Remedial Doctrines

8/6/2019 Remedial Doctrines

1/27

JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES INREMEDIAL LAW (2006-2007)

CIVIL PROCEDURE

ACTIONS

Settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the actionas well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case are theallegations in the complaint. The cause of action in a complaint is notwhat the designation of the complaint states, but what the allegationsin the body of the complaint define or describe. The designation orcaption is not controlling, more than the allegations in the complaint,

for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint. (Hernudd vs.Lofgren, 534 SCRA 205, September 2007)

It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action andhence, the jurisdiction of the court, are the allegations of the complaintand the character of the relief sought. (Allgemeine-Bau-ChemiePhils. Inc., vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 482SCRA 247)

Cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a partyviolates the right of another. (Davao Light and Power Company

Inc. vs. Judge, RTC Davao City, Br. 8, 485 SCRA 74)

Admission of genuineness and due execution of a documentsimply means that the party whose signature it bears admits that hevoluntarily signed the documents or it was signed by another for himand with his authority, that at the time it was signed its was in wordsand figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying uponit, that the document was delivered, and that any formalities requiredby law, such as seal, an acknowledgement, or revenue stamp which itlacks, are waived by him; Admission of the genuineness and dueexecution of a document does not preclude a party from arguingagainst such it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment,statute of limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration. (Simon vs.Canlas, 487 SCRA 433)

Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action,namely forcible entry (detentacion) and unlawful detainer (desahuico),the jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature, liesin the proper Municipal Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court. (Valdezvs. Court of Appeals, 489 SCRA 369)

To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential thatthe plaintiffs supposed acts of tolerance must have been present rightfrom the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered-such tolerance must be present right from the start of possessionsought to be recovered to categorize a cause of action as one ofunlawful detainer, not forcible entry. (Valdez vs. Court of Appeals,

489 SCRA 369)

1


2/27

There is forum shopping when a party seeks to obtain remediesin an action in one court, which had already been solicited, and inother courts and other proceedings on other tribunals; Forum shoppingis an act of malpractice, as the litigants trifle with the courts and abusetheir processes. (Montes vs. Court of Appeals, 489 SCRA 432)

For res judicata to apply, the following elements must bepresent: (1) the judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgmentmust be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a courthaving jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and (4)there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of theparties, of subject matter and of cause of action. (Parayno vs.

Jovellanos, 495 SCRA 85)

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

A motion to dismiss by one defendant does not affect the right ofthe other defendants to plead their own affirmative defenses and bepreliminary heard thereon. (Abrajano vs. Heirs of Augusto Salas,

Jr., 482 SCRA 476)

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

An amendment is only in form when it merely adds specificationsto eliminate vagueness in the information and does not introduce newand material facts. (Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, 491 SCRA 264)

Settled is the rule that a motion to dismiss is not a responsivepleading for purposes of Section 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure; Since the plaintiff has the right to amend his or hercomplaint where no responsive pleading has yet been filed, it iscorrelative duty of the trial court to accept the amended complaint,otherwise mandamus would lie against it; It has always been the policyof the Supreme Court to be liberal in allowing amendments topleadings in order that the real controversies between or among theparties may be presented and cases be decided on the merits withoutdelay. (Alpine Lending Investors vs. Corpuz, 508 SCRA 45)

ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS

An action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not asubstitute for the lost remedy of appeal. A party must have firstavailed of appeal, a motion for new trial or a petition for relief beforean action for annulment can prosper. (Mercado vs. Security BankCorporation, 482 SCRA 501)

A judgment can be annulled on the following grounds: that thejudgment is void for want of jurisdiction; that the judgment is void forlack of due process; or that it has been obtained by fraud. (Aranda

vs. Fortune Savings and Loan Association, Inc., 490 SCRA 87)

An action for annulment of judgment can be filed even by onewho was not a party to the case in which the assailed judgment wasrendered. (Villanueva vs. Nite, 496 SCRA 459)

2


3/27

ANSWERS

A denial is not specific simply because it so qualified by thedefendant- a general denial does not become specific by the use of theword specifically; When the matters of whether the defendant

alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefare plainly and necessarily within the defendants knowledge, hisalleged ignorance or lack of information will not be considered as aspecific denial. (Camitan vs. Court of Appeals, 511 SCRA 364)

APPEALS

The fresh period rule is a procedural law as it prescribes afresh period of 15 days within which an appeal may be made in theevent that the motion for reconsideration is denied by the lower court;The rule should be applied to pending actions. (Delos Santos vs.

Vda. De Mangubat, 535 SCRA 411, October 2007)

As a rule, an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules ofCourt is limited to review of errors of law. The factual findings of thetrial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, aregenerally binding on us unless there was a misapprehension of facts orwhen the inference drawn from the facts was manifestly mistaken.(Hi-Cement Corporation vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America,534 SCRA 269, September 2007)

Judicial policy dictates that courts ensure the full adjudication of

the merits of an appeal. Cases should be determined on the merits,after giving full opportunity to all parties for the ventilation of theircauses and defenses, rather than on technicality or some proceduralimperfections.(Bunsay, et. al. vs. Civil Service Commission, 530SCRA 68, August 2007)

As a rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held tobe the law of the case whether that question is right or wrong, theremedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek arehearing. (Escobar vs. Luna, 519 SCRA 1, March 2007)

A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rulesof Court may be availed of against final judgments and ordersrendered by either Regional Trial Courts in civil actions or MunicipalTrial Courts- Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunal such asthe National Labor Relations Commission, and the Office of thePresident are beyond its reach. (Padua vs. Court of Appeals, 517SCRA 232, March 2007)

An action for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdictionmay be filed any time, unless laches has, in the meantime, set in.(Reyes vs. Alsons Development and Investment Corporation,

517 SCRA 244, March 2007)

CAUSES OF ACTIONS

Considering that bad faith and malice are not necessary in anaction based on Article 32 of the Civil Code, the failure to specificallyallege the same will not amount to failure to state a cause of action.

