Civpro Jalique Titan

8/13/2019 Civpro Jalique Titan

1/64

G.R. No. 148305 November 28, 2003SPS. ROGELIO & CONCHITA JALI!E, re"re#e$%e b' %(e)r *%%or$e'+)$+*-%, ROGELIO JALI!E, JR.,petitioners,vs.SPS. EPIANIO & J!LIETA /AN/AN, SPS. RO/OLO & A/EST!RA, SPS. PAENG & JESSIE ANALO, SPS. RENAL/O & NI/A/ELA CR!, SPS. ALERTO & ANITA EPLEO, SPS. ELI &SOLE/A/ ORLAG/ATAN, SPS. RO/OLO & A/ELINA CAG!JAS,

SPS. SIPLICIO & NORA ANOER, SPS. GREGORIO & L! ARCOS,SPS. ERIN & JOSEPHINE OITA, ENANCIA /A. /E N!ESTRO,ARINA /A. /E GERONIO, C!LASA /A. /E HERNAN/E *$ILOENA /A. /E /ACASIN *$ THE HONORALE CO!RT OAPPEALS,respondents.R E S O L ! T I O N!IS!ING, J.6For review on certiorari is the Decision,1dated December 27, 2000, ofthe Court of Appeals in CA-.!. "# $o. %&&7', annullin( theDecision,2dated $ovember 2), 1&&', of the !e(ional *rial Court +!*C of#asi( Cit, ranch 70, in "CA Case $o. 1/27. *he !*C had affirmed intotothe Decision)of the etropolitan *rial Court +e*C of #asi( Cit,ranch 70, in Civil Case $o. )0), an unlawful detainer case. *he e*C hadrendered a ud(ment in favor of petitioners for respondents3 failure to file anAnswer. *he Court of Appeals ordered the remand of the case to the e*Cfor a trial on the merits. #etitioners also assail the appellate court3s!esolution,%dated a 22, 2001, denin( their motion for reconsideration.*he facts, as culled from records, are as follows45n Au(ust 1), 1&&7, the spouses !o(elio and Conchita 6aliue, representedb their attorne-in-fact !o(elio ". 6aliue, 6r., filed a Complaint for unlawfuldetainer a(ainst respondents before the e*C of #asi( Cit, doc8eted asCivil Case $o. )0). *he 6aliues alle(ed that the are the re(isteredowners of a 1// s. meter lot and its improvements situated at #alatiw,#asi( Cit and covered b *C* $o. #*-&)%%2. *he respondents herein arethe tenants or lessees of a portion of said propert, havin( been inpossession of the same for uite some time, pursuant to month-to-monthverbal a(reements. #etitioners averred that the respondents had arro(antlrefused their offer to formali9e their lease a(reement. *he petitioners hadsou(ht the intercession of the Lupong Tagapa-mayapa, but to no avail, thus(ivin( them no choice but to terminate the lease a(reement with therespondents. *he latter, however, remained in possession and refused tovacate despite demands made b the petitioners.!espondents did not file an Answer to the complaint, but filed a 6oint CounterAffidavit/on "eptember 12, 1&&7, statin( that4 +a petitioners were not theowners of the disputed propert: +b some of them were not residin( oroccupin( an portion of said land: +c petitioners should pa some of themfor the improvements made on the realt in uestion: and +d petitioners had

no ri(ht to oust respondents as the had been pain( the rentals, albeitwithout the correspondin( receipts from petitioners.5n "eptember 2/, 1&&7, petitioners filed a otion for 6ud(ment on theComplaint.5n 5ctober )1, 1&&7, the e*C decided Civil Case $o. )0) as follows4

;$ 5F A?? *@= A5


2/64

#etitioners have practicall become the co-owners of the propertthe are occupin(.10

*he Court of Appeals annulled the !*C decision and decreed that the casebe remanded to the e*C for hearin( on the merits, thus4

>@=!=F5!=, premises considered, the decision dated 5ctober )1,1&&7 of the e*C and the decision dated $ovember 2), 1&&' of the!*C is hereb A$$B??=D A$D "=* A";D=, and this case isremanded to the e*C so that the same ma be heard on the merits

and with immediate dispatch. $o costs."5 5!D=!=D.11

*he appellate court held that both the e*C and the !*C erred in i(norin(respondents3 6oint Counter Affidavit filed within the 10-da re(lementarperiod to file an Answer under "ection /12of the 1&&1 !evised !ule on"ummar #rocedure. *he appellate court pointed out that while the 6ointCounter Affidavit was poorl crafted, nevertheless, it should have beenconsidered as petitioners3 Answer as it sets forth petitioners3 defenses andraises issues and counterclaims, which should be considered if ustice is tobe served. 5therwise put, both the e*C and !*C erred in (ivin( premiumto matters of form.#etitioners then moved for reconsideration, but the appellate court denied themotion.@ence, this petition submittin( for our resolution, the sole issue of4

>@=*@=! 5! $5* *@= @5$5!A?= C5B!* 5F A##=A?"=!!=D ;$ A$$B??;$ A$D "=**;$ A";D= *@= D=C;";5$"5F *@= =*!5#5?;*A$ *!;A? C5B!* A$D *@= !=;5$A?*!;A? C5B!* A$D 5!D=!;$ *@A* *@;" CA"= =!=A$D=D *5 *@= e*C F5! @=A!;$ 5$ *@= =!;*".1)

#etitioners contend that the court a quo erred in reversin( and annullin( the!*C decision, for in affirmin( the e*C, the !*C was merel applin( thepertinent provisions of the 1&&1 !evised !ule on "ummar #rocedure. *herules on "ummar #rocedure were promul(ated to achieve an epeditiousand inepensive determination of cases especiall in unlawful detainer casesbecause the involve possession of propert posin( a threat to the peace ofour societ. *hus, a remand of the case to the e*C, as decreed b theappellate court, would preudice them and run contrar to the summarnature of the proceedin(.*he respondents counter that the remand of the case is not preudicial to thepetitioners, as it will (ive them all the chances to prove their cause of actiona(ainst respondents. ;t would li8ewise allow respondents to eno their ri(htto be heard in their defense.>e find that the situation obtainin( in this case calls for a liberal, not atechnical and ri(id, interpretation of the rules on "ummar #rocedure in theli(ht of the presence rather than a total absence of a responsive pleadin(.5ur perusal of the respondents3 6oint Counter Affidavit shows that it disputedthe material alle(ations of the Complaint and presented valid issues for thelower court3s resolution, such as the ownership of the subect lot, the period

of lease, ri(ht of reimbursement for improvements and the ri(ht to eectrespondents. As correctl observed b the Court of Appeals4

A perusal of the 6oint Counter Affidavit will reveal that althou(h thesame is unsatisfactoril crafted, it sets forth the petitioners3 defenses.;t also raises issues and counterclaims which reuire properconsideration if ustice is to be served, i.e., petitioners3 claim on theimprovements made upon the thin( leased: if the reuisites of Article17' of the $ew Civil Code are complied with, the lessees +herein

petitioners will have the ri(ht to reimbursement or if pament isrefused b the lessor, the ri(ht of removal. *hus, the reuirements ofthe !ules that the Answer shall set forth the defenses and theobections of the defendants includin( the compulsor counterclaimor cross-claim +"ection %, !ule : "ections 1 and 2, !ule & of the1&&7 !ules of Civil #rocedure specificall denin( the materialalle(ation of fact the truth of which he does not admit +"ection 10,!ule ', 1&&7 !ules of Civil #rocedure were substantiall compliedwith b the counter affidavit filed b the petitioners on time. *hiscounter affidavit should have been considered as petitioners3 Answerwithout (ivin( premium on matters of form thereb servin( theinterest of substantial ustice....1%

*he Court of Appeals, thus, committed no reversible error in reversin( the!*C and orderin( the remand of the case to the e*C. $ot all lawers are(ifted with the s8ill to craft pleadin(s that full meet the reuirements as tosubstance and form. ut what matters is the substance and not the form.*hus, while a pleadin( ma be deficient in craftsmanship and can becritici9ed with respect to incidental particulars, it must be deemed sufficient ifit fairl apprises the adverse part of the claims or contentions therein statedand does not mislead him to his surprise or inur or when from thealle(ations therein, ta8en to(ether, the matters reuired to be averred mabe (athered. ;n the words of Chief 6ustice oran, !ules of pleadin(s areintended to secure a method b which the issues ma be properl laid beforethe court. >hen those issues are alread clear before the court, thedeficienc in the observance of the rules should not be (iven undueimportance. >hat is important is that the case be decided upon the meritsand that it should not be allowed to (o off on procedural points.1/

7HEREORE, the petition is /ENIE/and the assailed Decision of the Courtof Appeals in CA-.!. "#. $o. %&&7' is AIRE/. $o pronouncement asto costs.SO OR/ERE/.

