8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

1/13

Shioji v. Harvey

G.R. No. L-18940. April 27, 1922

FACTS:

In cause No. 19471 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,

wherein S. Shioji was plaintiff, and the Too !isen !aisah

and the "acific Mail Stea#ship Co., were defendants,

jud$#ent was rendered on %cto&er '1, 19(), & *ud$e

Concepcion presidin$ in the second &ranch of the court, in

fa+or of the plaintiff and a$ainst the defendants.

Thereafter, the defendants dul perfected an appeal &

wa of &ill of eceptions, to the Supre#e Court of the

"hilippine Islands filed on Fe&ruar 1-, 19((.

The counter#o+e of the respondents in the injunction

proceedin$s pendin$ the Court of First Instance was to filea co#plaint in prohi&ition in the Supre#e Court, to co#pel

the respondent *ud$e of First Instance to desist fro#

interferin$ with the eecution of the jud$#ent in case No.

19471 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and to issue

an order re+oin$ the pre+iousl pro#ul$ated & hi#. The

preli#inar injunction praed for as an incident to the

co#plaint in prohi&ition was i##ediatel issued & the

Supre#e Court, and has &een co#plied with & the

respondents herein. Counsel "etitioner herein #o+es for

jud$#ent on the pleadin$s.

ISSUE:

/10 hether or not the *ud$e of First Instance #a assu#e

the jurisdiction to interpret and re+iew jud$#ent and order

of the Supre#e Court, and to o&struct the enforce#ent of

the decisions of the appellate court.

/(0 hether or not 2ule (4 /a0 is in conflict with an law of

the 3nited States or of the "hilippine Islands.

HELD:

/10 No. The onl function of a lower court, when the

jud$#ent of a hi$h court is returned, is the #inisterial one,

the issuin$ of the order of eecution, and that lower court

is without super+isor jurisdiction to interpret or to re+erse

the jud$#ent of the hi$her court as it would see# to &e

superfluous. jud$e of a lower court cannot enforce

different decrees than those rendered & the superior

court. The Supre#e Court of the "hilippine Island is

epressl authori5ed & statute to #ae rules for

re$ulation of its practice and the conduct of its &usiness.

Section (6 of the *udiciar ct /No. 1'-0, $rants to the#e#&ers of the Supre#e Court the power to #ae all

necessar rules for orderl procedure in Supre#e

Court . . . in accordance with the pro+isions of the Code of

Ci+il "rocedure, which rules shall &e . . . &indin$ upon the

se+eral courts.

/(0 No, 2ule (4 /a0 is not in conflict with an law of the

3nited States or of the "hilippines, &ut is a necessar rule

for orderl procedure and for re$ulatin$ the conduct of

&usiness in Supre#e Court. It is a rule which relates to a

#atter of practice and procedure o+er which the

8e$islature has not eercised its power. It is a rule which

does not operate to depri+e a part of an statutor ri$ht.

It is a rule in har#on with judicial practice and procedure

o+er which the 8e$islature has not eercised its power. It

is a rule which does not operate to depri+e a part of an

1

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

2/13

statutor ri$ht. It is a rule in har#on with judicial practice

and procedure and essential to the eistence of the courts.

nd, finall, it is a rule which #ust &e enforced accordin$

to the discretion of the court. Independent of an statutor

pro+ision, the court asserts that e+er court has inherent

power to do all thin$s reasona&l necessar for the

ad#inistration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.

RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE EXEMPTIONOF THE GSIS FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES.A.M. No. 08-2-01-0Febr!r" 11# 2010FACTS

The :SIS sees ee#ption fro# the pa#ent of le$al feesi#posed on :%CCs under Sec ((, 2ule 141 /8e$al Fees0 of

the 2%C. The said pro+ision states

S;C. ((. :o+ern#ent ee#pt. < The 2epu&lic of the"hilippines, its a$encies and instru#entalities are ee#ptfro# pain$ the le$al fees pro+ided in this 2ule. 8ocal$o+ern#ent corporations and $o+ern#ent=owned orcontrolled corporations with or without independentcharter are not ee#pt fro# pain$ such fees.

The :SIS anchors its petition on Sec '9 of its charter, 26(91 /The :SIS ct of 19970S;C. '9. ;e#ption fro# Ta, 8e$al "rocess and 8ien. < Itis here& declared to &e the polic of the State that theactuarial sol+enc of the funds of the :SIS shall &epreser+ed and #aintained at all ti#es and thatcontri&ution rates necessar to sustain the &enefits underthis ct shall &e ept as low as possi&le in order not to&urden the #e#&ers of the :SIS and their e#ploers.

Taes i#posed on the :SIS tend to i#pair the actuarialsol+enc of its funds and increase the contri&ution ratenecessar to sustain the &enefits of this ct. ccordin$l,

notwithstandin$ an laws to the contrar, the :SIS, itsassets, re+enues includin$ accruals thereto, and &enefitspaid, shall &e ee#pt fro# all taes, assess#ents, fees,char$es or duties of all inds. These ee#ptions shallcontinue unless epressl and specificall re+oed and anassess#ent a$ainst the :SIS as of the appro+al of this ctare here& considered paid. Conse>uentl, all laws,

ordinances, re$ulations, issuances, opinions orjurisprudence contrar to or in dero$ation of this pro+isionare here& dee#ed repealed, superseded and renderedineffecti+e and without le$al force and effect. 2e>uired to co##ent on the :SIS? petition, the %S:#aintains that the petition should &e denied. %n thisCourt?s order, the %ffice of the Chief ttorne /%CT0suitted a report and reco##endation on the petition ofthe :SIS and the co##ent of the %S: thereon. ccordin$to the %CT, the clai# of the :SIS for ee#ption fro# the

pa#ent of le$al fees has no le$al &asis.