3


4/27

(Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, 525 SCRA 11,June 2007)

It is well-settled rule that the existence of a cause of action isdetermined by the allegations in the complaint. In resolving a motion

to dismiss based on the failure to state cause of action, only the factsalleged in the complaint must be considered. (Jan-Dec ConstructionCorporation vs. Court of Appeals, 481 SCRA 556)

Hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of actions does notmean absolute identity. The test to determine whether the causes ofaction are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence willsustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the factsessential to the maintenance of the two actions. (Cruz vs. Court of

Appeals, 482 SCRA 379)

Cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violatesa right of another. It contains three elements: (1) a right existing infavor of the plaintiff; (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respectthe right of the plaintiff; and (3) a breach of the defendants duty.(Balanay vs. Paderanga, 499 SCRA 670)

A cause of action is a formal statement of the operative factsthat give rise to a remedial right; Question of whether the complaintstates a cause of action is determined by its averments regarding theacts committed by the defendant. (Zepeda vs. China BankingCorporation, 504 SCRA 126)

In determining whether an initiatory pleading states a cause ofaction, the test is as follows: admitting the truth of the facts alleged,can the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer?;Only the material allegations in the complaint are to be taken intoaccount, extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters aliundeare not considered; However, the court may consider in addition to thecomplaint the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of theplaintiff, or admissions in the records. (Aldemita vs. Heirs ofMelquiades Silva, 506 SCRA 607)

DEFAULT

If the defendant is absent during the initial trial without any justifiable reason therefore, the defendant cannot be declared as indefault for such absence but the court may allow the plaintiff topresent his evidence before the Branch Clerk of Court ex parte- by theabsence of the defendant, he waives, not only his right to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses, but also to adduce evidence inhis behalf. (Pangasinan Five Star Bus Co., Inc. vs. Barredo, 498SCRA 418)

There are three requirements which must be complied with bythe claiming party before the court may declare the defending party indefault, to wit: 1. the claiming party must file a motion asking the courtto declare the defending party in default; 2. the defending party mustbe notified of the motion to declare him in default; 3. the claimingparty must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within

4


5/27

the period provided by the Rule. (Delos Santos vs. Carpio, 501SCRA 390)

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Demurrer is an aid or instrument for the expeditious terminationof an action, similar to a motion to dismiss, which the court or tribunalmay either grant or deny. (Dandoy vs. Court of Appeals, 531SCRA 351, August 2007)

DEPOSITION

Deposition is allowed as a departure from the accepted andusual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court wheretheir demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, consistent withthe principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of

every action and proceeding, provided it is taken in accordance withthe provisions of the Rules of Court. (Hyatt IndustrialManufacturing Corp. vs. Ley Construction and DevelopmnetCorp., 484 SCRA 286)

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

It is a doctrine of long standing that courts will not interfere inmatters which are addressed to the sound discretion of thegovernment agency entrusted with regulation of activities comingunder the special and technical training and knowledge of such

agency- the exercise of administrative discretion is a policy decisionand a matter that best be discharged by the government agencyconcerned and not by the courts. (Yazaki Torres Manufacturing,Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 493 SCRA 86)

An exception to the rule on primary jurisdiction is when the issueraised is a purely legal question, well within the competence and thejurisdiction of the court not the administrative agency; For the samereason that the issues to be resolved in this case are purely legal innature. (Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 74)

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Nothing in the rules of procedure provides that the entry ofjudgment be served on the parties, or reckons the date of finality ofthe judgment from the moment the entry of judgment is received bythe parties. (Trans Middle East vs. Sandiganbayan, 490 SCRA

455)

EXECUTION

On meritorious grounds, execution of final judgment by mere

motion may be allowed even after the lapse of five years when delay inthe execution is caused or occasioned by the actions of the judgmentdebtor and/or incurred for his benefit. (Central Surety andInsurance Company vs. Planters Products, Inc., 517 SCRA 651,March 2007)

5


6/27

FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS

Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer

be disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be and nothing furthercan be done therewith except to execute it. (Florentino vs. Rivera,479 SCRA 522)

Once a judgment attains finality it becomes immutable andunalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if themodification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneousconclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification isattempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest courtof the land. (Bearneza vs. NLRC, 501 SCRA 372)

FORUM SHOPPING

As no distinction is made as to which party must execute thecertificate, the requirement is made to apply to both natural and juridical entities. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Flight Attendantsand Stewards Association of the Philippines, 479 SCRA 605)

Only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolutionmay sign the certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of acorporation. Petition subject to dismissal if a certification wassubmitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatorys authority.

(Fuentebella vs. Castro, 494 SCRA 183)

Conditions to be complied with before the rule on personalsigning of the certification may be relaxed. (Tolentino vs. Rivera,

480 SCRA 87)

INTERVENTION

The requirements for the intervention are: a. legal interest in thematter in litigation; and b. consideration must be given as to whetherthe adjudication of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced,

or whether the intervenors rights may be protected in a separateproceeding or not. Legal interest, which entities a person to intervene,must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediatecharacter that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legaloperation and effect of the judgment. Such interest must be actual,direct and material, and not simply contingent and expectant. (Perezvs. Court of Appeals, 480 SCRA 411)

Motions to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition ofjudgment by the trial court, not after. (Rockland Construction Co.,Inc. vs. Singzon, Jr., 508 SCRA 1)

JUDGMENT

A compromise agreement that is intended to resolve a matteralready under litigation is normally called a judicial compromise. Onceit is stamped with judicial imprimatur, it becomes more than a merecontract binding upon the parties. Having the sanction of the court and

6


7/27

entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force andeffect of any other judgment. Such agreement has the force of law andis conclusive between the parties. It transcends its identity as a merecontract binding only upon the parties thereto, for it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.

Thus, a compromise agreement that has been made and dulyapproved by the court attains the effect and authority of res judicata,although no execution may be issued unless the agreement receivesthe approval of the court where the litigation is pending andcompliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed. (Viesca vs.David, 526 SCRA 566, July 2007)

A judgment is on the merits when it determines the rights andliabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by thepleadings or issues presented for trial; It is not necessary that thereshould have been a trial, actual hearing or arguments on the facts of

the case. (Heirs of Igmedio Maglaque and Sabina Payawal vs.Court of Appeals, 524 SCRA 234,June 2007)

Upon finality of the judgment, the court loses its jurisdiction toamend, modify, or alter the same- except for correction of clericalerrors or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which causes noprejudice to any party, or where the judgment is void, the judgmentcan neither be amended nor altered after it has become final andexecutory.

Any amendment or alteration made which substantially affects

the final and executory judgment is null and void for lack ofjurisdiction. (Aguila vs. Baldovizo, 517 SCRA 91, March 2007)

Under the doctrine of conclusiveness judgment, which is alsoknown as preclusion of issues or collateral estoppel, issues actuallyand directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in anyfuture case between the same parties involving a different cause ofaction. (Borlongan vs. Buenaventura, 483 SCRA 405)

Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance fromthe effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was

due to his own negligence. Due process is satisfied when the partiesare afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain theirrespective sides of the controversy. (Ampo vs. Court of Appeals,

482 SCRA 562)

A judgment or order may be appealed only when it is final,meaning that it completely disposes of the case and definitivelyadjudicates the respective rights of the parties, leaving thereafter nosubstantial proceedings to be had in connection with the case exceptthe proper execution of the judgment or order. (PDIC vs. InternalRevenue, 511 SCRA 123)

The rule is that a final judgment may no longer be modified inany respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneousconclusions of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modificationis attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highestcourt of the land. (Surtida vs. Rural Bank of Malinao(Albay), Inc.,511 SCRA 507)

7


8/27

Annulment of judgment as a remedy can be resorted to onlywhere the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief orother appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault ofthe petitioner. (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 491 SCRA 452)

Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character,allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available orother adequate remedy. (Camitan vs. Court of Appeals, 511 SCRA364)

It is the dispositive part of the judgment that actually settles anddeclares the rights and obligations of the parties, finally, definitively,and authoritatively, notwithstanding the existence of inconsistentstatements in the body that may tend to confuse. (Maricalum MiningCorporation vs. Brion, 482 SCRA 87)

It is an important fundamental principle in the judicial systemthat every litigation must come to an end- access to the courts isguaranteed but there must be a limit thereto. (Aguilar vs. ManilaBanking Corporation, 502 SCRA 614)

Even after its promulgation, a decision does not bind the partiesuntil notice of the decision is duly served on them by any of the modesprescribed by law. (Mendizabel vs. Apao, 482 SCRA 587)

Interlocutory orders are not appealable until after the rendition ofthe judgments on the merits. The remedy of a party aggrieved would

be a petition for certiorari. (Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 482SCRA 513)

There is judgment on the merits when there is an unequivocaldetermination of the rights and obligations of the parties with respectto the causes of action and subject matter of the case. An order issuinga writ of possession is an order where the sheriff is commanded toplace a person in possession of a real or personal property, and to apurchaser in an auction sale, be it foreclosure or neither exercises itsofficial discretion nor judgment. Being a ministerial function andsummary in nature, an order issuing a writ of possession is not a

judgment on the merits, but simply an incident in the transfer of title.(Philippine National Oil Company vs. National College ofBusiness and Arts, 481 SCRA 298)

Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has theeffect of an adjudication on the merits and is understood to be withprejudice to the filing of another action unless otherwise provided inthe order of dismissal. (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 482 SCRA 379)

A ruling based on a motion to dismiss, without any trial on themerits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on

the merits. (Id.)

Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, theessential question is whether there are issues generated by thepleadings- in a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is noostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending partysanswer to raise an issue. (Tan vs. Dela Vega, 484 SCRA 538)

8


9/27

When the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgmentis not proper. An issue is genuine if it requires the presentation ofevidence as distinguished from sham, fictitious, contrived, or falseclaim. (Ontimare, Jr., vs. Elep, 479 SCRA 257)

JURISDICTION

The doctrine that all cases of recovery of possession or accionpubliciana lies with the regional trial courts regardless of the value ofthe property no longer holds trueas things now stand, a distinctionmust be made between those properties the assessed value of whichis below P20,000, if outside Metro Manila, and P50,000, if within.(Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals, 531 SCRA 104, August 2007)

Under the doctrine of non interference, a trial court has noauthority to interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal

jurisdiction, much less to annul the final judgment of a co-equal court.(Clark Development Corporation vs. Mondragon Leisure andResorts Corporation, 517 SCRA 203, March 2007)

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause or theright to act in a case; The grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatorypower, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normallyand logically be deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce orexecute the judgments it renders, unless the law otherwise provides.(Union Bank of the Philippines vs. SEC, 499 SCRA 253)

The material averments in the complaint determine thejurisdiction of a court. A court does not lose its jurisdiction over anejectment suit by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defensetherein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between theparties. (Cano vs. Jumawan, 481 SCRA 582)

It is axiomatic that the allegations in the complaint, not thedefenses set up in the answer or in the motion to dismiss determinewhich court has jurisdiction over an action. (Abacus SecuritiesCorporation vs. Ampil, 483 SCRA 315)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law- thenature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction overit, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint ofthe plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not plaintiff is entitled torecover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. (Orendainvs. BF Homes Inc., 506 SCRA 348)

A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction toissue these writs should be allowed only when there are special andimportant reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out in thepetition. (Quesada vs. Department of Justice, 500 SCRA 454)

Petitions for annulment of judgment are not among the casesoriginally cognizable by the Supreme Court. (Grande vs. Universityof the Philippines, 502 SCRA 67)

The decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall beappealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari

9


10/27

raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules ofCourt. (People vs. Sandiganbayan, 485 SCRA 473)

In a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised- theSupreme Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues as it

is not a trier of facts. (Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundations vs.Funk, 510 SCRA 68)

The general rule is that jurisdiction of this Court in a petition forreview under Rule 45 is confined to a review of questions of law-further, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, when supported bysubstantial evidence, are conclusive and binding on the parties, andare not reviewed by this Court except when the findings are contrarywith those of the lower court or quasi-judicial bodies. (Muaje-Tuazonvs. Wenphil Corporation, 511 SCRA 521)

In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the appellate court isnarrow in scopeit is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdictionitsis not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond itscompetence, such as an error of judgment which is defined as one inwhich the court or quasi-judicial body may commit in the exercise of itsjurisdiction; an error of jurisdiction is one where the acts complained ofwere issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. (Macawiag vs.Balindong, 502 SCRA 454)

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives, anddecisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary

cases onlyit cannot review the orders, directives, or decisions of theOffice of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.(Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321)