CIVPRO CASES: JALIQUE-TITAN | 2


3/64

G.R. No. 1459: A;


4/64

statements. ;t went to (reat len(ths to eplain Att. arlitos3 testimon as well asits implications, as follows41. >hile Att. arlitos denied si(nin( the answer, the fact was that the answerwas si(ned. @ence, the pleadin( could not be considered invalid for bein( anunsi(ned pleadin(. *he fact that the person who si(ned it was neither 8nown toAtt. arlitos nor specificall authori9ed b him was immaterial. *he importantthin( was that the answer bore a si(nature.2. >hile the !ules of Court reuires that a pleadin( must be si(ned b the partor his counsel, it does not prohibit a counsel from (ivin( a (eneral authorit for

an person to si(n the answer for him which was what Att. arlitos did. *heperson who actuall si(ned the pleadin( was of no moment as lon( as counsel8new that it would be si(ned b another. *his was similar to addressin( anauthori9ation letter to whom it ma concern such that an person could act on iteven if he or she was not 8nown beforehand.). Att. arlitos testified that he prepared the answer: he never disowned itscontents and he resumed actin( as counsel for respondent subseuent to itsfilin(. *hese circumstances show that Att. arlitos conformed to or ratified thesi(nin( of the answer b another.!espondent repeated these statements of Att. arlitos in its motion forreconsideration of the trial court3s Februar 1&, 1&&& resolution. And a(ain in thepetition it filed in the Court of Appeals as well as in the comment 1/andmemorandum it submitted to this Court.

=videntl, respondent completel adopted Att. arlitos3 statements as its own.!espondent3s adoptive admission constituted a udicial admission which wasconclusive on it.Contrar to respondent3s position, a si(ned pleadin( is one that is si(ned eitherb the part himself or his counsel. "ection ), !ule 7 is clear on this matter. ;treuires that a pleadin( must be signedby the party or counsel representing him.*herefore, onl the si(nature of either the part himself or his counsel operatesto validl convert a pleadin( from one that is unsi(ned to one that is si(ned.Counsel3s authorit and dut to si(n a pleadin( are personal to him. @e ma notdele(ate it to ust an person.*he si(nature of counsel constitutes an assurance b him that he has read thepleadin(: that, to the best of his 8nowled(e, information and belief, there is a(ood (round to support it: and that it is not interposed for dela. 1Bnder the!ules of Court, it is counsel alone, b affiin( his si(nature, who can certif tothese matters.*he preparation and si(nin( of a pleadin( constitute le(al wor8 involvin( practiceof law which is reserved eclusivel for the members of the le(al profession.Counsel ma dele(ate the si(nin( of a pleadin( to another lawer 17but cannotdo soin favor of one who is not. *he Code of #rofessional !esponsibilit provides4!ule &.01 H A lawer shall not dele(ate to an unualified person theperformance of an tas8 which b law ma onl be performed b a member ofthe ar in (ood standin(.oreover, a si(nature b a(ents of a lawer amounts to si(nin( b unualifiedpersons, 1'somethin( the law stron(l proscribes.

*herefore, the blan8et authorit respondent claims Att. arlitos entrusted to ustanone was void. An act ta8en pursuant to that authorit was li8ewise void.

*here was no wa it could have been cured or ratified b Att. arlitos3subseuent acts.oreover, the transcript of the $ovember 2, 1&&' "enate hearin( shows thatAtt. arlitos consented to the si(nin( of the answer b another as lon( as itconformed to his draft. >e (ive no value whatsoever to such self-servin(statement.$o doubt, Att. arlitos could not have validl (iven blan8et authorit for ustanone to si(n the answer. *he trial court correctl ruled that respondent3sanswer was invalid and of no le(al effect as it was an unsi(ned pleadin(.

!espondent was properl declared in default and the !epublic was ri(htlallowed to present evidence ex parte.!espondent insists on the liberal application of the rules. ;t maintains that even ifit were true that its answer was supposedl an unsi(ned pleadin(, the defect wasa mere technicalit that could be set aside.#rocedural reuirements which have often been dispara(in(l labeled as meretechnicalities have their own validraison d etrein the orderl administration ofustice. *o summaril brush them aside ma result in arbitrariness andinustice.1&

*he Court3s pronouncement in Garbo v. Court of Appeals20is relevant4#rocedural rules are ItoolsJ desi(ned to facilitate the adudication of cases.Courts and liti(ants ali8e are thus IenoinedJ to abide strictl b the rules. Andwhile the Court, in some instances, allows a relaation in the application of the

rules, this, we stress, was never intended to for(e a bastion for errin( liti(ants toviolate the rules with impunit. *he liberalit in the interpretation and applicationof the rules applies onl in proper cases and under ustifiable causes andcircumstances. >hile it is true that liti(ation is not a (ame of technicalities, it iseuall true that ever case must be prosecuted in accordance with theprescribed procedure to insure an orderl and speed administration of ustice.?i8e all rules, procedural rules should be followed ecept onl when, for the mostpersuasive of reasons, the ma be relaed to relieve a liti(ant of an inustice notcommensurate with the de(ree of his thou(htlessness in not complin( with theprescribed procedure.21;n this case, respondent failed to show an persuasivereason wh it should be eempted from strictl abidin( b the rules.As a final note, the Court cannot close its ees to the acts committed b Att.arlitos in violation of the ethics of the le(al profession. *hus, he should bemade to account for his possible misconduct.7HEREORE, the petition is hereb GRANTE/. *he a )1, 2001 decisionand Au(ust 20, 2001 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-.!. "# $o. /2&%'are REERSE/and SET ASI/Eand the Februar 1&, 1&&& resolution of the!e(ional *rial Court of #asa Cit, ranch 11% declarin( respondent in default isherebREINSTATE/.?et a cop of this decision be furnished the Commission on ar Discipline of the;nte(rated ar of the #hilippines for the commencement of disbarmentproceedin(s a(ainst Att. 5nofre arlitos, 6r. for his possible unprofessionalconduct not befittin( his position as an officer of the court.SO OR/ERE/.

G.R. No. L+1951 ebr;*r' 28, 1::

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/aug2006/gr_149576_2006.html#fnt21


5/64

ALRE/O REITERE, ET AL.,plaintiff-appellants,vs.REE/IOS ONTINOLA /A. /E !LO, ET AL.,defendants-appellees..!. Almario for the plaintiffs-appellants.duardo Arboleda for the defendants-appellees.AL/IAR, J.:*his is an appeal from the order of the Court of First ;nstance of $e(ros5ccidental dismissin( the complaint in its Civil Case $o. )77.

5n December , 1&1 the plaintiffs-appellants, Alfredo !emitere, et al., fileda complaint a(ainst the defendants-appellees, !emedies ontinola


6/64

part of the plaintiffs. *he alle(ations do not state an connection that theplaintiffs have with the deceased re(orio !emitere, nor do the state whatconnection or claim the plaintiffs have on the properties left b the deceasedre(orio !emitere. *he alle(ation about the sale at public auction does notstate in what wa the ri(hts or interests of the plaintiffs had been affected,na preudiced, b that sale. A(ain, para(raph / of the complaint states4

/. *he public sale mentioned in para(raph ) of this complaint,however, was and still is absolutel a void sale, and certainl did notpass titles and ownership of said lots, startin( from its primitiveowner, now bein( represented b the plaintiffs herein, as survivin(heirs thereto, until it reaches the possession b the defendants.*hat b reason of its invalidit, all and ever benefits that thetransferees, includin( the defendant herein, had acuired from theparcels of land in uestion, should be indemnified to the plaintiffs.

;t is not stated anwhere in the complaint wh the sale at public auction wasabsolutel void, nor were there stated an particular facts or circumstancesupon which the alle(ed nullit of the sale or transaction is predicated. *heaverment that the public sale . . . was and still is absolutel a void sale, andcertainl did not pass titles and ownerships of said lots, startin( from itsprimitive owner, now bein( represented b the plaintiffs herein, as survivin(heirs thereto, until it reaches the possession b the defendants. . . is aconclusion of law or an inference from facts not stated in the pleadin(. Apleadin( should state the ultimate facts essential to the ri(hts of action ordefense asserted, as distin(uished from mere conclusion of fact, orconclusion of law. An alle(ation that a contract is valid, or void, as in theinstant case, is a mere conclusion of law.

eneral alle(ations that a contract is valid or le(al, or is ust, fair andreasonable, are mere conclusion of law.Li(e$ise) allegations that acontract is void) voidable) invalid) illegal) ultra vires) or against public

policy) $ithout stating facts sho$ing its invalidity) are mereconclusions of la$* as are allegations that a contract is in conformity$ith) or in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision. . . . . +71C.6.". pp. %%-%/. +=mphasis supplied.

$ot bein( statements of ultimate facts which constitute the basis of a ri(ht ofthe plaintiffs-appellants, nor are the statements of ultimate facts whichconstitute the wron(ful acts or omissions of the defendants-appellees thatviolated the ri(ht of the plaintiffs-appellants the alle(ations of the complaint inthe present case have not fulfilled the reuirements of "ection ), !ule ofthe !evised !ules of Court +"ec. 1, !ule of the former !ules of Court thatthe complaint should contain a concise statement of the ultimate factsconstitutin( the plaintiffKs cause or causes of action.*his Court has defined the term cause of action as follows4

A cause of action has been defined b the "upreme Court as an actor omission of one part in violation of the le(al ri(ht or ri(hts of theother: and its essential elements are le(al ri(ht of the plaintiff,

correlative obli(ations of the defendant, and act or omission of the

defendant in violation of said le(al ri(ht. +a-ao "u(ar Central Co.,;nc. vs. arrios, et al., ?-1/)&, Dec. )0, 1&%7

*he term ultimate facts has been defined or eplained as follows4+ltimate facts defined.L*he term ultimate facts as used in "ec. ),!ule ) of the !ules of Court, means the essential facts constitutin(the plaintiffKs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot bestric8en out without leavin( the statement of the cause of actioninsufficient. . . . . +oran, !ules of Court, e, therefore, hold that the lower court had correctl ruled that the complaintin the present case does not narrate facts that constitute a cause of action.@avin( arrived at the fore(oin( conclusion, >e deem it not necessar todiscuss whether the lower court had correctl ruled that the plaintiffsK causeof action, if an, had prescribed or not.>herefore, the order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed, with costsa(ainst the plaintiffs-appellants.

G.R. No. 18055 *r-( 5, 2010



7/64

ARTH!R /EL ROSARIO *$ ALEAN/ER /EL ROSARIO,#etitioners,vs.HELLENOR /. /ONATO, JR. *$ RAAEL . GONAGA,!espondents.D = C ; " ; 5 $AA/, J.:*his case is about the need for plaintiff to state the facts constitutin( his cause ofaction and the correct forum for actions for dama(es arisin( from alle(ed wron(fulprocurement and enforcement of a search warrant issued in connection with analle(ed criminal violation of the intellectual propert law.*he Facts and the Case5n 6anuar 2), 2002 #hilip orris #roducts, ;nc. +#hilip orris wrote the$ational ureau of ;nvesti(ation +$;, reuestin( assistance in curtailin( theproliferation of fa8e arlboro ci(arettes in An(eles Cit, #ampan(a. After doin(surveillance wor8 in that cit, respondent @ellenor Donato, 6r., the $; a(entassi(ned to the case, succeeded in confirmin( the stora(e and sale of such fa8eci(arettes at the house at /1 $ew Gor8 "treet, orse the enforcement of "earched IsicJ >arrant $o. 02-0& was ustpart of the series of raids and searches that was conducted in An(eles Citand #ampan(a, which was done with much publicit in the communit andhad tended to include the #laintiffs in the same cate(or as other personsand entities who were in fact found to be dealin( with fa8e arlboroci(arettes. ).2 *he baseless sworn alle(ations that #laintiffs had under their control andpossession counterfeit arlboro ci(arettes and pac8a(in( to obtain a searchwarrant, and the malicious service of the such warrant at the residentialpremises of #laintiff Aleander del !osario in full and plain view of membersof the communit, as part of the series of raids and operations conducted

within An(eles Cit and #ampan(a durin( that period, has taintedirreversibl the (ood names which #laintiffs have painsta8in(l built andmaintained over the ears. ).% #laintiffs were subected to so much humiliation and embarrassment bthe raid conducted on the subect residential premises, and subected themto much unwarranted speculation of en(a(in( in the sale of fa8emerchandise.

=ssentiall, however, all that the Del !osarios alle(e is that respondents $; a(entsused an unlawfull obtained search warrant a(ainst them, evidenced b the fact that,contrar to the sworn statements used to (et such warrant, the $; a(ents found nofa8e arlboro ci(arettes in petitioner Aleander del !osario3s premises.ut a udiciall ordered search that fails to ield the described illicit article does not ofitself render the court3s order unlawful. *he Del !osarios did not alle(e that

respondents $; a(ents violated their ri(ht b fabricatin( testimonies to convince the!*C of An(eles Cit to issue the search warrant. *heir alle(ation that the $; a(ents

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_180595_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_180595_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_180595_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_180595_2010.html#fnt2


8/64

used an unlawfull obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law. >hile amotion to dismiss assumes as true the facts alle(ed in the complaint, such admissiondoes not etend to conclusions of law.)"tatements of mere conclusions of lawepose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on (round of failure to state a cause ofaction.%

Further, the alle(ation that the search warrant in this case was served in a maliciousmanner is also not sufficient. Alle(ations of bad faith, malice, and other related wordswithout ultimate facts to support the same are mere conclusions of law./

*he Del !osarios3 broad assertion in their complaint that the search was conductedin full and plain view of members of the communit does not li8ewise support theirclaim that such search was maliciousl enforced. *here is nothin( inherentl wron(with search warrants bein( enforced in full view of nei(hbors. ;n fact, when therespondent or his representative is not present durin( the search, the rules reuirethat it be done in the presence of two residents of the same localit. *hesesafe(uards eist to protect persons from possible abuses that ma occur if searcheswere done surreptitiousl or clandestinel.*wo. ;nvo8in( "ection 21 of this Court3s Administrative atter +A.. 02-1-0-"C +notA.5. 01-1-0-"C as cited, the CA held that, rather than file a separate action fordama(es, the Del !osarios should have filed their claim for compensation in thesame proceedin( and with the same court that issued the writ of search and sei9ure.*he Del !osarios were thus (uilt of forum shoppin(.A.. 02-1-0-"C, the !ule on "earch and "ei9ure in Civil Actions for ;nfrin(ement of;ntellectual #ropert !i(hts, provides4

"=C. 21. Claim for dama(es. N >here the writ Iof search and sei9ureJ is dischar(edon an of the (rounds provided in this !ule, or where it is found after trial that therehas been no infrin(ement or threat of infrin(ement of an intellectual propert ri(ht, thecourt, upon motion of the alle(ed infrin(in( defendant or epected adverse part andafter due hearin(, shall order the applicant to compensate the defendant or epectedadverse part upon the cash bond, suret bond or other euivalent securit for aninur or dama(e the latter suffered b the issuance and enforcement of the writ."hould the dama(es eceed the amount of the bond, the applicant shall be liable forthe pament of the ecess.>hen a complaint is alread filed in court, the motion shall be filed with the samecourt durin( the trial or before appeal is perfected or before ud(ment becomeseecutor, with due notice to the applicant, settin( forth the facts showin( thedefendant3s ri(ht to dama(es and the amount thereof. *he award of dama(es shall

be included in the ud(ment in the main case.>here no complaint is filed a(ainst the epected adverse part, the motion shall befiled with the court which issued the writ. ;n such a case, the court shall set the motionfor summar hearin( and immediatel determine the epected adverse part3s ri(ht todama(es.A ud(ment in favor of the applicant in its principal claim should not necessaril barthe alle(ed infrin(in( defendant from recoverin( dama(es where he suffered lossesb reason of the wron(ful issuance or enforcement of the writ.*he dama(es provided for in this section shall be independent from the dama(esclaimed b the defendant in his counterclaim.ut the subect search warrant was not issued under A.. 02-1-0-"C, which(overned the issuance of a writ of search and sei9ure in a civil action for infrin(ementfiled b an intellectual propert ri(ht owner a(ainst the supposed infrin(er of histrademar8 or name. #hilip orris, the manufacturer of arlboro ci(arettes, did not (o

b this route. #hilip orris did not file a civil action for infrin(ement of its trademar8a(ainst the Del !osarios before the !*C of An(eles Cit.

;nstead, #hilip orris sou(ht assistance from the $; for the apprehension andcriminal prosecution of those reportedl appropriatin( its trademar8 and sellin( fa8earlboro ci(arettes. ;n turn, the $; instituted a police action that included applin(for a search and sei9ure warrant under "ections ), %, / and of !ule 12 of the!ules of Criminal #rocedure +not under the provisions of A.. 02-1-0-"C a(ainstthe Del !osarios upon the belief that the were storin( and sellin( fa8e arlboroci(arettes in violation of the penal provisions of the intellectual propert law.*he proceedin( under !ule 12, a limited criminal one, does not provide for the filin(of counterclaims for dama(es a(ainst those who ma have improperl sou(ht theissuance of the search warrant. Conseuentl, the Del !osarios had the ri(ht to see8dama(es, if the circumstances warranted, b separate civil action for the wron(inflicted on them b an improperl obtained or enforced search warrant.Bnfortunatel, their complaint, as worded, failed to state a proper cause ofaction."avvphi"#etitioner Arthur del !osario claims that respondents $; a(ents wron(full includedhim as respondent in their application for a search warrant since he neither owned thehouse at /1 $ew Gor8 "treet nor resided in it. ut the rules do not reuirerespondents in search warrant proceedin(s to be residents of the premises to besearched. ;f this were the case, criminals in possession of ille(al articles could simpluse other people3s residence for storin( such articles to avoid bein( raided andsearched.*he Del !osarios raise a number of procedural issues4 a the supposed failure ofrespondents $; a(ents to file their motion for reconsideration of the !*C order

denin( their motion to dismiss within 1/ das of receipt of the order: b their resort toa special civil action of certiorari to challen(e the !*C3s denial of their motion todismiss: c the propriet of their inclusion of a motion to dismiss in their answer: d theCA3s (rant to them in 200) of a 1/-da etension to file a petition for certiorari afterthe lapse of 0 das when the Court did not et come out with a rulin( that barredsuch etension: and e their bein( represented b private counsel rather than b the5ffice of the "olicitor eneral.>ith the Court3s rulin(s in the principal issues raised in this case, it finds no sufficientreason to further dwell on the lesser issues that the Del !osarios raise above.esides, the Court finds no error in the CA3s disposition of the same.>@=!=F5!=, the Court D=$;=" the petition and AFF;!" the Decision of theCourt of Appeals in CA-.!. "# 7&%& dated 6une 2&, 2007 and its !esolution dated$ovember 1&, 2007 for the reasons stated in this Decision, with the 5D;F;CA*;5$

that Civil Case 10/'% is D;";""=D without preudice."5 5!D=!=D.

G.R. No. 18299 A;


9/64

ICTORINA >ICTORIA? ALICE LI LAARO, #etitioner,vs.RE7ASTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,!espondent.! = " 5 ? B * ; 5 $NACH!RA, J.:efore the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals +CADecision1dated "eptember %, 2007 and !esolution dated 6anuar )1, 200',which awarded the amount sou(ht b respondent in its Complaint. As held b theCA, to (rant the relief praed for b respondent is, in the words of "ection of

the !evised !ule on "ummar #rocedure, the ud(ment warranted b the factsalle(ed in the complaint.!espondent, rewmaster ;nternational, ;nc., is a mar8etin( compan en(a(ed insellin( and distributin( beer and other products of Asia rewer, ;nc. 5n$ovember &, 200/, it filed a Complaint for "um of one a(ainst #rescillo .?a9aro +#rescillo and petitioner,


10/64

*he respondents are 5!D=!=D to pa, ointl and severall, to the petitioner theamount of #1)',/02.&2, plus interest of O per annum from the filin( of thecomplaint until this ud(ment becomes final and eecutor, and 12O per annumupon finalit of this ud(ment until full pament.*he respondents are also 5!D=!=D to pa the costs of suit."5 5!D=!=D.12

#etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said Decision but the samewas denied b the CA in its 6anuar )1, 200' !esolution.1)

#etitioner submits the followin( issues to this Court for resolution4

#etitioner respectfull submits that the @onorable Court of Appeals erred in theinterpretation of "ection of the !evised !ules of "ummar #rocedure when itreversed the Decision of the !*C, ranch 12 of a8ati in Civil Case I$Jo. 0-&%%.#etitioner further submits that the Court of Appeals erred in (ivin( relief to theprivate respondent despite the lac8 of cause of action in its complaint a(ainst thepetitioner herein.1%

#etitioner contends that the !evised !ule on "ummar #rocedure does notwarrant the automatic (rant of relief in favor of the plaintiff when the complaintfails to state a cause of action. "he avers that respondent3s complaint fails tostate a cause of action: hence, no relief can be (iven to respondent. #etitionerpoints out that the sales invoices formed part of the complaint and should beconsidered in determinin( whether respondent has a cause of action a(ainst her.

Consideration of the said sales invoices, she avers, would show that there is nocontractual relationship between her and respondent: the invoices did notindicate in an wa that petitioner was liable for the amount stated therein.#etitioner is correct in sain( that no relief can be awarded to respondent if itscomplaint does not state a cause of action. ;ndeed, if the complaint does notstate a cause of action, then no relief can be (ranted to the plaintiff and it wouldnecessaril follow that the alle(ations in the complaint would not warrant aud(ment favorable to the plaintiff.*he basic reuirement under the rules of procedure is that a complaint mustma8e a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which theplaintiff relies for his claim.1/Bltimate facts mean the important and substantialfacts which either directl form the basis of the plaintiff3s primar ri(ht and dut ordirectl ma8e up the wron(ful acts or omissions of the defendant. 1*he refer tothe principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the eistence of which thecause of action rests. *he term does not refer to details of probative matter orparticulars of evidence which establish the material elements.17

*he test of sufficienc of the facts alle(ed in a complaint to constitute a cause ofaction is whether, admittin( the facts alle(ed, the court could render a validud(ment upon the same in accordance with the praer of the petition orcomplaint.1'*o determine whether the complaint states a cause of action, alldocuments attached thereto ma, in fact, be considered, particularl whenreferred to in the complaint.1&>e emphasi9e, however, that the inuir is into thesufficienc, not the veracit of the material alle(ations in the complaint.20*hus,consideration of the anneed documents should onl be ta8en in the contet ofascertainin( the sufficienc of the alle(ations in the complaint.

#etitioner ar(ues that the complaint fails to state a cause of action sincereference to the sales invoices attached to and cited in para(raph si of the

Complaint shows that it was not her who purchased and received the (oods fromrespondent.Contrar to petitioner3s stance, we find that the Complaint sufficientl states acause of action.",$phi"*he followin( alle(ations in the complaint adeuatelma8e up a cause of action for collection of sum of mone a(ainst petitioner4 +1that petitioner and her husband obtained beer and other products worth a totalof #1)',/02.&2 on credit from respondent: and +2 that the refused to pa thesaid amount despite demand.As correctl held b the CA, the sales invoices are not actionable documents.

*he were not the bases of respondent3s action for sum of mone but wereattached to the Complaint onl to provide details on the alle(ed transactions.*he were evidentiar in nature and not even necessar to be stated or cited inthe Complaint.At an rate, consideration of the attached sales invoices would not chan(e ourconclusion. *he sales invoices, namin( *otal as the purchaser of the (oods, donot absolutel foreclose the probabilit of petitioner bein( liable for the amountsreflected thereon. An invoice is nothin( more than a detailed statement of thenature, uantit, and cost of the thin( sold and has been considered not a bill ofsale.21@ad the case proceeded further, respondent could have presentedevidence lin8in( these sales invoices to petitioner.;n #ePa v. Court of Appeals,22petitioners therein li8ewise ar(ued that the salesinvoices did not show that the had an involvement in the transactions covered

b the same. >hat the Court said in repl to this ar(ument bolsters our view inthis petition4Althou(h it appears in the other sales invoices that the petitioners were thesalespersons who bro8ered the sales of the products covered b the said salesinvoices to the vendees therein named, the said entries are not conclusive of theetent and the nature of the involvement of the petitioners in the sales of theproducts under the said sales invoices which are not absolutel bindin(. *hema be eplained and put to silence b all the facts and circumstancescharacteri9in( the true import of the dealin(s to which the refer. *he factscontained in the said sales invoices ma be contradicted b oral testimon.2)

>@=!=F5!=, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated"eptember %, 2007 and !esolution dated 6anuar )1, 200' are AFF;!=D."5 5!D=!=D.

G.R. No. 154904 J;$e 1, 2011

NELLIE /A. /E OROSO *$ (er -()@re$, $*me@', A. THERESA OROSO+PESCA/OR, ROGER OROSO, AR JANE OROSO, ERNAR/ OROSO *$

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_182779_2010.html#fnt23


11/64

PRIITIO ALCAA,#etitioners,vs.PHILIPPINE NATIONAL AN=, RANCISCO ARCE, ATT. ENJAIN ARERO, *$ROERTO NAARRO,!espondents.D = C ; " ; 5 $EN/OA, J.:

Assailed in this petition are the 6anuar 2/, 2002 !esolution1and the Au(ust ', 2002!esolution2of the Court of Appeals CAwhich dismissed the petition for certiorari filed b thepetitioners on the (round that the verification and certification of non-forum shoppin( was si(nedb onl one of the petitioners in CA .!. "# $o. 71'), entitled /ellie 0. 1da. 2e 3ormoso) etal. v. 0hilippine /ational 4an() et al.

*he Factual and#rocedural Antecedents!ecords show that on 5ctober 1%, 1&'&, $ellie #anelo hen an tribunal, board or officer eercisin( udicial oruasi-udicial functions has acted without or in ecess of its or his urisdiction, or with (raveabuse of discretion amountin( to lac8 or ecess of urisdiction, and there is no appeal, or anplain, speed, and adeuate remed in the ordinar course of law, a person a((rieved therebma file a verified petition in the proper court, alle(in( the facts with certaint and prain( that

ud(ment be rendered annullin( or modifin( the proceedin(s of such tribunal, board or officer,and (rantin( such incidental reliefs as law and ustice ma reuire.*he petition shall be accompanied b a certified true cop of the ud(ment, order or resolutionsubect thereof, copies of all pleadin(s and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, anda #or$ -er%))-*%)o$ o $o$+or;m #(o"")$


12/64

"=C*;5$ ). Contents and filing of petition* effect of non-compliance $ith requirements. N *hepetition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents,a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual bac8(round of the case, and the(rounds relied upon for the relief praed for.;n actions filed under !ule /, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showin( whennotice of the ud(ment or final order or resolution subect thereof was received, when a motionfor new trial or reconsideration, if an, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof wasreceived.;t shall be filed in seven +7 clearl le(ible copies to(ether with proof of service thereof on therespondent with the ori(inal cop intended for the court indicated as such b the petitioner, andshall be accompanied b a clearl le(ible duplicate ori(inal or certified true cop of the

ud(ment, order, resolution, or rulin( subect thereof, such material portions of the record as arereferred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. *he certification shall beaccomplished b the proper cler8 of court or his dul authori9ed representative, or b the properofficer of the court, tribunal, a(enc or office involved or b his dul authori9ed representative.*he other reuisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied b clearl le(ible plaincopies of all documents attached to the ori(inal.T(e "e%)%)o$er #(*@@ *@#o #;bm)% %o


13/64

"ection %, !ule 7 of the !ules states that a pleadin( is verified b an affidavit that the affiant hasread the pleadin( and that the alle(ations therein are true and correct of his 8nowled(e andbelief. Conseuentl, the verification should have been si(ned not onl b 6imene9 but also b

Athena3s dul authori9ed representative.;n Docena v. ?apesura, we ruled that the-er%))-*%e o $o$+or;m #(o"")$< #(o;@ be#)


14/64

THE HON. SAN/IGANAAN >)r#% /)v)#)o$? *$ J!AN PONCEENRILE, respondents.0once nrile) Cayetano 9eyes = !analastas for private respondent.G!TIERRE, JR., J.:p*he petitioner challen(es the resolutions dated 6une ', 1&'& and $ovember 2, 1&'& of the"andi(anbaan issued in Civil Case $o. 00)) which (ranted the motion of privaterespondent 6uan #once =nrile, one of the defendants in the civil case, to implead thepetitioner as additional part defendant in =nrileKs counterclaim in the same civil case anddenied the petitionerKs motion for reconsideration.

5n 6ul )1, 1&'7, the !epublic of the #hilippines, throu(h the #residential Commissionon ood overnment+#C with the assistance of "olicitor eneral Francisco Chave9filed with the respondent "andi(anbaan a complaint doc8eted as Civil Case $o. 00))a(ainst =duardo Couan(co, 6r. and 6uan #once =nrile, amon( others, for reconveance,reversion and accountin(, restitution and dama(es.

After the denial of his motion to dismiss, respondent =nrile filed his answer withcompulsor counterclaim and cross-claim with dama(es.*he !epublic filed its repl to the answer and motion to dismiss the counterclaim. *hemotion was opposed b respondent =nrile.5n 6anuar )0, 1&'&, respondent "andi(anbaan issued a resolution, to wit4

*he resolution of the otion to Dismiss the Counterclaim a(ainst the#laintiff (overnment is deferred until after trial, the (rounds relied uponnot appearin( to be indubitable.5n the matter of the additional parties +"olicitor eneral Chave9, =-

#C Chairman Dia9, former Commissioners Doromal, !odri(o,!omero and autista, the propriet of impleadin( them either under"ec. 1%, !ule or even under "ec. 12 as third-part defendant reuiresleave of Court to determine the propriet thereof. $o such leave hasbeen sou(ht. Consideration thereof cannot be entertained at this timenor ma therefore, the otion to Dismiss the same be considered.+9ollo, p. )2&: Anne @, #etition

!espondent =nrile then reuested leave from the "andi(anbaan to implead the petitionerand the #C officials as part defendants for lod(in( this alle(ed harassment suita(ainst him.*he motion was (ranted in a resolution dated 6une ', 1&'&, to wit4

;n respect to defendant 6uan #once =nrileKs anifestation and otiondated Februar 2), 1&'&, prain( for leave to implead additional partiesto his counterclaim, the Court, findin( reason in the aforesaidanifestation and otion, (rants leave to implead the defendantsnamed in the counterclaim and admits defendant 6uan #once =nrileKsanswer with counterclaim.*his is without preudice to the defenses which said defendants maput forth individuall or in common, in their personal capacities orotherwise. +9ollo, p. 27

;n a later resolution dated $ovember 2, 1&'&, respondent "andi(anbaan denied a motionto reconsider the 6une ', 1&'& resolution. *he dispositive portion of the resolution states4

>@=!=F5!=, the otions for !econsideration of the "olicitor eneraland former #C officials !amon Dia9, Quintin Doromal, 5rlando!omero, !amon !odri(o and ar Concepcion autista are denied,but, considerin( these motions as in the nature of motions to dismisscounterclaimanswers, resolution of these motions is held in abeancependin( trial on the merits. +9ollo, p. )1

*hereafter, all the #C officials filed their answer to the counterclaims invo8in( their

immunit from suits as provided in "ection % of =ecutive 5rder $o. 1. ;nstead of filin( an

answer, the petitioner comes to this Court assailin( the resolutions as rendered with (raveabuse of discretion amountin( to lac8 of urisdiction.*he lone issue in this petition is the propriet of impleadin( the petitioner as additionalpart defendant in the counterclaim filed b respondent =nrile in Civil Case $o. 00)).;t ma be noted that the private respondent did not limit himself to (eneral averments ofmalice, rec8lessness, and bad faith but filed specific char(es that then #C Chairman6ovito "alon(a had alread cleared the respondent and et, 8nowin( the alle(ations to befalse, the petitioner still filed the complaint. *his can be (leaned from ecerpts found inrespondent =nrileKs Answer with Compulsor Counterclaim and Cross-Claim4

Defendant-in-counterclaim Francisco Chave9 was the "olicitor eneralwho assisted the #C in filin( and maintainin( the instant Complainta(ainst Defendant. As the incumbent "olicitor eneral, he continues toassist the #C in prosecutin( this case.@e is sued in his personal and official capacities.5n or about 5ctober 1&', the #C, spea8in( throu(h the thenChairman, now "enate #resident, @on. 6ovito !. "alon(a, found anddeclared that not one of the documents left b then #resident and rs.Ferdinand =. arcos includin( the 2,)00-pa(e evidence turned over tothe #C b the B" "tate Department implicates =nrile. Chairman"alon(a stressed that in view of the #CKs findin(s, he refused toield to the pressure eerted on him to prosecute Defendant. $otwithstandin( the findin(s of the #C that there was absolutel no

evidence lin8in( Defendant to the ille(al activities of former #residentand rs. Ferdinand =. arcos, the #C, this time composed ofChairman !amon Dia9, the Commissioners Quintin Doromal, !amon!odri(o, 5rlando !omero and ar Concepcion autista, filed theComplaint a(ainst Defendant, amon( others, on or about 22 6ul 1&'7.Defendant has reasons to believe, and so alle(es that Chairman Dia9,and Commissioners Doromal, !odri(o, !omero and autista ordered,authori9ed, allowed or tolerated the filin( of the utterl baselesscomplaint a(ainst Defendant."olicitor eneral Francisco Chave9 assisted or cooperated in, orinduced or insti(ated, the filin( of this harassment suit a(ainstDefendant.;n so orderin(, authori9in(, allowin( and toleratin( the institution of theaction a(ainst Defendant, all the aforenamed officers, with malice andin evident bad faith, and with (rave abuse of power and in ecess oftheir dut and authorit, unustl and unlawfull obstructed, defeated,violated, impeded or impaired the constitutional ri(hts and liberties ofDefendant. . . . +9ollo, pp. 20-22

5n the other hand, the petitioner submits that no counter-claim can be filed a(ainst him inhis capacit as "olicitor eneral since he is onl actin( as counsel for the !epublic. @ecites the case of 4or>a v.4or>a, 101 #hil. &11 I1&/7J wherein we ruled4

. . . *he appearance of a lawer as counsel for a part and hisparticipation in a case as such counsel does not ma8e him a part tothe action. *he fact that he represents the interests of his client or thathe acts in their behalf will not hold him liable for or ma8e him entitled toan award that the Court ma adudicate to the parties, other than hisprofessional fees. *he principle that a counterclaim cannot be fileda(ainst persons who are actin( in representation of another L such as

trustees L in their individual capacities +Chambers v. Cameron, 2 Fed.!ules "ervice, p. 1//: 2& F. "upp. 7%2 could be applied with more



15/64

force and effect in the case of a counsel whose participation in theaction is merel confined to the preparation of the defense of his client.

Appellant, however, asserted that he filed the counterclaim a(ainst saidlawer not in his individual capacit but as counsel for the heirs ofQuintin de ora. ut as we have alread stated that the eistence of alawer-client relationship does not ma8e the former a part to theaction, even this alle(ation of appellant will not alter the result >e havearrived at +at pp. &2%-&2/

*hus, the petitioner ar(ues that since he is simpl the lawer in the case, eercisin( hisdut under the law to assist the overnment in the filin( and prosecution of all cases

pursuant to "ection 1, =ecutive 5rder $o. 1%, he cannot be sued in a counterclaim in thesame case.#residin( 6ustice Francis architorena correctl observed that there is no (eneralimmunit arisin( solel from occupin( a public office.*he (eneral rule is that public officials can be held personall accountable for acts claimedto have been performed in connection with official duties where the have acted ultraviresor where there is a showin( of bad faith. >e ruled in one case4

A number of cases decided b the Court where the municipalmaor alonewas held liable for bac8 salaries of, or dama(es todismissed municipal emploees, to the eclusion of the municipalit,are not applicable in this instance. ;n 6alcedo v.Court of Appeals+'1"C!A %0' I1&7'J for instance, the municipal maor was held liable forthe bac8 salaries of the Chief of #olice he had dismissed, not onlbecause the dismissal was arbitrar but also because the maor

refused to reinstate him in defiance of an order of the Commissioner ofCivil 6ervice to reinstate.;n /emen:o v.6abillano +2/ "C!A 1 I1&'J, the municipal maor washeld personall liable for dismissin( a police corporal $ho possessedthe necessary civil service eligibility, the dismissal bein( done without

ustifiable cause and without an administrative investi(ation.;n9ama v.Court of Appeals+.!. $os. ?-%%%'%, ?-%%'%2, ?-%%/&1, ?-%%'&%, arch 1 1&'7, the (overnor, vice-(overnor, members of the"an((unian( #anlalawi(an, provincial auditor, provincial treasurer andprovincial en(ineer were ordered to pa ointl and severall in theirindividual and personal capacit dama(es to some 200 emploees ofthe province of Cebu who were eased out from their positions becauseof their part affiliations. +?a(anapan v. Asedillo, 1/% "C!A )77 I1&'7J

oreover, the petitionerKs ar(ument that the immunitprovisounder "ection %+a of=ecutive 5rder $o. 1 also etends to him is not well-ta8en. A mere invocation of theimmunit clause does not ipso facto result in the char(es bein( automaticall dropped.;n the case of 0residential Commission on Good Government v.0e&a +1/& "C!A //I1&''J then Chief 6ustice Claudio *eehan8ee, added a clarification of the immunitaccorded #C officials under "ection %+a of =ecutive 5rder $o. 1 as follows4

>ith respect to the ualifications epressed b r. 6ustice Feliciano inhis separate opinion, ; ust wish to point out two thin(s4 3irst, the mainopinion does not claim absolute immunit for the members of theCommission. *he cited section of =ecutive 5rder $o. 1 provides theCommissionKs members immunit from suit thus4 $o civil action shalllie a(ainst the Commission or an member thereof for anthin( done oromitted in the dischar(e of the tas8 contemplated b this order. /oabsolute immunity li(e that sought by !r.!arcos in his Constitution forhimself and his subordinates is herein involved.7t is understood thatthe immunity granted the members of the Commission b virtue of the

unima(inable ma(nitude of its tas8 to recover the plundered wealth andthe "tateKs eercise of police power was immunit from liabilit for

dama(es in the official dischar(e of the tas8 (ranted the members ofthe Commission much in the same manner that ud(es are immunefrom suit in the official dischar(e of the functions of their office . . . +atpp. /'1-/'2

6ustice Florentino #. Feliciano stated in the same case4;t ma be further submitted, with eual respect, that "ection % +a of=ecutive 5rder $o. 1 was intended merel to restate the (eneralprinciple of the law of public officers that the #C or an memberthereof ma not be held civill liable for acts done in the performance ofofficial dut,provided that such member had acted in (ood faith and

within the scene of his lawful authorit. ;t ma also be assumed thatthe 6andiganbayanwould have urisdiction to determine whether the#C or an particular official thereof ma be held liable in dama(esto a private person inured b acts of such manner. ;t would seemconstitutionall offensive to suppose that a member or staff member ofthe #C could not be reuired to testif before the "andi(anbaan orthat such members were eempted from complin( with orders of thisCourt. +at pp. /'- /'7

;mmunit from suit cannot institutionali9e irresponsibilit and non-accountabilit nor (rant aprivile(ed status not claimed b an other official of the !epublic. + id., at pa(e /'>here the petitioner eceeds his authorit as "olicitor eneral acts in bad faith, or, ascontended b the private respondent, maliciousl conspir+es with the #Ccommissioners in persecutin( respondent =nrile b filin( a(ainst him an evidentl baselesssuit in dero(ation of the latterKs constitutional ri(hts and liberties +9ollo, p. %17, there can

be no uestion that a complaint for dama(es ma be filed a(ainst him. @i(h position in(overnment does not confer a license to persecute or rec8lessl inure another. *heactions (overned b Articles 1&, 20, 21, and )2 of the Civil Code on @uman !elations mabe ta8en a(ainst public officers or private citi9ens ali8e. *he issue is not the ri(ht ofrespondent =nrile to file an action for dama(es. @e has the ri(ht. *he issue is whether ornot that action must be filed as a compulsor counterclaim in the case filed a(ainst him.Bnder the circumstances of this case, we rule that the char(es pressed b respondent=nrile for dama(es under Article )2 of the Civil Code arisin( from the filin( of an alle(edharassment suit with malice and evident bad faith do not constitute a compulsorcounterclaim. *o vindicate his ri(hts, "enator =nrile has to file a separate and distinct civilaction for dama(es a(ainst the "olicitor eneral.

G.R. No. 8132 ebr;*r' 2:, 10LEONCIA, AN!EL, /IOS/A/A, ANTONIA, ISI/RO, GERONIO, CRESENCIO,

ALEJAN/RO, ONIACIA, A!RELIO, EPIANIO, POLICARPO, IRENEO, ALL S!RNAE/ACLAON HRS. o AGRIPINA ACLAON, re". b' L!CIA ACLAON HRS. o



16/64

O/ESTA ACLAON, re". b' ILING ACLAON HRS. O HIPOLITO ACLAON, re". ARIO ACLAON HRS. O TOAS ACLAON, re". b' CRISTITO ACLAONSILESTRE AANES HRS. o LEONICA AELLARE, re". b' ELI ACLAON CECILIA,HERINIA, ELI, CONCOR/IA, *@@ #;r$*me /ELA ICTORIA *$ THE HON. J!/GEGERAN LEE, JR., Pre#))$< J;@=!=F5!=, the decision a uo is hereb reversed and set aside andanother one is rendered declarin( plaintiffs-appellants as heirs of the lateatias aclaon the owners of ?ot $o. //2' of the Cebu Cadastre coveredb 5ri(inal Certificate of *itle $o. 272 +5-$A of the !e(istr of Deeds ofCebu +=h. ; and orderin( defendants to vacate the lot and surrender thesame to plaintiffs. $o costs."5 5!D=!=D.

*he private respondents then elevated the case to this Court b filin( a petition for review whichwas, however, denied in the !esolution dated a 27, 1&'7.*he decision in favor of the petitioners havin( become final and eecutor, the filed a motion

for eecution of ud(ment and possession which was opposed b the private respondents. *heopposition was based on the pronouncement of the respondent court in its decision dated 6ul2&, 1&', to wit +p. 1, !ollo4

$o fraud or bad faith could be imputed on the part of the acalso spouses.*he believed the lot the bou(ht from "e(undo aclaon was the landthe occupied.

*he private respondents ar(ued that since the were found b the respondent court as buildersandor planters in(ood faith and Article /% of the Civil Code ordains that the necessar anduseful epenses for the improvements must be paid to the buildersplanters in (ood faith withri(ht of retention, a reception of evidence to determine the correct value of the necessar anduseful improvements must be done first before orderin( the eecution.*he !*C-ranch 1/, Cebu Cit, presided b 6ud(e erman . ?ee, 6r., in its order, datedarch ', 1&'', (ranted the motion for eecution of ud(ment and possession, to wit +p. 1,!ollo4

5 ! D = !

*his is finall, actin( on the otion for =ecution of 6ud(ment and#ossession filed b Att. arcillano in this case and the reoinder of Att.

$acua and the plaintiffsK reoinder dated Februar 11 and the manifestationof Att. arcillano of Februar 2, 1&''.;t appearin( that the dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of

Appeals which is now bein( enforced cate(oricall declaresplaintiffsappellants as heirs of the late atias aclaon, the owner of ?ot$o. //2 +sic of the Cebu Cadastre, covered b 5ri(inal Certificate of *itle$o. 272' +sic +0-$A of the !e(istr of Deeds of Cebu +=h. 1 andorderin( the defendants to vacate the lot and surrender the same to theplaintiffs, this Court is not in a position to entertain an further claims b anparties in connection with said case.@owever, if the clients of Att. $acua believe that the can prove their

claims, then the should file a separate civil case to recover the same asthis Court cannot pass ud(ment anew on certain claims that should havebeen interposed as counter-claims in this case.>herefore, the 5pposition to the issuance of the >rit of eecution is herebD=$;=D, as the Cler8 of Court is hereb ordered to issue a writ of =ecutionin this case."5 5!D=!=D.

*he private respondents appealed the said order of arch ', 1&'' b filin( a notice of appealdated arch )0, 1&'' which appeal was, however, dismissed b 6ud(e ?ee in the order dated

April 1/, 1&''.5n April 2&, 1&'', the petitioners filed a motion for writ of possession and demolition to whichmotion the private respondents filed their opposition reiteratin( the (round in the opposition tothe motion for eecution and possession.6ud(e ?ee, thereafter, issued the order dated Au(ust 1&, 1&'', to wit +p. 17, !ollo4

5 ! D = !

An eamination of the records of this case reveals that until now, there is etno action b the Court of Appeals on the Clarificator motion filed b thelosin( part.*he Court has allowed this ecuse to defer its issuance of an order ofdemolition after the prevailin( part has praed the Court to issue one.>ith the lon( passa(e of time, since the ud(ment in this case has becomefinal, this Court cannot allow an further dela in the enforcement of its

ud(ment.>@=!=F5!=, it is finall ordered that the losin( part in this case be (ivenfifteen +1/ das from toda within which to effect a voluntar removal of animprovements that the have introduced in the premises, considerin( thatthe prevailin( part refused to reimburse the losin( part therefor, and ifthe do not demolish it after the epiration of this 1/ das, this Court will beconstrained to order its demolition as praed for.;* ;" "5 5!D=!=D.

5n "eptember 1&, 1&'', the private respondents filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus andprohibition with the respondent court concernin( the orders dated arch ', 1&'' and Au(ust 1&,1&''.5n April 2', 1&'&, the respondent court (ranted the petition, the dispositive portion of whichreads as follows +p. 21, !ollo4

>@=!=F5!=, the orders of arch ',1&'' and Au(ust 1&, 1&'' issued inCivil Case $o. !-111'/ b the !*C-Cebu Cit, ranch 1/, are hereb "=*

A";D= and A$$B??=D. ;n a hearin( supplementar to eecution, the saidcourt is hereb ordered to receive petitionersK evidence to prove that theare builders in (ood faith of the improvements and the value of the saidimprovements introduced b them in the subect ?ot //2'.;* ;" "5 5!D=!=D.

*he motion for reconsideration was denied. @ence, the present petition.*he onl issue is whether or not the private respondents should be allowed, in a hearin(supplementar to eecution, to present evidence to prove that the are builders in (ood faith of

the improvements and the value of said improvements.



