. Remedy – eg. forcible entry and unlawful detainer, review by certiorari; BULAO v CA

Jurisdiction, once acquired, is never lost.

Exception:  DY V CA.  Court violates constitution; ousted from jurisdiction.

NOTE: judgment still valid, no jurisdiction only for purposes of issuing writ of execution due to lack of notice to party

WORD GAME:

Conferment of Jurisdiction:    law prescribes jurisdiction

Acquisition of Jurisdiction:   Rule 1 Section 5:  Filing of complaint vests court with jurisdiction over res.  Summons vests court with jurisdiction over the corpus.

NOTE:  filing of complaint happens upon full payment of docket fees

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

NOTE:  Failure to undergo Katarunggang  Pambarangay not issue of jurisdiction Sec. 412 Loc. Government Code; neither a defect in jurisdiction but vulnerable to a MTD (Rule 16 sec. J) for failure to undergo condition precedent.

Failure to undergo condition precedent can only be raised in a MTD or as an affirmative defense

Summary Procedure

Rules on Summary Procedure (Oct. ’91)

Del Rosario v. CA, 241 SCRA 519 (’95)

 

Held:  The presence of an action for quieting of title does not divest the MeTC of original jurisdiction  over the ejectment case.  An ejectment case (possession de facto) is independent of any claim of ownership (possession de jure).  Under the revised Summary Procedure (Nov. 15, 1991) all types of ejectment cases are now covered by it regardless of whether or not the issue of ownership of subject property is pleaded by a party.  No hearings are required in this procedure.  The adjudication of cases here are done on the basis of affidavits & position papers.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE

Remedy for forcible entry, unlawful detainer, < P10,000

Katarunggang Pambaranggay condition precedent before parties can obtain judicial relief

Not apply to ordinary civil actions in RTC

Summary Procedure

Ordinary Civil Action

Pleadings Allowed

Verified complaint

Compulsory counterclaim

Answer to complaint

Crossclaim v existing defendant

Complaint

Counterclaim

a. Compulsory(relates to transaction)

a. Permissive (not related)

Crossclaim

Third party claim

Intervention

Answer

Reply

Answer

File answer w/in 10 days of service of summons

File answer w/in 15 days of service of summons

Can court act motu proprio in dismissing the case?

YES.  Court can act motu proprio and dismiss

NO. Court cannot dismiss action motu proprio but must wait for MTD

Effect of other party’s failure to file an answer

Get judgment.  No need for motion for default or order for default

File a motion to declare the other party in default

Preliminary Conference not later than 30 days

Effect of P’s failure to appear

Cause for dismissal

Counterclaim barred

Main Action dismissed but Compulsory Counterclaim not dismissed.  D gets judgment

Cause for dismissal with prejudice

Main action dismissed and Compulsory counterclaim also dismissed

Process

Submit position papers and affidavits 10 days from receipt of pre-trail order

L:  on those affidavits hinge your entire case so pray (Angel of God, hindi motion) that the court ask for clarificatory affidavits (motu proprio)

Extension of  time not allowed

You figure it out.

Contents of Affidavits

State facts

Show competence to testify

Show admissibility of witness

Absent these:  affidavits excluded and lawyer may be subject to disciplinary action

Prohibited Motions

MTD on sec. 16 except lack of jurisdiction

Bill of particulars

New judgment

Periods

No time period from beginning to end but mandatory periods in between.

 

Source:  University of the Philippines

About these ads

About Magz

First of all, I am not a lawyer. I'm a graduate of AB Political Science and went to the College of Law but stopped going to law school for some reasons. I'm a passionate teacher who has been teaching English to speakers of other languages and a person who likes writing and blogging. I lost some important files and software when my computer broke down so the reason I created this website is to preserve the notes, reviewers and digests I collected when I was at the law school and at the same time, I want to help out law students who do not have enough time to go and read books in the library.

Posted on September 23, 2011, in Civil Procedure and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. I am actually happy to glance at this weblog posts which contains lots
    of helpful information, thanks for providing these kinds of data.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 298 other followers

%d bloggers like this: