CIVPRO print 2.pdf

8/13/2019 CIVPRO print 2.pdf

1/13

Urbano vs. Chavez (1990)

1. Ombudsman:a. Complaint is filed in the Ombudsmanagainst public officials.b. OSG (through Chavez) entered appearance as counsel in the

preliminary investigation.2. RTC (separate case):

a. Civil suit for damagesis filed against Chavez, and Businessworldfor libel.

b. At oral argument:counsel for complainant objected to OSGsappearance on behalf of Chavez.

c. Complainant:suing SolGen in personal capacity.d. OSG:

i. authorized to represent any public official even if the saidofficial is sued in his personal capacitypursuant to theunconditional provisionsof Presidential Decree No. 478

which defines the functions of the said Office, as well asExecutive Order No. 300

ii. Precedence:Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc.v.Hon.Ortega and Solicitor General v.Garrido

iii. cause of action against the Solicitor General is for actscommitted by him in his official capacity, i.e., as legalcounsel of the PCGG(libel is directed against allegedMarcos cronies)

iv. Harassment: public officials will hesitate to perform theirofficial functions for fear of being haled to court by almostanybody for the purpose of accounting for official acts, not tomention the trouble of having to hire a private lawyer at hisown expense in order to defend himself.

e. Order:OSG may represent public official/s.3. Special civil action for prohibitionin Supreme Court:

a. Complainants filed this action: there is conflict of interestonceInformation is filed in the Sandiganbayan, hence they must berestrainedto appear as counsel even during preliminaryinvestigation.

b. SC:i. QUESTION OF LAW:

1. Both petitioners raise pure questions of lawinasmuch as there are no evidentiary mattersto beevaluated by this Court.

2. if the only issueis whether or not the conclusionsofthe trial court are in consonance with law andjurisprudence, then the issue is a pure question oflaw.

ii. the Court resolved to consolidate both Petitions and to treatthem as Petitions for certiorari on pure questions of law

iii. ON MERITS:1. Conflict of interest:appellate counsel and defense

counsel in preliminary investigation.2. Wrongful actcannot be attributed to the State.


2/13

iv. Abandonexisting doctrine.v. OSG cannot represent accused AT ANY STAGE OF

CRIMINAL CASE or CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES arisingfrom a felony.

Ortigas vs. CA (1981)

1. Ortigas Co. constructed a residential building for Belmonte.2. Ortigas Co. filed complaint for unlawful detainer against Maximo Belmonte

in Municipal Court of San Juan.a. Prayer: (1) vacate, (2) declare residential building forfeited, (3) pay

rent.b. Municipal Courtgranted the relief prayed for.

3. Belmonte appealedinCFI-Rizal.a. Belmonte:(1) Municipal Court has no jurisdiction, (2) objects to

exercise of CFI-Rizal of jurisdiction.

b. Rule 40:CFI, acting in its appellate jurisdiction, may try case onmerits if parties file pleadings and go to trial without objection tojurisdiction.

c. CFI-Rizal:affirmed Municipal Court in toto. Served writ ofexecution.

4. Belmonte filed petition for certiorari and prohibition, with preliminaryinjunction,in Court of Appeals.

a. Belmonte:assailed (1) CFI-Rizals jurisdiction, (2) MunicipalCourts judgment on pleadings, and (3) validity of Writ of Execution.

b. CA: reversed Municipal Court and CFI-Rizal. Municipal Court wasno jurisdiction over the case, nor power to resolve issues onpleadings.

c. Ortigas:filed MRin CA. DENIED.5. Ortigas filed petition for reviewof CA decision in SC.

a. the petition for certiorari filed in Court of Appeals involved purelylegal questions.

b. CA is without jurisdiction. Since appellate jurisdiction overcases involving purely legal questions is exclusively vested in theSupreme Court by Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act (R.A. No. 296), it isreadily apparent that the decision under review was rendered by theCourt of Appeals without jurisdiction and should, therefore, be set

aside.c. Municipal Court is without jurisdiction over subject matter. Ortigas not only sought ejectment, but also forfeiture of theresidential building it constructed. THIS IS AN ISSUE OFOWNERSHIP.

d. CFI-Rizal has no jurisdiction to judge on appealbecauseBelmonte objected to its exercise of jurisdiction, hence it cannotdecide on merits.


3/13

Josefa vs. Zhandong (2003)

1. Zhandong Trading is engaged in the importation and sale ofhardboards/staple boards and other merchandise.

2. Josefa is a client, ordering crates of boards. (P4 million)

3. Josefa remitted payment to a middle man (Tan).4. Tan delivered checks to Zhandong.5. Checks bounced.6. Zhandong sent demand letters, but was not paid.7. Zhandong filed complaint for sum of moneyagainst Josefa and Tan in

RTC.a. Josefa:

i. was transacting only with Tan. Has no obligation toZhandong.

b. Josefa filed counter-claimagainst Zhandong and cross-claimagainst Tan.

c. Decision:Josefa to pay Zhandong, and Tan to reimburse Josefa.i. Evidence: Delivery receipts and invoices are in Zhandongs

letterhead.8. Josefa appealed to the Court of Appeals: affirmed RTC decision that

Josefa is liable to Zhandong.9. Josefa filed petition for review on certiorariin Supreme Court.

a. Josefa:insisted that he is not privy to Tan and Zhandongstransactions.

b. Zhandong:i. only questions of law, not facts, may be raised in a petition

for review on certiorariii. findings of fact by the trial court, supported by substantial

evidence and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final andconclusive and cannot be reviewed by this Court.

c. Exceptions to question of law rule in petition for review oncertiorari in the Supreme Court:

1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises orconjectures;

2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;3) there is grave abuse of discretion;4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

5) the findings of fact are conflicting;6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factualfindings are based;

7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by thepresence of evidence on record;

8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those ofthe trial court;

9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevantand undisputed facts that, if properly considered, wouldjustify a different conclusion;

10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues

of the case; and


4/13

11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of bothparties.

d. SC:i. the trial court and the Court of Appeals misapprehended

and overlookedrelevant and established facts.

ii. Evidence overlooked:(1) testimony of President of Zhandong: she admitted that

she had no direct dealing with Josefa and that it wasTan who ordered the hardboards from her

(2) answer of Tan: admitted such paymentsas fullsatisfaction of Josefas obligation

(3) testimony of Josefa: Tan represented himself to bethe owner of the merchandise

iii. Tan bought the hardboards from respondent and, in turn,sold them to Josefa

People vs. Sola (1981)

1. The 3 accused (powerful officials) have several criminal cases (murder) inMunicipal Court of Kabankalan.

a. Municipal Court: without giving the prosecution the opportunity toprove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the courtgranted them the right to post bailfor their temporary release

b. Accusedwere released on bail.c. witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their

fears that if the trial is held at the Court of First Instance branch inHimamaylanwhich is but 10kilometers from Kabankalan, theirsafety could be jeopardized

2. Private prosecutors filed petition for certiorari in Supreme Court.a. Private prosecutors (with Comment from OSG):

i. Cancellation of bail bondsii. petition for a change of venue or place of trial of the same

criminal cases to avoid a miscarriage of justiceb. SC:

i. Cancel bail bond because prosecutors were not heardonapplication for bail.

ii. Transfer venue from CFI-Negros Occidental Branch VI at

Himamaylanto CFI-Negros Occidental at Bacolod City.iii. The witnesses in the case are fearful for their lives. They areafraid they would be killed on their way to or fromHimamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of fear,they may either refuse to testify or testimony falsely to savetheir lives.

iv. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change ofvenue

v. As a matter of fact, there need not be a petition of thischaracter filed before this Court. Such a plea could havebeen done administratively.


5/13

St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC (1998)

1. An employee was dismissed on the ground that he misappropriate fundsof the funeral business.

2. He went to Labor Arbiter, who ruled that there was no employer-employee

relatioship (he was a volunteer).3. Employee appealed to the NLRC, which remanded the case to the Labor

Arbiter.4. Employer filed MRin NLRC, which was denied.5. Employer filed for petition for certiorari, alleging GAD, in SC.6. Legislative history on mode of appeal:

a. NLRC was created by P.D. No. 21:appealable to Secretary ofLabor and President of the Philippines.

b. Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 442) recreated NLRC:appealable to Secretary of Labor.

c. PD 1391amended Labor Code: abolished appeal. No apprellate

review has since then been provided.d. Judicial review of SC: must be done through special civil action

of certiorariunder Rule 65, after filing motion for reconsideration inNLRC, on the ground of jurisdictional and due processconsiderations.

e. BP 129:CA has jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies, exceptthose falling within appellate jurisdiction of the SC. (the exceptiveclause)

i. CAs appellate jurisdiction EXCLUDED decisions of NLRC.f. RA 7902 amended BP 129: the exceptive clause included SCs

appellate jurisdiction in accordance to the Labor Code. However,APPEAL DOES NOT LIE FROM NLRC DEVISIONS! This seemscontradictory.

i. Congress did intend to provide for judicial review of theadjudications of the NLRC in labor cases by the SupremeCourt, but there was an inaccuracy in the term used for theintended mode of review.

ii. Intent to eliminate the exceptive clause.iii. The use of the word "appeal" in relation thereto and in the

instances we have noted could have been alapsusplumaebecause appeals by certiorariand the original action

for certiorariare both modes of judicial review addressed tothe appellate courts. The important distinction between them,however, and with which the Court is particularly concernedhere is that the special civil action of certiorariis within theconcurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court ofAppeals; whereas to indulge in the assumption that appealsbycertiorarito the Supreme Court are allowed would notsubserve, but would subvert, the intention of Congress

iv. all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the SupremeCourt are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and

refer to petitions for certiorariunder Rule 65.Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be


6/13

initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observanceof the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as theappropriate forum for the relief desired.

v. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction / hierarchy of courts:Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress

desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts orwhere exceptional and compelling circumstances justifyavailment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise ofour primary jurisdiction.