In the absence of a special contract, no sovereign is bound togive effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal ofanother country, however, under the rules of comity, utility andconvenience, nations have established a usage among civilized statesby which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction arereciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certainconditions that may vary in different countries. (St. Aviation

Services Co., Pte., Ltd. Vs. Grand International Airways, Inc.,505 SCRA 30)

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW

Non-compliance with the condition precedent under PresidentialDecree No. 1508 does not prevent a court of competent jurisdictionfrom exercising its power of adjudication over a case where thedefendants fail to object to such exercise of jurisdiction. (Espino vs.Legarda, 485 SCRA 74)

Section 412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 requires the parties toundergo a conciliation before filing a complaint in court. (Lumbuanvs. Ronquillo, 489 SCRA 650)

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION

10


11/27

The rules may be reasonably and liberally construed to avoid apatent denial of substantial justice, because it cannot be denied thatthe ends of justice are better served when cases are determined onthe merits after all parties are given full opportunity to ventilatetheir causes and defenses rather than on technicality or some

procedural imperfections. (Amodia Vda. De Melencion vs. Court ofAppeals, 534 SCRA 62, September 2007)

MOTIONS

The general rule is that all written motions shall be set forhearing by the movant, except the non-litigated motions or thosewhich may be acted upon by the court without prejudicing the rights ofthe adverse party, such as a motion for extension of time to filepleadings, motion for extension of time to file an answer, and a motionfor extension of time to file a record on appeal; A notice of time and

place of hearing is mandatory for motions for new trial or motions forreconsideration. (Rustia vs. Rivera, 508 SCRA 39)

Motion to dismiss based on prescription hypothetically admitsthe truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. (Crisostomo vs.Garcia, Jr., 481 SCRA 402)

It has long been settled that an order denying a motion todismiss is an interlocutory order. In order to justify the grant of theextraordinary remedy of certiorari, the denial of the motion to dismissmust have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. vs.Judge, Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 8, 484 SCRA272)

Dismissal based on grounds other than those specified inparagraphs (f), (b), and (i) of Section 1, Rule 16, are without prejudicebecause they do not preclude the refiling of the same action; Adismissal based on the ground that the Complaint states no cause ofaction cannot be said to be a dismissal with prejudice. (StrongworldConstruction Corporation vs. Perello, 496 SCRA 700)

Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil actionrefers to that situation wherein another action is pending between thesame parties for the same cause of action, such that the second actionbecomes unnecessary and vexatious. (Guevara vs. BPI SecuritiesCorporation, 498 SCRA 613)

While, in the resolution of a motion to dismiss, the truth of thefacts alleged in the complaint are theoretically admitted, suchadmission is merely hypothetical and only for the purpose of resolvingthe motion; In case of denial, the movant is not be deprived of theright to submit its own case and to submit evidence to rebut the

allegation in the complaint. Neither will the grant of the motion by atrial court and the ultimate reversal thereof by an appellate court havethe effect of stifling such right. So too, the trial court should be giventhe opportunity to evaluate the evidence, apply the law and decree theproper remedy. (Guevara vs. BPI Securities Corporation, 498SCRA 613)

11


12/27

As it now stands, the following defenses are not waived even ifnot raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; (a) lack ofjurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata;and (d) prescription on the action- failure to state a cause of action isnot an exception. (Aldemita vs. Heirs of Melquiades Silva, 506

SCRA 607)

NEW TRIAL

A motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for newtrial if based on a ground for new trial, but if the grounds are not validcauses for new trial, then such motion is not one for new trial.(Republic vs. Asuncion, 502 SCRA 140)

NUNC PRO TUNC ENTRIES

When a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomesimmutable and unalterable- the judgment may no longer be modifiedin any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what isperceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardlessof whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Courtrendering it or by the highest Court of the land, the only recognizedexceptions being the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party,and, of course, where the judgment is void. (Equitable BankingCorporation vs. Sadac, 490 SCRA 380)

PARTIES

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, every action must beprosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, theparty who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in thesuit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Interest within themeaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and tobe affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in thequestion involved, or a mere incidental interest.

The purpose of the rule is to protect parties against undue and

unnecessary litigation and to ensure that the court will have thebenefit of having before it the real adverse parties in the considerationof the case. This rule, however, is not to be narrowly and restrictivelyconstrued, and its application should be neither dogmatic nor rigid atall times but viewed in consonance with extant realities andpracticalities. Since a contract may be violated only by the partiesthereto as against each other, in an action upon that contract, the realparties-in-interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be partiesto the said contract.

The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Their presence

is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is the authorityto hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case. Thus,without their presence to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a courtcannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable partyrenders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want ofauthority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to thosepresent.

12


13/27

Nevertheless, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not aground for the dismissal of an action, and the remedy is to implead thenon-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by orderof the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage

of the action and/or at such times as are just. If the petitioner refusesto implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, thelatter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the plaintiff/petitioner'sfailure to comply therewith. (Pepsico vs. Emerald Pizza, Inc., 530SCRA 48, August 2007)

Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court has two requirements-(1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be real party in interest,and, (2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party ininterest. (Oco vs. Limbaring, 481 SCRA 348)

Interest within the meaning of the Rules means material interestor an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of thecase, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved.(Id.)

Under Rule 3, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, anindispensable party is a party in interest without whom there can be nofinal determination of an action. As a rule, an indispensable party ininterest in the subject matter is such that a complete and efficientdetermination of the equities and rights of the parties is not possible ifhe is not joined. (De Galicia vs. Mercado, 484 SCRA 131)

Joinder of all indispensable parties must be made under any andall conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise ofthe judicial power. (Id.)

It is not proper to implead the President as respondentsettledis the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actualincumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there isno need to provide for it in the Constitution or law; It will degrade thedignity of the high office of the President, the Head of the State, if hecan be dragged into court litigation while serving as such. (David vs.

Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160)

Persons who are not parties to a case may not seek the inhibitionof the presiding judge. (Hilado vs. Reyes, 496 SCRA 282)

Being not a real party in interest, a Personnel Superintendent hasno right to file a petition in behalf of the corporation without anyauthority from its board of directors- it is basic in law that a corporationhas a legal personality entirely separate and distinct from that of itsofficers and the latter cannot act for and on its behalf without being soauthorized by its governing board. (United Paragon Mining

Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 497 SCRA 638)

PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Where the address of respondents counsel is 83 kilometersaway from the address of petitioners counsel, such distance makespersonal service impracticable, and a written explanation why service

13


14/27

was not done personally might have been superfluous. Liberalconstruction of a rule of procedure has been allowed where, amongother cases, the injustice to the adverse party is not commensuratewith the degree of his thoughtfulness in not complying with theprocedure prescribed. (Maceda vs. De Guzman Vda. De

Macatangay, 481 SCRA 415)

Where recourse is made to the exception to personal service ofpetitions and pleadings, a written explanation why the service and thefiling were not done personally is indispensable, even when theexplanation by its nature is acceptable and manifest, and where noexplanation is offered, the discretionary power of the court to expungethe pleading becomes mandatory. (Tagabi vs. Tanque, 496 SCRA622)

PETITIONS FOR RELIEF

A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is onlyavailable against a final and executory judgment; Where the petitioneralleges that the court a quo had no jurisdiction over it, then all theproceedings therein are null and void, and recourse to a petition forrelief would be inappropriate- the remedy is to file a motion forreconsideration, without prejudice to the filing of a petition forcertiorari under Rule 65 of the Court. (Aboitiz InternationalForwarders, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 488 SCRA 492)

PEADINGS

Rule 13 Section 2 of the Rules of Court merely defines filing asthe act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk ofcourt. Since the signing of verifications and certifications againstforum shopping is not integral to the act of filing, this may not bedeemed as necessarily included in an authorization merely to filecases. (Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. Adala, 526 SCRA

465, July 2007)

Lack of verification can be excused or dispensed with inmeritorious cases, the defect being neither jurisdictional nor always

fatal. (Larano vs. Calendacion, 525 SCRA 57, June 2007)

PRE-TRIAL

A lawyers failure to file a pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusablenegligence; Since pre-trial is a serious business of the court,preparation of the lawyers and parties for the pre-trial in bothquestions of fact and of law cannot be overemphasized as an essentialrequirement for pre-trial conference. (Soriano vs. Reyes, 489 SCRA328)

A pre-trial order is an interlocutory order; A petition for certiorariunder Rule 45 is inappropriate to assail an interlocutory order- theproper subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is afinal judgment or order which finally disposes of a case, leavingnothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. (DelRosario, Jr. vs. People, 492 SCRA 170)

14


15/27

A pre-trial is mandatory, and plaintiffs absence therein canresult to the dismissal of the case. (Paguirigan vs. Pilhino SalesCorporation, 494 SCRA 384)

Under the Rules of Court, both the parties and their counsels are

mandated to appear in the pre-trial conference; If the parties opt not tobe present, their counsel must be armed with a special power ofattorney specifically for the purpose. (Alcaraz vs. Court of Appeals,

497 SCRA 75)

What constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants and theircounsels at the pre-trial under Rule 18, Section 4 of the Rules issubject to the sound discretion of a judge. (Khonghun vs. UnitedCoconut Planters Bank, 497 SCRA 320)

The non-appearance of a party at a pre-trial may be excused

when there is a valid cause shown or when a representative shallappear in his behalf, and is fully authorized in writing to enter into anamicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of disputeresolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and ofdocuments. (Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. vs. Cheng, 509 SCRA532)

PROHIBITION

A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ, to be issued only inthe absence of a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of law; Persons who are not parties to a case have a speedy,adequate, and plain remedy in the course of law- they have the right torequest the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff to refrain from executing thewrit as against them. (Purok Bagong Silang Association vs.Yuipco, 489 SCRA 382)

A remedy is considered plain, speedy and adequate if it willpromptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment or rule, order or resolution of the lower court or agency.(Montes vs. Court of Appeals, 489 SCRA 432)

Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but notagainst legislative or quasi-legislative functions; Where the principalrelief sought is to invalidate the IRR, petitioners remedy is an ordinaryaction for its nullification, an action which properly falls under thejurisdiction of the RTC. (Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc.vs. Defensor, 497 SCRA 581)

The principal purpose for the writ of prohibition is to prevent anencroachment, excess, usurpation or assumption of jurisdiction on thepart of an inferior court or quasi-judicial tribunal. (Arimao vs. Taher,

498 SCRA 74)

In a petition for prohibition, only legal issues affecting thejurisdiction of the tribunal, board, or officer involved may be resolvedon the basis of the undisputed facts; Prohibition is the remedy toprevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons from usurpingor exercising a jurisdiction or power with which they have not beenvested by law. (Gonzales vs. Abaya, 498 SCRA 445)

15


16/27

QUESTIONS OF FACTS

The defense of prescription is a question of fact when the doubtor difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged fact; It is

a question of law when there is doubt or controversy as to what law ison a certain state of facts. The test whether a question is one of law orfact is not the appellation given to the question by the party raising thesame but whether the appellate court can determine the issue raisedwithout reviewing or evaluating the evidence. (Crisostomo vs.Garcia Jr., 481 SCRA 402)

QUESTIONS OF LAW

There is question of law when the issues does not call for anexamination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or

falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correctapplication of law and jurisprudence of the matter; There is a questionof fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity ofthe alleged facts.( KASSAMA-CCO-CFWn Local 245 vs. Court of

Appeals, 487 SCRA 487)

An order dismissing a petition for injunction for being moot andacademic is a final order, and the remedy therefrom is a writ of error tothe Court of Appeals or a petition for review on certiorari to theSupreme Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court where onlyquestions of law are raised or involved; The test of whether a question

is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question bythe party raising the same- it is whether the appellate court candetermine the issue without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, inwhich case it is a question of law, otherwise, it is a question of fact.(Garayblas vs. Atien za, Jr., 492 SCRA 202)

A question of whether or not a complaint states a cause of actionor that the action is premature is one of law. (First Bancorp, Inc. vs.Court of Appeals, 492 SCRA 221)

QUO WARRANTO

Quo warranto proceeding is an action against the usurpation of apublic office or position. (Engao vs. Court of Appeals, 493 SCRA323)

REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST

Mere applicants of sales patent over a public land or lessees

hoping to be given the right to purchase the same were held notproper parties to institute a case for cancellation of the granteesaward or title. (Lu Do and Lu Ym Corporation vs. Aznar BrothersRealty Co., 488 SCRA 315)

RES JUDICATA

16


17/27

There are two aspects to the doctrine ofres judicata, the firstaspect, known as bar by prior judgment is the effect of a judgmentas a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim,demand or cause of action while in the second aspect, known as theconclusiveness of judgment, issues actually and directly resolved in

a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between thesame parties involving a different cause of action. (Francisco vs. Co,481 SCRA 241)

Conclusiveness of judgment operates as a bar even if there is noidentity as between the first and second causes of judgmentany right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved inthe determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by thejudgment therein. (Orendain vs. BF Homes, Inc., 506 SCRA 348.)