ISSUE Ma the le$islature ee#pt the :SIS fro# le$alfees i#posed & the Court on :%CCs and local$o+ern#ent units@HELD A;2;F%2;, the petition of the :SIS forreco$nition of its ee#ption fro# the pa#ent of le$alfees i#posed under Sec (( of 2ule 141 of the 2%C on:%CCs and 8:3s is here& B;NI;B .NO2ule 141 /on 8e$al Fees0 of the 2%C was pro#ul$ated &

this Court in the eercise of its rule=#ain$ powers underSec /0, rt DIII of the ConstitutionSec. . The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$powers /0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection andenforce#ent of constitutional ri$hts, pleadin$, practice,and procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to the practiceof law, the Inte$rated Ear, and le$al assistance to theunderpri+ile$ed.

(

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

3/13

Clearl, therefore, the pa#ent of le$al fees under 2ule141 of the 2%C is an inte$ral part of the rules pro#ul$ated& this Court pursuant to its rule=#ain$ power underSection /0, rticle DIII of the Constitution. In particular, itis part of the rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice andprocedure in courts. Indeed, pa#ent of le$al /or docet0fees is a jurisdictional re>uire#ent.

Since the pa#ent of le$al fees is a +ital co#ponent of therules pro#ul$ated & this Court concernin$ pleadin$,practice and procedure, it cannot &e +alidl annulled,chan$ed or #odified & Con$ress. s one of thesafe$uards of this Court?s institutional independence, thepower to pro#ul$ate rules of pleadin$, practice andprocedure is now the Court?s eclusi+e do#ain. Thatpower is no lon$er shared & this Court with Con$ress,#uch less with the ;ecuti+e.NOTES

=The :SIS cannot successfull in+oe the ri$ht to socialsecurit of $o+ern#ent e#ploees in support of itspetition. It is a corporate entit whose personalit isseparate and distinct fro# that of its indi+idual #e#&ers.

The ri$hts of its #e#&ers are not its ri$hts its ri$hts,powers and functions pertain to it solel and are notshared & its #e#&ers.

=Con$ress could not ha+e car+ed out an ee#ption for the:SIS fro# the pa#ent of le$al fees without trans$ressin$another e>uall i#portant institutional safe$uard of the

Court?s independence G fiscal autono#. Fiscal autono#reco$ni5es the power and authorit of the Court to le+,assess and collect fees, includin$ le$al fees. Moreo+er,le$al fees under 2ule 141 ha+e two &asic co#ponents, the

*udiciar Be+elop#ent Fund /*BF0 and the Specialllowance for the *udiciar Fund /S*F0. The laws whichesta&lished the *BF and the S*FH'' epressl declare theidentical purpose of these funds to J$uarantee theindependence of the *udiciar as #andated & theConstitution and pu&lic polic.K 8e$al fees therefore do not

onl constitute a +ital source of the Court?s financial

resources &ut also co#prise an essential ele#ent of theCourt?s fiscal independence. n ee#ption fro# thepa#ent of le$al fees $ranted & Con$ress to$o+ern#ent=owned or controlled corporations and local$o+ern#ent units will necessaril reduce the *BF and theS*F. 3ndou&tedl, such situation is constitutionall infir#for it i#pairs the Court?s $uaranteed fiscal autono# and

erodes its independence.

=Speain$ for the Court, then ssociate *ustice /now Chief*ustice0 2enato S. "uno traced the histor of the rule=#ain$ power of this Court and hi$hli$hted its e+olutionand de+elop#ent in ;che$ara +. Secretar of *ustice

3nder the 19' Constitution, the power of this Court topro#ul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice andprocedure was $ranted &ut it appeared to &e co=eistentwith le$islati+e power for it was su&ject to the power of

Con$ress to repeal, alter or supple#ent. Thus, its Section1', rticle DIII pro+ides

Sec. 1'. The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the power topro#ul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice andprocedure in all courts, and the ad#ission to the practiceof law. Said rules shall &e unifor# for all courts of thesa#e $rade and shall not di#inish, increase, or #odifsu&stanti+e ri$hts. The eistin$ laws on pleadin$, practiceand procedure are here& repealed as statutes, and are

declared 2ules of Court, su&ject to the power of theSupre#e Court to alter and #odif the sa#e. TheCon$ress shall ha+e the power to repeal, alter orsupple#ent the rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice andprocedure, and the ad#ission to the practice of law in the"hilippines.

The said power of Con$ress, howe+er, is not as a&solute asit #a appear on its surface. In In re Cunanan, Con$ress inthe eercise of its power to a#end rules of the Supre#eCourt re$ardin$ ad#ission to the practice of law, enacted

'

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

4/13

the Ear Fluners ct of 19' which considered as apassin$ $rade, the a+era$e of 7)L in the &area#inations after *ul 4, 194- up to u$ust 191 and71L in the 19( &ar ea#inations. This Court struc downthe law as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, Mr. *usticeBiono held that J the disputed law is not ale$islation it is a jud$#ent < a jud$#ent pro#ul$ated &

this Court durin$ the aforecited ears affectin$ the &arcandidates concerned and althou$h this Court certainlcan re+oe these jud$#ents e+en now, for justifia&lereasons, it is no less certain that onl this Court, and notthe le$islati+e nor eecuti+e depart#ent, that #a do so.n atte#pt on the part of these depart#ents would &e aclear usurpation of its function, as is the case with the lawin >uestion.K The +enera&le jurist further ruled JIt iso&+ious, therefore, that the ulti#ate power to $rantlicense for the practice of law &elon$s eclusi+el to this

Court, and the law passed & Con$ress on the #atter is ofper#issi+e character, or as other authorities sa, #erelto fi the #ini#u# conditions for the license.K E itsrulin$, this Court >ualified the a&solutist tone of the powerof Con$ress to Jrepeal, alter or supple#ent the rulesconcernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure, and thead#ission to the practice of law in the "hilippines.

The rulin$ of this Court in In re Cunanan was not chan$ed& the 197' Constitution. For the 197' Constitutionreiterated the power of this Court Jto pro#ul$ate rules

concernin$ pleadin$, practice and procedure in all courts, which, howe+er, #a &e repealed, altered orsupple#ented & the Eatasan$ "a#&ansa .K Moreco#pletel, Section /(0 of its rticle pro+ided

Sec. . The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$powers. /0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ pleadin$, practice, and

procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to the practice of

law, and the inte$ration of the Ear, which, howe+er, #a&e repealed, altered, or supple#ented & the Eatasan$"a#&ansa. Such rules shall pro+ide a si#plified andinepensi+e procedure for the speed disposition of cases,shall &e unifor# for all courts of the sa#e $rade, and shallnot di#inish, increase, or #odif su&stanti+e ri$hts.ell worth notin$ is that the 197' Constitution further

stren$thened the independence of the judiciar & $i+in$to it the additional power to pro#ul$ate rules $o+ernin$the inte$ration of the Ear.The 1967 Constitution #olded an e+en stron$er and #oreindependent judiciar. #on$ others, it enhanced the rule#ain$ power of this Court. Its Section /0, rticle DIIIpro+ides

Section . The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$powers /0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection andenforce#ent of constitutional ri$hts, pleadin$, practiceand procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to the practiceof law, the Inte$rated Ear, and le$al assistance to theunderpri+ile$ed. Such rules shall pro+ide a si#plified andinepensi+e procedure for the speed disposition of cases,shall &e unifor# for all courts of the sa#e $rade, and shallnot di#inish, increase, or #odif su&stanti+e ri$hts. 2ulesof procedure of special courts and >uasi=judicial &odies

shall re#ain effecti+e unless disappro+ed & the Supre#eCourt.The rule #ain$ power of this Court was epanded. ThisCourt for the first ti#e was $i+en the power to pro#ul$aterules concernin$ the protection and enforce#ent ofconstitutional ri$hts. The Court was also $ranted for thefirst ti#e the power to disappro+e rules of procedure ofspecial courts and >uasi=judicial &odies. Eut #osti#portantl, the 1967 Constitution too awa the power ofCon$ress to repeal, alter, or supple#ent rules concernin$

pleadin$, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to4

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

5/13

pro#ul$ate rules of pleadin$, practice and procedure is nolon$er shared & this Court with Con$ress, #ore so withthe ;ecuti+e.

$%&o% '. L(ero:.2. No. 8=()-6 %cto&er (), 1946

Tuason, *.

F!(&%:

The petitioner herein, an accused in a cri#inalcase, filed a #otion with the Court of First Instance of"a#pan$a after he had &een &ound o+er to that court fortrial, prain$ that the record of the case &e re#anded tothe justice of the peace court of Masantol, the court ofori$in, in order that the petitioner #i$ht cross=ea#ine theco#plainant and her witnesses in connection with theirtesti#on, on the stren$th of which warrant was issued forthe arrest of the accused. The #otion was denied and thatdenial is the su&ject #atter of this proceedin$.

ccordin$ to the #e#orandu# suitted & thepetitioner?s attorne to the Court of First Instance insupport of his #otion, the accused, assisted & counsel,appeared at the preli#inar in+esti$ation. In thatin+esti$ation, the justice of the peace infor#ed hi# of thechar$es and ased hi# if he pleaded $uilt or not $uilt,

upon which he entered the plea of not $uilt. JThen hiscounsel #o+ed that the co#plainant present her e+idenceso that she and her witnesses could &e ea#ined andcross=ea#ined in the #anner and for# pro+ided & law.K

The fiscal and the pri+ate prosecutor o&jected, in+oin$section 11 of rule 1)6, and the o&jection was sustained.JIn +iew thereof, the accused?s counsel announced hisintention to renounce his ri$ht to present e+idence,K andthe justice of the peace forwarded the case to the court offirst instance.

I%%e:

whether the respondent jud$e did not act inecess of his jurisdiction or in a&use of discretion inrefusin$ to $rant the accused?s #otion to return the recordfor the purpose set out therein

He)*:

No. Section 11 of 2ule 1)6 does not curtail thesound discretion of the justice of the peace on the #atter.hile section 11 of 2ule 1)6 defines the &ounds of thedefendant?s ri$ht in the preli#inar in+esti$ation, there isnothin$ in it or an other law restrictin$ the authorit,inherent in a court of justice, to pursue a course of actionreasona&l calculated to &rin$ out the truth.

Befendant cannot, as a #atter of ri$ht, co#pelthe co#plaint and his witnesses to repeat in his presencewhat the had said at the preli#inar ea#ination &eforethe issuance of the order of arrest. The constitutional ri$htof an accused to &e confronted & the witnesses a$ainsthi# does not appl to preli#inar hearin$s? nor will thea&sence of a preli#inar ea#ination &e an infrin$e#entof his ri$ht to confront witnesses. s a #atter of fact,preli#inar in+esti$ation #a &e done awa with entirelwithout infrin$in$ the constitutional ri$ht of an accusedunder the due process clause to a fair trial.

