RULE 43: the appeals of cases of the CTA en banc is no longer appealable to the

Court of Appeals.
REMEDIAL LAW
The rule does not apply to Rule 65 it being a special civil action. The rule applies as a
mode of appeal in ordinary civil action.
RULE MAKING POWER
Limitations: FORTUNE LIFE V COA:
a. Must provide a simplified and extensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases JUDITH YU v TATAD: the fresh period rule applies equally in criminal cases.
b. Uniform in all courts
c. Must not diminish increase or modify substantive rights ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS:
i. Substantive law prevails in case of conflict San Lorenzo Builders v Ma. Cristina Bayang: In Panolino v CA the FPR applies only
to a judicial appeal and does not apply to an administrative appeal.
***** The power EXCLUSIVELY belongs to the Supreme Court.
Delima v Dueno: Delima issued hold departure order pursuant to the department Can you give retroactive effect?
order of the Dept. of justice empowering the DOJ secretary to issue a hold departure Yes because there are no vested rights in remedial law; to all cases pending
order. The HDO was questioned. The SC issued a TRO against the HDO. and undetermined at the time of the promulgation of the rules and decision.
DO 41 of the DOJ is unconstitutional. Because it is violative of the Rule
Making Power of the SC and it is not shared with the Executive Department.
- Only the RTC in a criminal case can issue an HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER as JURISDICTION:
per the Supreme Court Circular. PCGG V CUENCA: Power to try, hear and decide a case
EHAGARAY V. CA: (Expanded Concept of Jurisdiction) Jurisdiction is the power to
Estipona v. Lobrigo: Constitutionality of Sec. 23 of RA 9165: Plea Bargaining try, hear and decide a case and includes the power to execute the judgment until the
prohibited in drug cases. final disposition of the case and until the full and complete service of sentence of the
Sec. 23 is unconstitutional bec. It encroaches the Rule Making Power which is accused in criminal cases.
exclusively vested in the Supreme Court.
Two ways to acquire jurisdiction:
Carpio-Morales V CA: Sec. 14 of RA 6770: No court except the Supreme Court may 1. Service of summons
issue a TRO. 2. Voluntary appearance – equivalent to a valid service of summons
The provisions of the Ombudsman Law prohibiting other courts to issue a. When can we say that there is a valid voluntary appearance?
TRO is ineffective as it encroaches the RMP of the SC because such power i. The filing of a motion for extension of time is equivalent to
exclusively belongs to the SC. But in this case, the TRO was recognized for the voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the
meantime. court.
 Filing of a MTD is not VA but it must be entered that the filing of the
FRESH PERIOD RULE MTD is by way of conditional and special appearance for the sole
Domingo Neypes v CA: from receipt of the order denying the MR or MNT, the purpose to question the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
appellant has a fresh period of 15 days to file an appeal. This applies in R40, R41, defendant.
R42, R43, R45
  If the MTD includes other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the QUIETING OF TITLE – for the longest time it falls under the RTC
defendant, shall not be considered as voluntary appearance. (Lhuillier v  La perta v. Mores – QOT is a real action hence the assessed value of the
Brtitish Airlines case) real property determines jurisdiction.
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTS:
 BP 129 amended by RA ______________ EXPROPRIATION - regardless of the assessed value/market value/zonal value of
MM – 400k below MTC the real property, it is considered an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence
- 400,000.01 ABOVE RTC falls under the RTC.
OMM – 300k below MTC
- 300,000.01 ABOVE RTC ACCION PUBLICIANA – the assessed value determines jurisdiction.
50,000
20,000 BARANGAY CONCILIATION:
The requirement (lupon conciliation) has no jurisdictional character. It is
Rule 69:
mandatory but it is not jurisdictional in character.
Barido v Nonato: a petition for partition of a real property is considered a real action,
 It applies only to natural persons.
the assessed value of the real property determines jurisdiction.
 If natural persons, check if the they are residents of the same city or
municipality.
ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
 If it is personal in character, the complaint must be filed in the barangay
 Action for Specific Performance (Alone)
where the respondent or any of the respondents are residing at the option
 Action for Specific Performance with damages amounting to 200, 000 falls
of the complainant.
under the RTC.
 If the property is located in the boundaries of two barangays, the
 Action of Specific Performance and in the alternative, for Damages (MTC
conciliation can be filed in the barangay where the larger portion is
depending on the amount)
located.
 Action for Specific Performance is traditionally a personal action, hence,
o But for real action, in either city or municipality where the
jurisdiction falls in the RTC being one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
property is located.
o ULTIMATE OBJECTIVENESS – if the purpose is to compel
 Dismissal for failure to comply with the barangay conciliation is a
execution of the Deed of Sale, or otherwise the delivery of title or
dismissal without prejudice. But it must always be initiated with a
ownership over a real property then the action for SP will now be
motion, the court cannot dismiss it motu propio because it may be waived
considered as a real action. Hence, the jurisdiction will no longer
by the defendant.
be automatically with the RTC. The amount shall be considered in
URC v CA:
determining jurisdication. The venue will now be the place where
the property is located.
2 SITUATIONS CONTEMPLATED:
 This applies to recission of contract (of sale of a real
 Agree – secure a compromise agreement
property with the same purpose stated)
 Vidal v Esqueta – (same as below)
 Petition for annulment of sale
 Sebastian v. Lagmayna- regardless of the amount involved
 (Ruby Shelters v palparan, Go Chan v Go Chan, Copioso v
in personal actions and in case of real property, regardless
Copioso)
of the assessed value, enforcement of a CA shall only be
Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation is cognizable by the RTC it having general
filed before the MTC
jurisdiction.
  Crisanta Miguel v. Montanes – if the action filed is Rule 70, Sec. 19. Immediate Execution of Judgment; how to stay in relation to the
collection of sum of money, regardless of the existence of RESIDUAL JURISDICTION
the CA, the amount determines jurisdiction.
o The mode of enforcement in an Amicable Rule 70, Sec. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to CA or Supreme Court.
Settlement does not rule out the right of
rescission under Art. 2041 of the NCC (right MTC to RTC thru Rule 40; RTC in its appellate jurisdiction to CA thru Rule 41; CA to
to abandon or rescind the Compromise Supreme Court thru Rule 45 by way of the appellate process.
Agreement)
 Disagree – secure a CTFA CIVPRO LANDMARK CASES
 Philip Turner v Lorenzo Shipping Corporation
If there is a CA, it can be enforced before the Lupon within 6 months from the  Swaggman Hotel v. CA
execution of the CA. if beyond the reglementary period, within the city court or o Even though AMENDMENT is a matter of right before the
municipality court thru an action for enforcement or execution. service of the responsive pleading by the defendant to the
plaintiff, if there is no cause of action at the commencement of the
If the complainant opts to file a collection of sum of money before the RTC to collect suit, it will not be cured by the accrual of the cause of action
the amount of Php.500,000.00, apply the ruling in Crisanta Miguel v Montanes. subsequent thereto, therefore no amendment is allowed to cure
Filing of an action for collection of sum of money deems the abandonment the deficiency.
o A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued when filed
SUMMARY PROCEDURE does not gain any standing in court therefore no amount of
amendment whether by amendment or by supplemental pleading
 Ejectment Cases – cognizable before the MTC regardless of the assessed
can cure the deficiency.
value
o The accrual of a cause of action can only be proceeded thru
o Forcible Entry
separate suit but it can be pleaded in a complaint where no cause
o Unlawful Detainer
of action can be spoke of in the first place.
Settlement of the Estate – >200k – MTC governed by the Ordinary Rules. Sec. 1, A.1.
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST – contracting parties are real parties in interest
Sec. 19. Rules on Summary Procedure. (memorize)
INDISPENSABLE PARTY v NECESSARY PARTY
Gloria Lucas v. Jdg. Amelia Fabros – the prohibition refers to a MR that seeks the
IP must always be impleaded in the action otherwise the judgment is null
reconsideration of a judgment rendered after trial on the merits. But for a MR that
and void. NP should only joined for complete satisfaction of the relief sought.
seeks for the reconsideration of an order of dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to
appear on a pre-trial, the MR is allowed as an exception.
NON-JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTY; not a ground for dismissal
Situation: Petition for partition only against one of the co-owners, MTD was filed o
ACOSTA v. SABADO
ground of failure to include the other co-owners as indispensable parties. The MTD
The prohibition relative to the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration applies only
will not stand.
when the case in is in the MTC because on appeal to the RTC, the rules on Summary
Procedure do not apply anymore. Hence, Motion for Reconsideration is now
VENUE:
allowed.
Sec. 4, Rule 4. When rule not applicable:
a. In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise;
 b. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the GIO v SUBIC BAY MARINE EXPLORATORIUM INC.
action on the exclusive venue thereof.  Regardless of the nature of the counterclaim, the counterclaim sill survive
a. PERMISSIVE STIPULATION – here apply the general rule on the dismissal of the complaint. Dismissal of the complaint will not carry
venue. This is considered as an additional option to the general with it the dismissal of the counterclaim already pleaded in the answer.
rule on venue. The defendant has fifteen days to signify its intent prosecute his
b. RESTRICTIVE STIPULATION – the venue agreed upon in the counterclaim.
contract. - Rule 16, Sec. 6 pleading grounds as an affirmative defense. The court allows
the defendant to present evidence ahead of time.
JURISPRUDENCE – “shall” is no longer enough indication of exclusivity of - Rule 17, Sec. 2. The dismissal shall be limited to complaint.
the venue. - Rule 17, sec. 3. Without prejudice to the prosecution of his counterclaim in
the same or in a separate action.
Sec. 1, Rule 24. – Petition for depositions before action should be filed in the court of
the place of the residence of any expected adverse party. CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
San Miguel Corp. v. Aballa – the parties filed the action collectively having
FORECLOSURE commonality of interest.
 JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE – RULE 68. The courts can award the - A lawyer cannot sign the certification.
deficiency. It shall be filed in the place where the property is located. - In case of a corporation, only the corporate officers can sign with board
 EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE – ACT 3135 resolution and sec.’s certificate
o Deficiency may be recovered still. - CAGAYAN VALLEY DRUG CORPORATION V CIR
o BPI v. Spouses Ruico – an action for the recovery of the deficiency - TABLANTE v MIDLAND PSIG DEV’T CORPORATION
after an extrajudicial foreclosure shall be filed in accordance with - BOARD OF INNVESMENTS V CA
the general rules on venue. o The President
o Chairman of the BOD
COUNTERCLAIM o General Manager
 PERMISSIVE o Acting General Manager
 COMPULSORY o Employment specialist in a labor case
o Personnel officer in a labor case
TEST: compulsoriness. Is there a logical connection between the counterclaim and - ENRIQUE V BPI
the subject matter? If yes, it is compulsory. If none, it is permissive. o Vice President and Asst. Vice President

It is an initiatory pleading which may be filed in a separate independent action. RULE 8, Sec. 8.
The counterclaim must fall within the jurisdiction of the court both in the amount ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT
and subject matter, this rule applies in the MTC. But this does not apply in the RTC  Specific denial under oath
setting by reason the DOCTRINE OF ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. The doctrine
applies in cross claims. Verified reply is mandatory in cases of actionable document to comply with the
requirement of denial under oath.
The MTC can award damages within the limits of its jurisdiction (jurisdictional
amounts) RULE 9.
FLORENDO V. CAPILI
 
There is nothing that prohibits the defaulted defendant to testify in behalf NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT – by voluntary appearance or personal service of
of the non-defaulted party. summons. But if the defendant left the Philippines, any judgment rendered against
Remedies after judgment of default has been rendered: the absent defendant is invalid (if it is an action in personam).
1. MR - In the same scenario where the indebtedness is secured by a mortgage, where
2. Appeal the action involves an action in rem or quasi-in rem, the plaintiff can go
3. Petition for relief from judgment against the property as long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
4. Annulment of judgment - If however, there is no mortgage but the defendant
5. Certiorari ERNESTO MORALES v ASTRID MORALES AGUSTIN: June 6, 2018 case –
PARTIAL DEFAULT – the case shall be decided upon the answers thus filed. regardless of the nature of the action, proper service of summons is imperative and
the jurisdiction of the court suffers a flaw in jurisdiction. Even if the action is an
ROSARIO V CARANDANG - Amendment is not allowed to confirm jurisdiction. action in rem, the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required.

GUMABAY v BARALIN – amendment to confer jurisdiction to the court is allowed NON-RESIDENT OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES.
if amendment is still a matter of right. Personal service outside the country – to comply with the requirement of due
SANTE V EDLBERTO CARABAN JR. – same ruling process.

 In case of default, and as per evidence the claim is bigger than that RULE 16
alleged in the complaint, the court cannot award the amount shown in *****MOTION TO DISMISS (also memorize Motion to Quash)
the evidence. Rule 9, Sec. 3d. Sec. 1 (memorize)
Sec. 5. Subject to the. The right of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss
OMNIBUS MOTION RULE – all the grounds available at the time mof the filing of based on paragraphs
the motion shall be included in the motion otherwise the same is deemed waived.
Except for 4 the non-waivable grounds. RULE 17. Sec. 1. The dismissal is a matter of right of the plaintiff and the court
merely confirms the dismissal. It is generally a dismissal without prejudice.
THREE DAY NOTICE RULE CHING v CHENG – in order for the TWO DISMISSAL rule to apply, both dismissal
Rep. v Diaz-Enriquez must be at the instance of the plaintiff
- The rule does nor require that the court must receive the motion 3 days prior
to the hearing. Rule 15, Sec. 4. MODES OF DISCOVERY
Only ultimate facts and actionable documents.
Rule 14, Sec. 12. (IMPT.) It must be used in the case and accompanied by request for admission, otherwise,
CHAN v CHAN – production of documents cannot be applied or compelled in view
MANOTOC v CA –reasonable efforts to serve summons means 3 attempts on atleast of privileged matters, i.e. trade secrets. (lubricant components)
two separate dates.
RULE 28 vis-à-vis RULE 130, SEC. 24c.
RULE 14 Sec. 14 and Sec. 16  When the physical and mental condition of a party is in controversy,
Service by publication RULE 28 applies.
R28, Sec.4. waiver of privilege.
Sec. 15
RULE 33. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
  Essentially a motion to dismiss. Misina v Meer
The word any in Rule 38 refers only to the trial courts.
REP. v JUAN TUBERA
RED JEWEL FINANCE CORP. v. DEL ROSARIO – in both cases, if the appellate RULE 47 has 2 grounds laid down in the ROC
court reverses the decision of the trial court, defendant can no longer present JONA v BALAGUI – Denial of the right to due process
evidence and the appellate court decides the case based on the evidence of the
plaintiff. Rep. v. the Estate of Juico
Pio Grande v UP
RULE 34, 35, 36 - Petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy
RULE 34 RULE 35 - You cannot file a petition for annulment of judgment before the Supreme
Who may Plaintiff files Both the plaintiff and defendant Court
file can file
Ground The answer fails to tender an No genuine issue – the issue does FRANCISCO LANAS
issue or otherwise admits the not call for the presentation of Pp. v Rafael Bitangga – PFAJ is not available in criminal cases.
allegations in the complaint evidence. (sham or contrived)
Notice 3-day notice rule must be 10 days notice RULE 65
required followed St. Martins v NLRC
Partial There can be no partial There can be partial summary Rule 65, Sec. 4 – Galang v. Geronimo
judgments judgment on the pleadings judgments. This is not intended to City of Manila v Caridad Cuerdo – the CTA may take cognizance of Petition for
be final. certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

IMMUTABILITY OF DECISIONS
- Once the decision has become final and executory, it can no longer be altered
APPEAL
 There is no skipping in the hierarchy of courts
or changed.
There are two exceptions:
- EXCEPTIONS:
1. Delegated Jurisdiction of the MTC – (cadastral and registration
o Typographical errors
proceeding)
o Nunc pro tunc – one intended to enter into records things that has
i. Appealable to the CA
been done, to supplant the omissions of the judgment
2. RULE 45 from the RTC to the SC on pure questions of law
o Void
o Subsequent
RULE 40: FROM MTC to the RTC – ordinary appeal :
a. NOP
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -
b. ROP w. NOP
2nd MR prohibition applies to final judgment and not to interlocutory orders.
RULE 41 RTC TO CA (original jurisdiction)
RULE 42 RTC TO CA (appellate jurisdiction)
The internal rules of the SC allows 2nd MR with leave of court with extraordinary
RULE 43 QJB to CA (memorize the agencies)
persuasive reason in the interest of justice by a two thirds vote of the court en banc.
RULE 45 RTC to SC (pure questions of law)
CA to SC
RULE 38
SANDIGAN to SC
Julio Porcon v MRM Philippines
 CTA to SC

UY v UY
Intracorporate dispute – RTC’s decision over the said issue is appealable to the CA
thru RULE 43 because the dispute was originally lodged to the SEC which was
transferred to the RTC.