There is a judgment on the merits when there is an unequivocaldetermination of the rights and obligations of the parties with respectto the causes of action and subject matter of the case. An order issuinga writ of possession is an order where the sheriff is commanded toplace a person in possession of a real or personal property, and to apurchaser in an auction sale, be it foreclosure or execution, a writ ofpossession is merely a ministerial function where the court neitherexercises its official discretion nor judgment. Being a ministerialfunction and summary in nature, an order issuing a writ of possessionis not a judgment on the merits, but simply an incident in the transferof title. (Philippine National Oil Company vs. National College of

Business and Arts, 481 SCRA 298)

SUMMONS

In order to acquire jurisdiction in actions in personam wheredefendant resides out of and is not found in the Philippines, it becomesa matter of course for the court to convert the action into a proceedingin rem or quasi in rem by attaching the defendants property. Theservice of summons in this case (which may be by publication coupledwith the sending by registered mail of the copy of the summons andthe court order to the last known address of the defendant), is no

longer for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction but for compliance withthe requirements of due process.

Substituted service of summons (under the present Section 7,Rule 14 of the Rules of Court) is the normal mode of service ofsummons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over the person ofresidents temporarily out of the Philippines. Meaning, service ofsummons may be effected by (a) leaving copies of the summons at thedefendants residence with some person of suitable discretion residingtherein, or (b) by leaving copies at the defendants office or regularplace of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

Hence, the court may acquire jurisdiction over an action in personamby mere substituted service without need of attaching the property ofthe defendant. (PCIB vs. Alejandro, 534 SCRA 738, September2007)

In case of substituted service of summons, there should be areport indicating that the person who received the summons in the

17


18/27

defendants behalf was one with whom the defendant had a relation ofconfidence ensuring that the latter would actually receive thesummons.

A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the

jurisdiction of the court based on the ground of invalid service ofsummons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdictionof the court. (Orion Security Corporation vs. San Pablo, Jr., 522SCRA 713, April 2007)

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a validservice of summons or the defendants voluntary appearance in court.When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the courts jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, anyjudgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of thedefendant is null and void. In an action strictly in personam, personal

service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, byhanding a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. Ifdefendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summonswithin a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to.While substituted service of summons is permitted, it is extraordinaryin character and in derogation of the usual method of service. Hence,it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirementsand circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, compliance withthe rules regarding the service of summons is as much important asthe issue of due process as of jurisdiction.

Under the Rules, the service of summons has no set period.However, when the court, clerk of court, or the plaintiff asks the sheriffto make the return of the summons and the latter submits the returnof summons, then the validity of the summons lapses. The plaintiffmay then ask for an alias summons if the service of summons hasfailed. What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect apersonal service in order to demonstrate impossibility of promptservice? To the plaintiff, reasonable time means no more than seven(7) days since an expeditious processing of a complaint is what aplaintiff wants. To the sheriff, reasonable time means 15 to 30 daysbecause at the end of the month, it is a practice for the branch clerk ofcourt to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons assignedto the sheriff for service. The Sheriffs Return provides data to theClerk of Court, which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases tobe submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within the firstten (10) days of the succeeding month. Thus, one month from theissuance of summons can be considered reasonable time with regardto personal service on the defendant.

Sheriffs are asked to discharge their duties on the service ofsummons with due care, utmost diligence, and reasonable promptnessand speed so as not to prejudice the expeditious dispensation ofjustice. Thus, they are enjoined to try their best efforts to accomplish

personal service on defendant. On the other hand, since thedefendant is expected to try to avoid and evade service of summons,the sheriff must be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent inserving the process on the defendant. For substituted service ofsummons to be available, there must be several attempts by thesheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [ofone month] which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility

18


19/27

of prompt service. Several attempts means at least three (3) tries,preferably on at least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff mustcite why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then thatimpossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted. (Manotoc vs.Court of Appeals, 499 SCRA 21, August 2006)

VENUE

The question of venue essentially relates to the trial and touchesmore upon the convenience of the parties, rather than upon thesubstance and merits of the case. (Westmont Pharmaceuticals,Ins. Vs Samaniego, 482 SCRA 611)

The choice of venue for personal actions cognizable by theRegional trial Court (RTC) is given to the plaintiff but not to theplaintiffs caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of

Court. (Saludo, Jr. vs. American Express International , Inc., 487SCRA 462)

The term residence as employed in the rule on venue onpersonal actions filed with the courts of first instance means the placeof abode whether permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or thedefendant, as distinguished from domicile which denotes a fixedpermanent residence to which, when absent, one has intention ofreturning. (Id.)

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Rule 70

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summaryproceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means ofprotecting actual possession or the right to the possession of theproperty involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determinationthereof.

It is a time procedure designed to remedy the situation.Stated in another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcibleentry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been madesummary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditiousmeans of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property fromunjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring themaintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, theparty illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of longwaiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law intohis hands and seize the same by force and violence.

And since the law discourages continued wrangling overpossession of property for it involves perturbation of social order whichmust be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details ofprocedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordinglyand carefully be avoided. (Five Star Marketing co., Inc. vs. Booc,535 SCRA 28, October 2007)

19


20/27

It is settled that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or anyother plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw; A motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to thespecial civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal theopportunity to correct its error, if any.