F!b+!, '%. De%+er&o# Se&eber 1/#18

F!(&%: "etitioner Teresita Fa&ian was the #ajorstocholder and "resident of"2%MT Construction Be+elop#ent Corporation which wasen$a$ed in the construction &usiness. "ri+ate respondentNestor $ustin was the Bistrict ;n$ineer of the First MetroManila ;n$ineerin$ Bistrict. "2%MT participated in the

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/fabian-vs-desierto-gr-no-129742.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/fabian-vs-desierto-gr-no-129742.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/fabian-vs-desierto-gr-no-129742.htmlhttp://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/fabian-vs-desierto-gr-no-129742.html

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

6/13

&iddin$ for $o+ern#ent constructionprojects, and pri+aterespondent, reportedl tain$ ad+anta$e ofhisofficial position, in+ei$led petitioner into an a#orousrelationship. Their affair lasted for so#e ti#e, in thecourse of which, pri+ate respondent $ifted "2%MT withpu&lic wors contracts and interceded for it in pro&le#sconcernin$ the sa#e in his office. hen petitioner tried to

ter#inate their relationship, pri+ate respondent refusedand resisted her atte#pts to do so to the etent ofe#ploin$ acts of harass#ent, inti#idation and threats."etitioner filed an ad#inistrati+e co#plaint a$ainst pri+aterespondent.

%#&uds#an found pri+ate respondent $uiltof #isconduct and #eted out the penalt of suspensionwithout pa for 1 ear. fter pri+ate respondent #o+ed forreconsideration, the %#&uds#an disco+ered that thepri+ate respondent?s new counsel had &een his class#ateand close associate, hence, he inhi&ited hi#self. The casewas transferred to respondent Beput %#&uds#an whoeonerated pri+ate respondent fro# the ad#inistrati+echar$es. "etitioner appealed to the SC & certiorari under2ule 4 of the 2ules of Court.

I%%e:hether or not Section (7 of 2 -77) whichpro+ides for appeals in ad#inistrati+e disciplinar casesfro# the %ffice of the%#&uds#an to the SC in accordance

with 2ule 4 of the 2ules of Court is +alid

He)*:The re+ised 2ules of Ci+il "rocedure precludeappeals fro# >uasi=judicial a$encies to the SC +ia apetition for re+iew on certiorari under 2ule 4. 3nder thepresent 2ule 4, appeals #a &e &rou$ht throu$h apetition for re+iew on certiorari &ut onlfro# jud$#ents and final orders of the courts enu#eratedin Sec. 1 thereof. ppeals fro#jud$#ents and final orders

of >uasi=judicial a$encies are now re>uired to &e &rou$htto the C on a +erified petition for re+iew, under

there>uire#ents and conditions in 2ule 4' which wasprecisel for#ulated and adopted to pro+ide for a unifor#rule of appellate procedure for >uasi=judicial a$encies.

Section (7 of 2 -77) cannot +alidl authori5e an appealto the SC fro# decisions of the %ffice ofthe %#&uds#an in ad#inistrati+e disciplinar cases. It

conse>uentl +iolates the proscription in Sec. '), rt. DI ofthe Constitution a$ainst a law which increases theappellate jurisdiction of the SC.

E)!*+o A)o,%o, +.To!% +))!or e& !)* u l ( - , 1 9 1 )FACTS:Befendants were #e#&ers of the #unicipal &oard ofthe #unicipalit of"lacer. The wrote a letter addressed to the plaintiff whoat that ti#e was the priest inchar$e of the church. Thecontents of the letter &asicall stated that there was anorder fro# the pro+incia l f isca l sain$ that

ce#eteries, con+ents, and other&uildin$serected on land &elon$in$ to the town &elon$ to thetown. s such, the are notifin$ the priest that allre+enues and products of the church #ust &e turnedo + e r t o t h e t r e a s u r o f t h e # u n i c i p a l i t . l l a l# s $ i+ en & chu rch $oe rs and de+otees

to the i#a$e of St. Dicente lod$ed in the church shouldalso &e turned intothe #unicipaltreasur. Two wees later, the defendants too possession of the church and all of thepersonal propertiescontained therein. The plaintiff, as the priest and as thepersonin c har$e thereof , #a de pr otests that went unheeded. Aence, an action was&rou$ht& hi# to reco+er fro# the defendants the +alueof the articles and therental +alue of the church. Thelower court ruled in fa+or of the plaintiff. In the

-

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

7/13

defendants? appeal, one of thedefenses presentedwas that the plaintiff was not the real part ininterest. Thedefendants assert that the courterred in per#ittin$ the action o &e &rou$htandcontinued in the na#e of the plaintiff, To#asDilla#or, instead of in the na#e of the&ishop of thediocese within which the church was located or in

the na#e of the2o#an Catholic postolic Church.ISSUE:hether or not the for#altechnical defect raised &the defendant consti tutesenou$h $round to re+erse thedecision of the courtRULINGRATIO:No, the Court allowed the su&stitution of the plaintiff asthe part in interest. Sec.)' of the Code of Ci+il"rocedure pro+ides thatJNo jud$#ent shall &e re+ered onfor#al or technical

$rounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced real ri$htsof theeceptin$ part.KSec. 11) of the sa#e code also pro+ides that infurtheranceof justice, the court is e#powered to allow a part to a#end an pleadin$ orproceedin$ at an sta$e of the action.In thiscase, it is undou&ted that the &ishop of the dioceseor the 2o#an Catholicpostolic Church itself is thereal part in interest. The plaintiff asserted the sa#e intheco#plaint, and #aintained that assertion all throu$h therecord. Ae clai#ed nointerest whatsoe+er in theliti$ation. The su&stitution, then, of the na#e ofthe&ishop of the diocese as part plaintiff, is in realitnot a su&station of the identit of another &ut is si#pl to#ae the for# epress the su&stance that is alreadthere. There is nothin$ sacred a&out processes orpleadin$s, their for#s or contents.Their sole purpose is tofacilitate the application of justice to the ri+al clai#s ofcontendin$ parties. The were created, not to hinder anddela, &ut to facilitate and pro#ote, the ad#inistration of

justice. The do not constitute the thin$ itself, which

courts are alwas stri+in$ to secure to liti$ants. The aredesi$ned as the #eans &est adapted to o&tain that thin$.In other words, the are a #eans to an end. hen thelose the character of the one and &eco#e the other, thead#inistration of justice is at fault and courts arecorrespondin$l re#iss in the perfor#ance of their o&+iousdut.

A)o,%o '. +))!or# 3)" 2/# 110#1. The propert sued for was, at the ti#e it was taen &the defendants, the propert of the 2o#an Catholic Church, and that the sei5ure of thesa#e and occupation of thechurch and its appurtenances & the defendants werewron$ful and ille$al. The conclusions of the court &elow asto the +alue of the articles taen & the defendants and of

the rent of the church for the ti#e of its ille$al occupation& the defendants were also correct and proper.a. The 2o#an Catholic Church a$ainst the #unicipalit of"lacer/Septe#&er (', 19)60 Court ruled that the propert&elon$ed to the2o#an Catholic Church.&. Earlin + 2a#ire5, Municipalit of "once + 2o#anCatholic postolic Church in "orto 2ico(. It is undou&ted that the &ishop of the diocese or the2o#an Catholic postolic Church itself is the real part ininterest. The plaintiff personall hasno interest in thecause of action.a. Sec. 114 of the Code of Ci+il "rocedure;+er action #ust &e prosecuted in the na#e of the realpart in interest.'. This Court has full power, apart fro#that power and authorit which is inherent, to a#end theprocess, pleadin$s, proceedin$s, and decision in thiscase& su&stitutin$, as part plaintiff, the real part in interest.Not onl are we confident that we#ado so, &ut we are con+inced that weshould

7

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

8/13

do so.a. Sec. 11) of the Code of Ci+il "rocedure#end#ents in $eneral. G The court shall, in furtheranceof justice, and on such ter#s, if an, as #a &e proper,allow a part to a#end an pleadin$ or proceedin$ and atan sta$e of the action, in either the Court of First Instanceor the Supre#e Court, & addin$ or striin$ out the na#eof an part, either plaintiff or defendant, or & correctin$

a #istaein the na#e of a part, or a #istaen orinade>uate alle$ation or description in an other respectso that the actual #erits of thecontro+ers #a speedil&e deter#ined, without re$ard to technicalities, and in the#ost epeditious, and inepensi+e #anner. Thecourt #aalso, upon lie ter#s, allow an answer or other pleadin$ to&e #ade after the ti#e li#ited & the rules of the court forfilin$ the sa#e. %rders of the court upon the #atterspro+ided in this section shall &e #ade upon #otion filed incourt, and after notice to the ad+erse part, and anopportunit to &e heard.

&. Sec. )'*ud$#ent not to &e re+ersed on technical $rounds. GNo jud$#ent shall &e re+ersed on for#al or technical $rounds, orfor such error as has not prejudiced the real ri$hts of theeceptin$ part.c. Such an a#end#ent does not constitute a chan$ein the identit of the parties.i. The plaintiff asserts in hisco#plaint, and #aintains that assertion all throu$h the

record, that he is en$a$ed in theprosecution of this case,not for hi#self, &ut for the &ishop of the dioceseGnot &his own ri$ht, &ut & ri$ht of another. Aesees #erel todo for the &ishop what the &ishop #i$ht do for hi#self. Aisown personalit is not in+ol+ed. Ais own ri$htsare notpresented. Ae clai#s no interest whate+er in the liti$ation.Ae sees onl the welfare of the $reat churchwhoseser+ant he is. :ladl per#its his identit to &ewholl swallowed up in that ofhis superior.d. For#al su&stitution = Su&stitution so as

to #ae the for# epress the su&stancei. No one is

decei+ed for an instant as to whose interest are at stae.The for# of its epression is alone defecti+e.ii. For# is a#ethod of speech used to epress su&stance and #ae itclearl appear. It is the #eans & which thesu&stancere+eals itself. If the for# &e fault and still thesu&stance shows plainl throu$h no, har# can co#e ain$ the for#accuratel epressi+e of the

su&stance.e. No one has &een #isled & the error in thena#e of the part plaintiff. If we should & reason of thiserror send this &ac for a#end#ent and new trial, therewould &e on the retrial the sa#e co#plaint, the sa#eanswer, the sa#e defense, the sa#e interests,the sa#ewitnesses, and the sa#e e+idence. The na#e of theplaintiff would constitute the onl difference &etween theold trial andthe new. In our jud$#ent there is not enou$hin a na#e to justif such action.f. There is nothin$ sacreda&out processes or pleadin$s, their for#s or contents.Their sole purpose is to facilitatethe application of justice to the ri+al clai#s of contendin$parties. The were created, not to hinder and dela, &ut tofacilitate and pro#ote, thead#inistration of justice. Theerror in this case is purel technical. To tae ad+anta$e ofit for other purposes than to cure it, does notappeal to afair sense of justice. Technicalit, when it desserts itsproper office as an aid to justice and &eco#es its $reathindranceand chief ene#, deser+es scant considerationfro# courts. There should &e no +ested ri$hts intechnicalities. No liti$ant should &eper#itted to challen$e

a record of a court of these Islands for defect of for# whenhis su&stantial ri$hts ha+e not &een prejudicedthere&.

GALDO ' ROSETE !,* ROA= Technicalit, when it deserts its proper office as an aid tojustice and &eco#es its $reat hindrance and chiefene#,deser+es scant consideration fro# courts. Thereshould &e no +ested ri$hts in technicalitiesK /lonso + Dilla#or0

6

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

9/13

.1. Notice of appeal, cash &ond, and #otion for etensionof ti#e were all filed within re$le#entar period.ttendant circu#stances do not warrant such aca+alierdisappro+al of such record on appeal and conse>uentdenial ofhis appeal.a. earnest effort to finish tpewritten record hi#self &. su&stantial co#pliance when suitted to opposin$

counsel on ) Ma afternoon /see Teehanee, concurrin$opinion0c. *ud$e?s contention that there were ( court steno$raphers worin$ on ti#e until late that ni$ht does not conser+e consideration &ecause it is not just an e#ploeein lower court who can properl recei+e pleadin$s, &ut itis the recei+in$ or docet cler or deput cler ofcourt particularl assi$ned torecei+e pleadin$s(.Eerenotter + Cset the #ood for a #ore li&eral construction of rules as#andated & S( 2ule 1 2oC Jin order to pro#ote theiro&ject and to assistthe parties in o&tainin$ just, speed,and inepensi+e deter#ination of e+er action andproceedin$.K Further#ore, Jliti$ations should, as #uch aspossi&le,&e decided on #erits and not on technicalitK /:re$orio + C0

R!o, Fe)+e '%. 3o%e Le&er+o

M!" 40# 152 2 SCRA 682

Po,e,&e: 3%&+(e $e,7o,

Facts %n March 1(, 19) an inter=colle$iate oratoricalco#petition was held in Na$a Cit. Felipe was one of the

*ud$es and was the chair#an. Nosce was awarded the firstprice and I#perial the second price. I#perial addressed aletter to the Eoard of *ud$es protestin$ the +erdict andalle$ed that one of the jud$es co##itted a #athe#aticalerror on co#putin$ the scores. The Eoard refused toa#end their award, I#perial filed a co#plaint in court. Sheasserts that she should ha+e raned 'rdplace in the +ote,

which #aes her score 9 or the First place.

Issue hether the 2TC re+erse the decision of the &oardof jud$es to o&tain a new award@

Aeld Me#&ers of the court so#eti#es are #e#&ers ofthe &oard of jud$es in an oratorical contest. Eut it is

3N2ITT;N in the law that in such contests the decisionsof the &oard of jud$es &e final and cannot &e appealed.The contestants do not ha+e the ri$ht to the pri5es&ecause theirs is onl a pri+ile$e to co#pete for the pri5eand did not &eco#e a de#anda&le ri$ht. The respondentjud$e erred in his reasonin$ that where there is a wron$there is re#ed. To >uote JThe flaw in his reasonin$ lies inthe assu#ption that I#perial suffered so#e wrong at thehands of the &oard of jud$es. If at all, there was error onthe part of one jud$e, at #ost. ;rror and wron$ do not#ean the sa#e thin$. ron$ as used in the aforesaidle$al principle is the depri+ation or +iolation of a ri$ht. sstated &efore, a contestant has no right to the pri5e unlessand until he or she is declared winner & the &oard ofreferees or jud$es. :rantin$ that I#perial suffered so#eloss or injur, et in law there are instances of da#nu#a&s>ue injuria. This is one of the#. If fraud or #alice had&een pro+en, it would &e a different proposition. Eut thenher action should &e directed a$ainst the indi+idual jud$eor jud$es who fraudulentl or #aliciousl injured her. Nota$ainst the other jud$es.K

FELIPE LEUTERIO 9G.R. No. L-6/0/ M!" 40#152;

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

10/13

in Na$a with 6 contestants and jud$es /Felipe chair#an0 where1stpri5e was awarded to Nestor Nosce and (ndto ;##a I#perial

Four das after, I#perial addressed a letter to the Eoard of *ud$esprotestin$ the +erdict, and alle$in$ that one of the*ud$es hadco##itted a #athe#atical #istae which was refused. She thenfiled a co#plaint in CFI.

The $rades $i+en & jud$es were tallied and the contestantrecei+in$ the lowest nu#&er /1 was hi$hest0 $ot 1stpri5e.Nosceand I#perial &oth $ot the lowest nu#&er of 1). The chair#an, withthe consent of the &oard, &roe the tieawardin$ 1 sthonors toNosce and (ndto I#perial.For the con+enience of the jud$es the tpewritten for#s contained&lan spaces in which, after the na#es of the ri+alorators and theirrespecti+e orations, the jud$e could not jot down the $rades hethou$ht the contestants deser+edaccordin$ to %ri$inalit, Ti#eliness, ;n$lish, Sta$e "ersonalit, "ronunciation and;nunciation and Doice. Fro#such data he #ade up his +ote.I#perial asserts that her total should &e 9 instead of 94 andtherefore should ran 'rdplace in 2odri$ue5O +ote. nd if she $ot 'fro# 2odri$ue5, her total +ote should ha+e &een 9 instead of ten,with the resultthat she copped first place in the speain$ joust.

I%%e%:

%N courts ha+e the authorit to re+erse the award of the &oard

of jud$es of an oratorical co#petition

He)*: NOR!&+o:The i#portant thin$ is 2odri$ue5O +ote durin$ and i##ediatelafter the affair. Ais +ote in ;hi&it ' definitel $a+e :eneralplaceNo. ' and I#perial place No. 4. Ais calculations recorded on ;hi&it' were not #aterial. In fact the Chair#an did not&other to fill out

the &lan spaces in his own for#, and #erel set down his

conclusions $i+in$ one to I#perial, ( toEena+ides etc. withoutspecifin$ the ratin$s for Doice, ;n$lish, Sta$e "ersonalit etc.In other words what countedwas the +ote.Lie the ancient tourna#ents of the Sword, these tourna#ents ofthe =ord appl the hi$hest tenets of sport#anshipfinall of therefereeOs +erdict. No ali&is, no #ur#urs of protest. The participants

are supposed to join the co#petition tocontri&ute to its success &stri+in$ their ut#ost the pri5es are secondar. N o ri$hts to thepri5es #a &e asserted & the contestants, &ecause theirswas #erel the pri+ile$e to co#pete for the pri5e, and thatpri+ile$e did not ripen into a de#anda&le ri$ht unless anduntil the were proclai#ed winners of theco#petition &the appointed ar&iters or referees or jud$es.

Now, the fact that a particular action has had no precedent durin$a lon$ period affords so#e reason for dou&tin$ theeistence of theri$ht sou$ht to &e enforced, especiall where occasion for itsassertion #ust ha+e often arisen and courtsare cautious &eforeallowin$ it, &ein$ loath to esta&lish a new le$al principle not inhar#on with the $enerall accepted+iews thereon.=e o&ser+e that in assu#in$ jurisdiction o+er the #atter, therespondent jud$e reasoned out that where there is a wron$there isa re#ed and that courts of first instance are courts of $eneraljurisdiction.The flaw in his reasonin$ lies in theassu#ption that I#perialsuffered so#e

ron$ at the hands of the &oard of jud$es. If at all, there waserror on the part of one jud$e, at #ost. ;rror and wron$ do not#ean the sa#e thin$. =ron$ as used in the aforesaid le$alprinciple is thedepri+ation or +iolation of a ri$ht. s stated &efore, acontestant has no ri$ht to the pri5e unless and until he or sheisdeclared winner & the &oard of referees or jud$es.:rantin$ that I#perial suffered so#e loss or injur, et in law thereare instances of da#nu# a&s>ue injuria. This is oneof the#. Iffraud or #alice had &een pro+en, it would &e a different

proposition. Eut then her action should &e directeda$ainst the1)

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

11/13

indi+idual jud$e or jud$es who fraudulentl or #aliciousl injuredher. Not a$ainst the other jud$es.

D+%o%+&+'e:2e+ersed.

S!7r!*! Or*e, '%. N!(o(o 1 P>+). 504

152;Nature appeal fro# jud$#ent of CFI of Manila

Facts and Eac$round of the Case= %n *an 4, 194(, durin$ the *apanese occupation, Taiwan

Teosho /*apanese corporation0 ac>uired the plaintiff?spropert /land with warehouse in "andacan, Manila0 for"hp14)!= %n pril 4, 194-, after the li&eration, the 3S too controland custod of the afore#entioned ene#?s land under

Sect 1( of the Tradin$ with the ;ne# ct= In the sa#e ear, the Copra ;port Mana$e#entCo#pan occupied the propert under custodianshipa$ree#ent with the 3nited States lien "ropert Custodian= In u$ust 194-, when the Copra ;port Mana$e#ent Co.+acated the propert, the National Coconut Corporation/NC%C%0, the defendant, occupied it net= Sa$rada %rden /plaintiff0 files clai#s on the propert withthe Court of First Instance of Manila and a$ainst the"hilippine lien "ropert d#inistrator

= "laintiff petitions that the sale of the propert to TaiwanTeosho should &e declared null and +oid as it waseecuted under duress, that the interest of the lien"ropert Custodian &e cancelled, and that NC%C% &e$i+en until Fe&ruar (6, 1949 to reco+er its e>uip#entfor# the propert and +acate the pre#ise= The 2epu&lic of the "hilippines is allowed to inter+ene= CFI the defendant /"hilippine lien "ropertd#inistrator0 and the inter+enor /2"0 are released fro#an lia&ilit &ut the plaintiff #a reser+e the ri$ht toreco+er fro# NC%C% reasona&le rentals for the use and

occupation of the pre#ises= The sale of the propert to the Taiwan Taesho wasdeclared +oid and the plaintiff was $i+en the ri$ht toreco+er "hp',)))#onth as reasona&le rental fro# u$ust194- /date when NC%C% occupied propert0 to the dateNC%C% +acates the pre#ises= the jud$#ent is appealed to the SC

8e$al Issues1. %N the defendant is lia&le to pa rent for occupin$the propert in >uestion

*ud$#ent1. The CFI?s decision that the defendant should pa rentfro# u$ust 194- to Fe&ruar (6, 1949 was re+ersed,costs a$ainst the plaintiff

2atio%&li$ations can onl arise fro# four sources law,contracts or >uasi=contracts, cri#e, or ne$li$ence /rt1)69, Spanish Ci+il Code0.

There were no laws or an epress a$ree#ent &etween thedefendant or the lien "ropert Custodian with the plaintiffre$ardin$ pa#ent of rent. The propert was ac>uired &the lien "ropert d#inistrator throu$h law /Tradin$ withthe ;ne# ct0 on the sei5ure of alien propert and not asa successor to the interests of the latter. There was no

contract of rental &w the# and Taiwan Taesho.NC%C% entered possession of the propert fro# the lien"ropert Custodian without an epectation of lia&ilit forits use. NC%C% did not co##it an ne$li$ence oroffense, and there was no contract, i#plied or otherwise,entered into, that can &e used as &asis for clai#in$ rent onthe propert &efore the plaintiff o&tained the jud$#entannullin$ the sale to Taiwan Taesho. The plaintiff has nori$ht to clai# rent fro# NC%C%.

ISSUE11

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

12/13

as National Coconut Corporation lia&le for rentals

prior to the date the propert was returned to Sa$rada

%rden@

RULING

No. National Coconut Corporation was not lia&le for

the rentals prior to the date the propert was returned to

Sa$rada %rden. For National Coconut Corporation to &e

lia&le, its o&li$ation #ust arise fro# the law, contract or

>uasi= contract, cri#e or ne$li$ence as pro+ided & rticle

117 of the Ci+il Code which was taen fro# rticle 1)69

of the old Ci+il Code. s none of these sources were

present, National Coconut Corporation cannot &e held

lia&le. There was also no epress a$ree#ent &etween the

entit which had le$al control and ad#inistration of the

propert and the National Coconut Corporation for the

latter to pa rentals on the propert so there was noo&li$ation.

I#portant Notesrticle 117 of the New Ci+il Code states that there are sources of o&li$ations laws, contracts, >uasi=contracts,felonies /acts or o#issions punished & law0, and >uasi=delicts.

6. S!7r!*! Or*e, *e Pre(!*ore% *e) S!,&+%+oRo%!r+o *e F+)++,!% '. N!&+o,!) Co(o,&Coror!&+o,# G.R. No. L-4?5/# 3,e 40# 152# 1P>+). 504152; -

To &e held lia&le, the o&li$ation #ust arise fro# an of thefour sources of o&li$ations, na#el, law, contract or >uasi=contract, cri#e, or ne$li$ence.Befendant=appellant is not$uilt of an offense at all, &ecause it entered thepre#ises and occupied it with the per#ission of the entit

which had the le$alcontrol and ad#inistration thereof, thelien "ropert d#inistration. Neither was there anne$li$ence on its part. There was also no pri+it &etweenthe lien "ropert Custodian and the Taiwan Teosho,which had secured the possession of the propert fro# theplaintiff=appellee & the use of duress, suchthat the lien"ropert Custodian or its per#ittee /defendant=appellant0

#a &e held responsi&le for the supposed ille$alit of theoccupation of the propert& the said Taiwan Teosho.The lien "ropert d#inistration had the control andad#inistration of the propert not as successor to theinterests of theene# holder of the title, the TaiwanTeosho. Neither is it a trustee of the for#er owner, theplaintiff=appellee herein, &ut a trustee of then :o+ern#entof the 3nited States, in its own ri$ht, to the eclusion of,and a$ainst the clai# or title of, the ene# owner. Fro#u$ust, 194-, when defendant=appellant toopossession,to the late of jud$#ent on Fe&ruar (6, 1946, lien

"ropert d#inistration had the a&solute control of thepropert as trustee of the:o+ern#ent of the 3nitedStates, with power to dispose of it & sale or otherwise, asthou$h it were the a&solute owner. Therefore, e+enif defendantappellant were lia&le to the lien "ropertd#inistration for rentals, these would not accrue to the&enefit of the plaintiff=appellee, the owner, &utto the3nited States :o+ern#ent

5. M!-!o S7!r.Ce,&r!) Co. '. $!rr+o%# G.R. No. L-

154# De(eber 4# 16?# ? P>+). /// 16?; - cause of action is an act or o#ission of onepart in+iolation of the le$al ri$ht or ri$hts of the otherand its essential ele#ents are le$al ri$ht of the plaintiff,correlati+e o&li$ation of the defendant, and actor o#ission of the defendant in +iolation of said le$al ri$ht

/. D!,@o%%# I,(. '. Co,&+,e,&!) Cee,& Coror!&+o,#G.R. No. 164?88# Se&eber # 2005# 6/ SCRA 505

2005; -1(

8/14/2019 CivPro Digests 11-14-2013

13/13

In order to sustain a dis#issal on the$round of lac ofcause of action, the insufficienc #ust appear on the faceof the co#plaint. nd the test of the sufficienc of thefacts alle$ed in theco#plaint to constitute a causeof action is whether or not, ad#ittin$ the facts alle$ed, thecourt can render a +alid jud$#ent thereon in accordancewith thepraer of the co#plaint. For this purpose, the

#otion to dis#iss #ust hpotheticall ad#it the truth ofthe facts alle$ed in the co#plaint.

C%NST., rt. DIII, Sec. /0Section . The Supre#e Court shall ha+e the followin$powers/0 "ro#ul$ate rules concernin$ the protection andenforce#ent of constitutional ri$hts, pleadin$, practice,and procedure in all courts, the ad#ission to thepractice oflaw, the inte$rated &ar, and le$al assistance to the under=

pri+ile$ed. Such rules shall pro+ide a si#plified andinepensi+e procedure for thespeed disposition of cases,shall &e unifor# for all courts of the sa#e $rade, and shallnot di#inish, increase, or #odif su&stanti+e ri$hts. 2ulesof procedure of special courts and >uasi=judicial &odiesshall re#ain effecti+e unless disappro+ed & the Supre#eCourt.

1'