17/64

#etitioners alle(e that the orders dated arch ', 1&'' and Au(ust 1&, 1&'' are le(itimatehavin( been issued b a ud(e presidin( a court of competent urisdiction, pursuant to his dutieswhich are ministerial in nature, to enforce a decision which is alread final and eecutor.;n orderin( the trial court to receive private respondentKs evidence to prove that the are buildersin (ood faith of the improvements and the value of said improvements, reliance was placed bthe respondent court in the cases of /aga 2evelopment Corporation v. Court of Appeals) etal.).!. $o. ?-2'17), "eptember )0, 1&71, %1 "C!A 10/ and 1da. de Chi v. Tanada) etc.) etal.) .!. $o. ?-2727%, 6anuar )0, 1&'2, 111 "C!A 1&0.>e shall narrate the facts in these two cases in a nutshell4

1 ;n the former case, #acific erchandisin( Corporation +#acific filed acomplaint a(ainst $a(a Development Corporation +$a(a for the balance of

its indebtedness in the amount of #1%),2'2.7. For failure to file an answerwithin the period, $a(a was declared in default. ;n its affidavit of meritattached to the motion to set aside the order of default, $a(a asserted thatit had made certain paments to #acific which should be deducted from theamount of the claim. *he motion was denied. A ud(ment b default wasrendered orderin( $a(a to pa said balance of indebtedness. *he decisionwas affirmed b the Court of Appeals and also b this Court, with theualification that $a(a was allowed to prove, durin( the process ofeecution of the ud(ment, whatever paments it had made to #acific, eitherbefore or after the filin( of the complaint, which constitute a properdeduction from the principal sum ordered to be paid. *hus, >e rationali9ed+%1 "C!A 11/-114earin( in mind the nature of the instant suit and considerin( that the Courtof AppealsK concurrence in the trial courtKs assessment of the amount of#1%),2'2.7 is in the nature of a factual findin(, this Court cannot now pass

upon its correctness. *he two courts below had before them the salesa(reement between the parties, and to what etent the parties compliedwith their respective prestations thereunder was purel a matter ofevidence.@owever, althou(h we cannot pass upon the correctness of the saidassessment, it is uite obvious that in the eecution of its ud(ment asaffirmed b the Court of Appeals, the trial court cannot compel the $a(a topa more than what it actuall owes the #acific under the terms of theircovenant. Deepl imbedded in our le(al sstem are the principles that noman ma unustl enrich himself at the epense of another, and that everperson must, in the eercise of his ri(hts, act with ustice, (ive everone hisdue, and observe honest and (ood faith. ... .2 ;n the latter case, an action for recover of dama(es as a result of avehicular accident was filed b !osita Gap


18/64

which can be raised in an eecution proceedin(, cannotto m mind, refer to those which the court could havepassed upon before ud(ment. 5therwise, there will beno end to liti(ation, since conceivabl the proof ofpartial paments could be so seriousl controversial asto need another full blown trial, decision and appeal. ;tis m view that under the circumstances, $a(a can dono more than address itself to the beni(nit orconscience of the private respondent. +=mphasissupplied: %1 "C!A 10/, 11&.

*he rule is well established that once a decision has become final and eecutor the onl

urisdiction left with the trial court is to order its eecution. *o reuire now the trial court in ahearin( supplementar to eecution, to receive private respondentsK evidence to prove that theare builders in (ood faith of the improvements and the value of said ;mprovements, is to disturba final eecutor decision: which ma even cause its substantial amendment. ;t appears that theprivate respondentKs opposition to the motion for the eecution of the ud(ment, possession anddemolition is their last straw to prevent the satisfaction of the ud(ment. "ad to sa, >e have tocut this straw.>e disa(ree with the respondent court that an counterclaim for reimbursement of the value ofthe improvements thereon b reason of private respondentsK bein( builders in (ood faith, whichpresupposes that the are not the owners of the land, would run counter to the defense ofownership and therefore could not have been set up before the trial court. ;t should beemphasi9ed that !ule ', "ection 2 of the !ules of Court allows a part to set forth two or morestatements of a claim or defense alternativel or hpotheticall, either in one cause of action ordefense or in separate causes of action or defenses. *his Court, in Castle 4ros.) ;olf and 6onsv. Go-8uno)7 #hil. 1%%, even held that inconsistent defenses ma be pleaded alternativel or

hpotheticall provided that each defense is consistent with itself. ention must also be made ofthe case of Camara) et al. v. Aguilar) et al.) &% #hil. /27, where >e ruled4*he contention that a counterclaim for epenses incurred in clearin( andcultivatin( the parcel of land and plantin( coconut and other fruit-bearin(trees therein could not have been set up in the former case because thatwould have been inconsistent with or would have wea8ened the claim thatthe were entitled to the parcel of land, is without merit, because KA partma set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternativel orhpotheticall, either in one cause of action or defense or in separatecauses of action or defenses.Ke mi(ht as well resolve now +althou(h not raised as an issue in thepresent petition, but conformabl with Gayos) et al. v. Gayos) et al., .!. $o. ?-27'12,"eptember 2, 1&7/, 7 "C!A 1%, that it is a cherished rule of procedure that a court shouldalwas strive to settle the entire controvers in a sin(le proceedin( leavin( no root or branch tobear the seeds of future liti(ation is whether or not the private respondents can still file aseparate complaint a(ainst the petitioners on the (round that the are builders in (ood faith andconseuentl, recover the value of the impr vements introduced b them on the subect lot. *he case of urisdiction of the Court. The determination of the issue >oinedby the parties constitutes res >udicata.+=mphasis supplied

Althou(h the alternative defense of bein( builders in (ood faith is onl permissive, thecounterclaim for reimbursement of the value of the improvements is in the nature of acompulsor counterclaim. *hus, the failure b the private respondents to set it up bars their ri(htto raise it in a subseuent liti(ation +!ule &, "ection % of the !ules of Court. >e reali9e thepli(ht of the private respondents, the rule on comlpulsor counterclaim is desi(ned to enable thedisposition of the whole controvers at one time and in one action. *he philosoph of the rule i sto discoura(e multiplicit of suits.

ACC5!D;$?G, the petition is hereb !A$*=D. *he decision of the Court of Appeals datedApril 2', 1&'& and i ts resolution dated 6une 20, 1&'& are "=* A";D= and the orders datedarch ', 1&'' and Au(ust 1&, 1&'' of the !e(ional *rial Court of Cebu Cit, ranch 1/ are!=;$"*A*=D."5 5!D=!=D.

G.R. No. 13311 A;


19/64

D = C ; " ; 5 $/E LEON, JR., J.:efore us is petition for review on certiorariof the Decision1dated arch 20,1&&' of the Court of Appeals 2 in CA-! C< $o. %'1&% entitled Forbes #ar8Association, ;nc. vs. Financial uildin( Corporation, findin( Financial uildin(Corporation +hereafter, Financial uildin( liable for dama(es in favor of Forbes#ar8 Association, ;nc. +hereafter, Forbes #ar8, for violatin( the latter3s deed ofrestrictions on the construction of buildin(s within the Forbes #ar8 @=!=F5!=, in view of the fore(oin(, the Court hereb renders ud(ment infavor of the plaintiff and a(ainst the defendant4

+1 5rderin( the defendant to removedemolish the ille(al structureswithin three +) months from the time this ud(ment becomes final andeecutor, and in case of failure of the defendant to do so, the plaintiff is

authori9ed to demolishremove the structures at the epense of thedefendant:+2 5rderin( the defendant to pa dama(es, to wit4

+a #),000,000.00 as actual dama(es b wa of demolitionepenses:+b #1,000,000.00 as eemplar dama(es:+c #/00,000.00 as attorne3s fees:+d the costs of suit.

"5 5!D=!=D.Financial uildin( appealed the said Decision of the trial court in Civil Case $o.'&-//22 b wa of a petition for review on certiorari12entitled Financial uildin(Corporation vs. Forbes #ar8 Association, ;nc. to the Court of Appeals anddoc8eted therein as CA-! C< $o. %'1&%. @owever, the Court of Appeals

affirmed it in its Decision1)dated arch 20, 1&&', the dispositive portion of whichreads4>@=!=F5!=, the Decision dated "eptember 2, 1&&% of the !e(ional *rialCourt of a8ati is AFF;!=D with the modification that the award of eemplardama(es, as well as attorne3s fees, is reduced to fift thousand pesos+#/0,000.00 each.@ence, this petition, wherein Financial uildin( assi(ns the followin( errors4

;. *@= C5B!* 5F A##=A?" !A


20/64

First. *he instant case is barred due to Forbes #ar83s failure to set it up as acompulsor counterclaim in Civil Case $o. 1/%0, the prior inunction suitinitiated b Financial uildin( a(ainst Forbes #ar8.A compulsor counterclaim is one which arises out of or is necessaril connectedwith the transaction or occurrence that is the subect matter of the opposin(part3s claim.1/;f it is within the urisdiction of the court and it does not reuire forits adudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acuireurisdiction, such compulsor counterclaim is barred if it is not set up in the actionfiled b the opposin( part.1

*hus, a compulsor counterclaim cannot be the subect of a separate action but itshould instead be asserted in the same suit involvin( the same transaction oroccurrence, which (ave rise to it. 17 *o determine whether a counterclaim iscompulsor or not, we have devised the followin( tests4 +1 Are the issues of factor law raised b the claim and the counterclaim lar(el the same +2 >ould res>udicatabar a subseuent suit on defendant3s claim absent the compulsorcounterclaim rule +) >ill substantiall the same evidence support or refuteplaintiff3s claim as well as the defendant3s counterclaim and +% ;s there anlo(ical relation between the claim and the counterclaim Affirmative answers tothe above ueries indicate the eistence of a compulsor counterclaim.1'

Bndoubtedl, the prior Civil Case $o. 1/%0 and the instant case arose from thesame occurrence N the construction wor8 done b Financial uildin( on theB""!3s lot in Forbes #ar8


21/64

*hrou(h their petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, petitioners assail the resolutionspromul(ated on $ovember 22, 20021and 6ul )1, 2002,2whereb the Court of Appeals +CArespectivel denied petitionersK motion to dismiss the appeal and motion for reconsideration.*he alle(e that the CA thereb committed (rave abuse of discretion amountin( to lac8 orecess of urisdiction.