Considering that petitioners allegations in their complaint do notonly involve a collection for sum of money, but also the enforcement oftheir right over the subject parcels of land, it follows that the RTC, inordering its cancellation, committed grave abuse of discretion.(Hernudd vs. Lofgren, 534 SCRA 205, September 2007)

Both demands- to pay installment due or adhere to the terms ofthe Contract to Sell and to vacate are necessary to make the vendeedeforciant in order that an ejectment suit may be filed; Giving of suchdemand must be alleged in the complaint, otherwise the MTC cannot

acquire jurisdiction over the case. (Larano vs. Calendacion, 525SCRA 57, June 2007)

There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petitionfor certiorari brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for thenullification of a judgment, resolution or order: (1) the date whennotice of the judgment, resolution or order was received; (2) when amotion for a new trial or reconsideration of the judgment, order orresolution was submitted; and (3) when notice of the denial thereofwas received by petitioner.

The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petitionfor certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is for the purpose ofdetermining its timeliness, considering that a petition is required to befiled not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order orresolution sought to be nullified.

The heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the deceasedwithout requiring the appointment of an administrator or executor.However, if within the specified period a legal representative fails toappear, the court may order the opposing counsel, within a specifiedperiod, to process the appointment of an administrator or executor

who shall immediately appear for the estate of the deceased. (SanJuan vs. Cruz, GR 167321, July 2006)

Settled is the rule that in summary actions for ejectment such asForcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer, the only issue involved is that ofphysical possession or possession de facto, the purpose of which isonly to protect the owner from any physical encroachment fromwithout.

The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainershall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no

wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Suchjudgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respectingtitle to the land or building.

If another case pending before another court of justice does notbar an independent summary case for ejectment like forcible entry orunlawful detainer, the Court likewise takes the view that neither should

20


21/27

an ejectment case be barred by another case pending before anadministrative body, such as the COSLAP, where the question ofownership over the subject property is raised.

In addition, considering the enactment of the later law, Batas

Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, expressly conferring on the Municipal Trial Court jurisdiction over cases for Forcible Entry and UnlawfulDetainer (under Section 33[2] thereof), there is no more question as toits power to decide these cases independently of other tribunals.(Cayabyab vs. Gomez de Aquino, 532 SCRA 353, September2007)

Ejectment cases in general involve a perturbation of social orderwhich must be restored as promptly as possible; It is within the contextof this policy of the law that we rule that respondents challengeagainst the identity of the subject property is barred. (Claudio vs.

Quebral, 526 SCRA 639, July 2007)

Certiorari is not a shield from the adverse consequences of anomission to file the required motion for reconsideration. (Salinas vs.Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., 517 SCRA 67,February 2007)

21


22/27

EVIDENCE

He who alleges fraud must prove it for basic is the rule thatactori incumbit onus probandi; Fraud is never presumed, but must beestablished by clear and convincing evidence. (Cuenca vs. Atlas,535 SCRA 48, October 2007)

As for appellants invocation of the equipoise rule that if theinculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or moreexplanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of theaccused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence doesnot fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a

conviction, the same must be denied. (People vs. Navarro, 535SCRA 644, October 2007)

Indeed, rules on evidence and principles in jurisprudence sustainthe conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence,definedas that which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inferencewhich the fact-finder draws from the evidence established. (Peoplevs. Delim, 534 SCRA 366, September 2007)

Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, statesthat a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of or

comes from his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from hisperception. A witness, therefore, may not testify as to what he merelylearned from others either because he was told, or he read or heardthe same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not bereceived as proof of the truth of what he has learned. This is known asthe hearsay rule.

The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsayrule. One of the exceptions is the entries in official records made in theperformance of duty by a public officer. In other words, official entriesare admissible in evidence regardless of whether the officer or person

who made them was presented and testified in court, since theseentries are consideredprima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.Other recognized reasons for this exception are necessity andtrustworthiness. The necessity consists in the inconvenience anddifficulty of requiring the officials attendance as a witness to testify toinnumerable transactions in the course of his duty. This will alsounduly hamper public business. The trustworthiness consists in thepresumption of regularity of performance of official duty by a publicofficer.

Well-entrenched is the rule that resort to handwriting experts is

not mandatory. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are notindispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or signatures.This is so since under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules onEvidence, the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witnesswho believes it to be the handwriting of such person, because he hasseen the person write; or has seen writing purporting to be his uponwhich the witness has acted or has been charged, and has thus

22


23/27

acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Moreover, theopinion of a non-expert witness, for which proper basis is given, maybe received in evidence regarding the handwriting or signature of aperson with which he has sufficient familiarity. (Fullero vs. People,534 SCRA 97, September 2007)

In order that pedigree may be proved by acts or declarations ofrelatives under Section 39 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, it isnecessary that (a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;(b) the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject bybirth or marriage; (c) the relationship between the declarant or theactor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act ordeclaration; and (d) the act or declaration was made ante litemmotam, or prior to the controversy. (Tandog vs. Macapagal, 5323SCRA 550, September 2007)

The rule is that the positive and categorical assertions ofwitnesses generally prevail over bare denials- such accordance ofgreater probative value to evidence that is positive in nature than thatwhich is negative in character is a time-honored principle. Denial is aself-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weightthan the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmativematters. (Republic vs. Bautista, 532 SCRA 598, September2007)

It is axiomatic that truth is established not by the number ofwitnesses but by the quality of their testimonies; While the number of

witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of ebidence,proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessarily with the greatestnumber.

Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by theprosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence; Thedemand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure ofthe accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence ofmisappropriation; Presumption however is rebuttable.(Ceniza-Manantan vs. People 531 SCRA 364, August 2007)

Just because a piece of evidence is not objected to does not ipsofacto mean that it conclusively proves that fact in dispute- theadmissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probativevalue. (Foundation Specialists, Inc. vs. LICOMCEN, 531 SCRA705, August 2007)

A finding of sufficiency of evidence as to the civil aspect,where a demurrer to evidence is filed with leave of court, does notauthorize the trial court to terminate the proceedings and immediatelyrender a decision. (Hun Hyung Park vs. Eun Won Choi, 526 SCRA205, July 2007)

When a rape victims testimony is straightforward, unflawed byany material or significant inconsistency, then it deserves full faith andcredit and cannot be discarded; Once found credible, her lonetestimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

23


24/27

A young girls revelation that she has been raped, coupled withher voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingnessto undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out thedetails of an assault to her dignity cannot be so easily dismissed as amere concoction.