Antecedents5n 6ul )1, 1&'/, #ilipinas "hell #etroleum Corporation +"hell entered into an a(reement forthe distribution of "hell petroleum products +such as fuels, lubricants and allied items b #acificana(ement R Development +#acific, a sin(le proprietorship belon(in( to petitioner !amon .endiola +!amon. *o secure #acific3s performance of its obli(ations under the a(reement,petitioners eecuted on Au(ust 1, 1&'/ a real estate mort(a(e in favor of "hel l)coverin( their

real estate and its improvements, located in the then unicipalit of #araPaue, !i9al, andre(istered under *ransfer Certificate of *itle $o. "-/&'07 of the !e(istr of Deeds of !i9al +inthe name of !amon endiola, married to Araceli endo9a.%

#acific ultimatel defaulted on its obli(ations, impellin( "hell to commenceetraudicial foreclosure proceedin(s in April 1&'7. @avin( received a notice of the etraudicialforeclosure scheduled to be held at the main entrance of the #araPaue unicipal @all on a1%, 1&'7,/petitioners proceeded to the announced venue on the scheduled date and time butdid not witness an auction bein( conducted and did not meet the sheriff supposed to conductthe auction despite their bein( at the lobb from &400 am until 114)0 am of a 1%, 1&'7.*helater learned that the auction had been held as scheduled b Deput "heriff ernardo "an 6uanof the !e(ional *rial Court +!*C in a8ati, and that their mort(a(ed realt had been sold to*aban(ao !ealt, ;nc. +*aban(ao, as the correspondin( certificate of sale bears out.7*hefurther learned that *aban(ao3s winnin( bidder bid of #70,000.00 had topped "hell3s bid of#0,000.00.'

After application of the proceeds of the sale to the obli(ation of #acific, a deficienc of

#170,22'.00 +representin( the foreclosure epenses euivalent of 2/O of the amount claimedplus interest remained. *he deficienc was not paid b !amon. *hus, on "eptember 2, 1&'7,"hell sued in the !*C in anila to recover the deficienc, doc8eted as Civil Case $o. '7-%1'/2entitled #ilipinas "hell #etroleum Corporation v. !amon . endiola, doin( business under thename and stle #acific ana(ement R Development +anila case.&

;n his answer with counterclaim filed on 5ctober 2', 1&'7, !amon asserted that the etra-udicial foreclosure of the mort(a(e had been devoid of basis in fact and in law: and that theforeclosure and the filin( of the action were made in bad faith, with malice, fraudulentl and in(ross and wanton violation of his ri(hts.5n arch 22, 1&'', petitioners commenced in the !*C in a8ati an action to annul theetraudicial foreclosure doc8eted as Civil Case $o. ''-)&' entitled !amon . endiola and

Araceli $. endiola v. #ilipinas "hell #etroleum Corporation, *aban(ao !ealt, ;nc., andaimo C. Contreras, as Cler8 of Court and = 5ficio "heriff of !i9al,10which was assi(ned toranch 1)% +a8ati case.

As defendants in the a8ati case, "hell and *aban(ao separatel moved for dismissal,11statin(

similar (rounds, namel4 +a that the a8ati !*C had no urisdiction due to the pendenc of theanila case: +b that the complaint stated no cause of action, the a8ati case havin( been filedmore than a ear after the re(istration of the certificate of sale: +c that another action +anilacase involvin( the same subect matter was pendin(: +d that the venue was improperl laid:and +e that the a8ati case was alread barred b petitioners3 failure to raise its cause of actionas a compulsor counterclaim in the anila case.

After the a8ati !*C denied both motions on "eptember 2), 1&'',12"hell filed its answer adcautelam,1)whereb it denied petitioners3 alle(ation that no auction had been held: insisted thatthere had been proper accountin( of the deliveries made to #acific and its clients: and averredthat petitioners3 failure to file their compulsor counterclaim in the anila case alread barredthe action.#endin( the trial of the a8ati case, the anila !*C rendered its ud(ment in favor of "hell ona )1, 1&&0, vi94>@=!=F5!=, ;$ 5F *@= F5!=5;$, defendants +sic is ordered to pa plaintiffs asfollows4

1. 5n the First Cause of Action N

a #17,/'/./0 representin( the deficienc as of the date of the foreclosuresale:b #2,%).2 representin( the interest due on the unpaid principal as of )06une 1&'7: andc *he sum correspondin( to the interest due on the unpaid principal from)0 6une 1&'7 to date.

2. 5n the "econd Cause of Action N attorne3s fees and epenses of liti(ation to +sicthe amount of #1/,000.00: and finall,). Costs of suit.

"5 5!D=!=D.1%

As sole defendant in the anila case, !amon appealed +C.A.-.!. $o. C@=!=F5!=, premises considered, there is $5 !=" 6BD;CA*A to spea8 of in this case.Conseuentl, the otion for !econsideration filed b defendant #ilipinas "hell #etroleumCorporation, which was later adopted b defendant *aban(ao !ealt, ;nc., is hereb D=$;=D.#laintiff3s otion for =ecution is li8ewise D=$;=D for reasons as stated above."5 5!D=!=D.21

A((rieved b the decision of the a8ati !*C, "hell and *aban(ao filed a oint notice ofappeal.22*he appeal was doc8eted in the CA as C.A.-.!. $o. /7%.;n their appellants3 brief filed in C.A.-.!. $o. /7%,2)"hell and *aban(ao assi(ned the

followin( errors, namel4;

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_159746_2012.html#fnt23


22/64

*@= C5B!* A QB5 C5;**=D !A=!= "A*;"F;=D.;;;*@= C5B!* A QB5 C5;**=D "=!;5B" =!!5! ;$ !=$D=!;$ *@=

A""A;?=D D=C;";5$ A$D A""A;?=D !="5?B*;5$ ;$ C5$*!A@=!=F5!=, in view of the fore(oin(, the otion to Dismiss Appeal is hereb D=$;=D."5 5!D=!=D.5n 6ul )1, 2002, the CA denied petitioners3 motion for reconsideration throu(h the secondassailed resolution.2

@ence, petitioners brou(ht these special civil actions for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition,insistin( that the CA committed (rave abuse of discretion amountin( to lac8 or ecess of

urisdiction in denin( their motion to dismiss appeal and their motion for reconsideration.

;ssue#etitioners contend that the CA committed (rave abuse of discretion in entertainin( the appealof "hell and *aban(ao in contravention of "ection 1, !ule %1 of the !ules of Court, whichproscribes an appeal of the denial of a motion for reconsideration."hell and *aban(ao counter that their appeal was not proscribed because the action could besaid to be completel disposed of onl upon the rendition on 5ctober /, 1&&& of the assailedresolution denin( their motion for reconsideration: that, as such, the decision of Februar ),1&&' and the denial of their motion for reconsideration formed one inte(rated disposition of themerits of the action: and that the CA ustifiabl applied the rules of procedure liberall.*wo issues have to be determined. *he first is whether or not an appeal ma be ta8en from thedenial of a motion for reconsideration of the decision of Februar ), 1&&'. *he determination ofthis issue necessaril decides whether the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamuswere warranted. *he second is whether the a8ati case could prosper independentl of theanila case. *he Court has to pass upon and resolve the second issue without waitin( for theCA to decide the appeal on its merits in view of the ur(in( b "hell and *aban(ao that the

a8ati case was barred due to litis pendentia or res udicata.!ulin(

*he petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition lac8s merit.1.

Appeal b "hell and *aban(ao of the denial of their motion for reconsideration was notproscribed#etitioners3 contention that the appeal b "hell and *aban(ao should be reected on the (roundthat an appeal of the denial of their motion for reconsideration was prohibited cannot besustained.;t is true that the ori(inal tet of "ection 1, !ule %1 of the 1&&7 !ules of Civil #rocedureepressl limited an appeal to a ud(ment or final order, and proscribed the ta8in( of an appealfrom an order denin( a motion for new trial or reconsideration, amon( others, vi94"ection 1. "ubect of appeal. L An appeal ma be ta8en from a ud(ment or final order that

completel disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared b these !ulesto be appealable.$o appeal ma be ta8en from4

+a An order denin( a motion for new trial or reconsideration:+b An order denin( a petition for relief or an similar motion see8in( relief from

ud(ment:+c An interlocutor order:+d An order disallowin( or dismissin( an appeal:+e An order denin( a motion to set aside a ud(ment b consent, confession orcompromise on the (round of fraud, mista8e or duress, or an other (round vitiatin(consent:+f An order of eecution:+( A ud(ment or final order for or a(ainst one or more of several parties or inseparate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-part complaints, while themain case is pendin(, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom: and

+h An order dismissin( an action without preudice.;n all the above instances where the ud(ment or final order is not appealable, the a((rievedpart ma file an appropriate special civil action under !ule /. +n*he inclusion of the order denin( a motion for new trial or a motion for reconsideration in the listof issuances of a trial court not subect to appeal was b reason of such order not bein( the finalorder terminatin( the proceedin(s in the trial court. *his nature of the order is reflected in"ection & of !ule )7 of the 1&&7 !ules of Civil #rocedure, which declares that such orderdenin( a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealable, the remed bein( an appealfrom the ud(ment or final order.;n @eirs of "pouses *eofilo . !eterta and =lisa !eterta v. "pouses ?oren9o ores and


23/64

havin( to assail orders as the are promul(ated b the court, when the can be contested in asin(le appeal. *he appropriate remed is thus for the part to wait for the final ud(ment or orderand assi(n such interlocutor order as an error of the court on appeal.*he denial of the motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is not aninterlocutor order, however, but a final order as it puts an end to the particular matter resolved,or settles definitel the matter therein disposed of, and nothin( is left for the trial court to doother than to eecute the order.$ot bein( an interlocutor order, an order denin( a motion for reconsideration of an order ofdismissal of a complaint is effectivel an appeal of the order of dismissal itself.*he reference b petitioner, in his notice of app

Documents

Civpro Jalique Titan