The defense of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved, forthere is a presumption that acts penalized by law are voluntary.(People vs. Comanda, 526 SCRA 689, July 2007)

In cases where the victim could not testify on the actualcommission of the rape because she was rendered unconscious at thetime the crime was perpetrated, the Revised Rules on Evidencesanctions the courts to rule on the basis of circumstantial evidence.(People vs. Moran, 517 SCRA 714, March 2007)

Even if the delivery receipts and sales invoices did not form partof a partys formal offer of evidence but the same formed part of theother partys formal offer of evidence, they could be used as basis forthe award of interest, liquidated damages and attorneys fees. (TitanConstruction Corporation vs. Uni-Field Enterprises, Inc., 517SCRA 180, March 2007)

Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, onlythe fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth orfalsity thereof is immaterial , and the hearsay rule does not apply.(People vs. Gumimba, 517 SCRA 25, February 2007)

While the court cannot say that positive evidence does not carryan inherent advantage over negative defense when it comes to expertwitnesses, the process by which the expert witnesses arrived at theirconclusions should be carefully examined and considered; In the caseat bar, the expert testimony that no finding or conclusion can bearrived at was found to be more credible than the expert testimonypositively stating that the signatures were affixed before the typing ofthe Deeds of Donation. (Gomez vs. Gomez- Samson, 514 SCRA

475, February 2007)

The Rules on Evidence accord trial courts considerable discretionon the matter of admission of rebuttal evidence, the rule being that,for an effective and efficient administration of justice, it is essentialthat litigation must end sometime and somewhere. (Gonzales vs.Madame Pilar Farm Development Corporation, 512 SCRA 199,

January 2007)

Failure to except to the evidence because it does not conform tothe statute is a waiver of the provisions of the law; Hearsay evidencealone may be insufficient to establish a fact in a suit but, when noobjection is made thereto, it is, like any other evidence, to be

considered and given the importance it deserves. (Manliclic vs.Calaunan, 512 SCRA 642, January 2007)

Relationship alone is not reason enough to discredit and label awitness testimony as biased and unworthy of credence and a witnessrelationship to one of the parties does not automatically affect the

24


25/27

veracity of his or her testimony. (Ong vs. Ong, 505 SCRA 76,October 2006)

Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisonerneeding medical care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of illness

is not a ground for bail. It may however be that the trend now is forcourts to permit bail for prisoners who are seriously sick. (People vs.Fitzgerald, 505 SCRA 573, October 2006)

Photographs are admissible in evidence in motor vehicleaccident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken andare proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject,which cannot itself be produced, and are of such nature as to throwlight upon a disputed point. (Manzanares vs. People, 504 SCRA354, October 2006)

Basic is the rule of evidence that when the subject of inquiry isthe contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than theoriginal document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Mere photocopies ofdocuments are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. This isespecially true when the issue is that of forgery.( Citibank N.A.vs.Sabeniano, 504 SCRA 378, October 2006)

Under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it ispresumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Hence,the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without

first informing himself of its contents and consequences. (AlliedBanking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, GR 125851, July2006)

ADMISSION BY SILENCE

Despite the damaging testimonies of the witnesses for theprosecution, petitioner did not testify to rebut them, such posture isadmission in silence. (Capila vs. People, 495 SCRA 276)

ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST

Judicial admissions are, conclusive on him and his successors-in-interest which can be contradicted only by showing that it was madethrough palpable mistake or that no such admission was made- allproofs submitted by him and his successors contrary thereto orinconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection isinterposed by him or not. (Yuchengco vs. Sandiganbayan, 479SCRA 1)

25


26/27

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

It is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction to try a criminal action isdetermined by the law in force at the time of the institution of theactionand not during the arraignment of the accused.

The rule is that a variance between the allegation in theinformation and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminalcase if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that itaffects his substantial rights. (Palana vs. People, 534 SCRA 296,September 2007)

Conviction in a criminal case does not entail absolute certainty;what is required only is that degree of proof which, after anexamination of the entire records of the case, produces in anunprejudiced mind moral certainty of the culpability of the accused.

Prior to its substantial incorporation in the Revised Rules of Courtin 2000, Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that -It isnot necessary to state in the complaint or information the precisetime at which the offense was committed except when the time is amaterial ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged tohave been committed at any time as near to the actual date at whichoffense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.

If the accused finds the information defective as it bears only themonth and year of the incident complained of, he should file a Motionfor Bill of Particulars, as provided for under Rule 116, before he enters

his plea. (People vs. Jalbuena, 526 SCRA 500, July 2007)

Nowhere in Section 4, Rule 126 or any other provision of theRevised Rules of Criminal Procedure is it required that the searchwarrant must name the person who occupies the same. (Quelnan vs.People, 526 SCRA 653, July 2007)

Where the trial court failed in its duty to conduct the prescribedsearching inquiry into the voluntariness of the accuseds plea ofguilty and full comprehension thereof, the plea of guilty is deemedmade improvidently and rendered inefficacious.

When a plea of guilty to capital offense is entered, there arethree (3) conditions that the trial court must observe to obviate animprovident plea of guilty by the accused- (1) it must conduct asearching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by theaccused of the consequences of his plea, (2) it must require theprosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and

26


27/27

the precise degree of his culpability, and, (3) it must ask the accusedwhether he desires to present evidence on his behalf, and allow him todo so of he so desires.

There is no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a

searching inquiry, or as to the number and character of questions hemay ask the accused, or as to the earnestness with which he mayconduct it, since each case must be measured according to itsindividual merit; The logic behind the rule is that courts must proceedwith caution where the imposable penalty is death for the reason thatthe execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience hasshown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty.

Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set asideonly if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment.

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

The settlement of estate whether testate or intestate is aproceeding in rem and that publication in the newspaper of the filing ofthe application and of the date set for the hearing of the same in themanner prescribed by law is a notice to the whole world of theexistence of the proceedings and of the hearing on the date and timeindicated in the publication. ( Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximo Briones,514 SCRA 197, February 2007)

The court before which a petition for letters of administration is

not precluded from receiving evidence on a persons filiationitsjurisdiction extends to matters incidental and collateral to the exerciseof its recognized powers in handling the settlement of the estate,including the determination of the status of each heir; Two causes ofaction, one to compel recognition and the other to claim inheritance,may be joined in one complaint. (Guy vs. Court of Appeals, 502SCRA 151, September 2006)

Documents

Remedial Doctrines