7/13

HGC vs. R-II Builders (2011)

1. R-II Builders seeks the nullification of the Deed of Assignment andConveyance (DAC), which transfers the Asset Pool in favor of HGC.

2. Asset Pool consists of real properties.

3. Complaint prayed for the transfer of possession of and/or control ofthe properties in the Asset Pool

4. R-II Builders filed complaint in RTC Manila on basis of incapable ofpecuniary estimation. It was not an intra-corporate controversy.

5. Case was raffled to RTC Manila Branch 24, which is a Special CommercialCourt tasked to hear intra-corporate disputes.

a. SC: While it is true that R-II Builders had no hand in the raffling ofthe case, it cannot be gainsaid that Branch 24 of the RTC Manilahad no jurisdiction over the case. Rather than ordering thedismissal of the complaint, however, said court issued ordererroneously ordering the re-raffle of the case.

b. SC:NO JURISDICTION.i. a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the

payment of the prescribed filing and docket feesii. Having only paid docket fees corresponding to an action

where the subject matter is incapable of pecuniaryestimation, R-II Builders cannot expediently claim thatjurisdiction over the case had already attached.

iii. TEST: in determining whether an action is one the subjectmatter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, thisCourt has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining thenature of the principal action or remedy sought. (CASE-TO-CASE BASIS)

iv. Having consistently sought the transfer of possession andcontrol of the properties comprising the Asset Pool over andabove the nullification of the Deed of Conveyance in favor ofHGC, it follows R-II Builders should have paid the correctand appropriate docket fees, computed according to theassessed value thereof.

6. Case was re-raffled to RTC Manila Branch 22.a. Order:action involves title to or possession of real property. Hence,

R-II must pay correct docket fees.

b. R-II:In obvious evasion of said directive to pay the correct docketfees, however, R-II Builders withdrew its Amended andSupplemental Complaint and, in lieu thereof, filed its SecondAmended Complaint which, while deleting its causes of action foraccounting and conveyance of title to and/or possession of theentire Asset Pool, nevertheless prayed for its appointment asReceiver of the properties comprising the same.

c. jurisdiction over any case is acquired only upon the paymentof the prescribed docket fee which is both mandatory andjurisdictional. It can be relaxed when there is NO INTENT TODEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT, but this relaxation cannot be

applied to R-II because of its bad faith.7. R-II filed MR in Supreme Court:


8/13

a. R-II:i. Branch 22 has jurisdiction.ii. Correct docket fees were paid.

Ascue vs. CA (1991)

1. Lessor refused to collect rent from lessees. Aggregate amount: P5,625.2. Lessees filed complaint in MTC of Manilafor consignation.

a. Lessor:filed MTD on ground of lack of jurisdiction because thesubject is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

b. MTC: MTD is denied, because the subject of litigation is P5,625,and is within subject matter jurisdiction of MTC over real property.

3. Lessor filed appeal in RTC of Manila.a. RTC:dismiss appeal. Why? The remedy should be special civil

action for certiorari, not appeal.4. Lessor filed appeal in SC.

5. SC referred case to CAbecause of concurrent jurisdiction: it appearingthat no special and important reason had been cited to justify the Court'staking cognizance of the petition at the first instance.

6. Lessor filed MRin SC, but was denied.7. CAlikewise dismissedthe petition filed by the lessor.

a. first, that the jurisdiction of a court in consignation cases dependson the amount consigned, consignation being merely a form ofpayment and the opposite of a demand by a creditor for payment;

b. second, that the RTC dismissed petitioner's appeal based onprocedural rather than on substantive grounds, is of no moment, aswhat is decisive is that the complaint for consignation was filed inthe proper court (Metropolitan Trial Court).

8. Lessor filed petition for review on certiorariagainst CAs dismissal ofpetition in Supreme Court.

a. MTC has jurisdiction.In a valid consignation where the thingsought to be deposited is a sum of money, the amount of the debtdue is determinable. Clearly, the subject matter (i.e. the amountdue) in consignation cases is capable of pecuniary estimation. Thisamount sought to be consigned determines the jurisdiction of thecourt.


9/13

Baito vs. Sarmiento (1960)

1. Wife filed complaint against Husband in CFI Samarfor support (P720).2. CFI Samardismissed her complaint, alleging that it has no jurisdiction.3. Wife appealed to the SC.

a. ISSUE:which court has jurisdiction over an action for support if theamount claimed or demanded as support is only P720, or not morethan P2,000 (now P5,000)?

b. Wife:regardless of the amount claimed or demanded jurisdiction isvested exclusively in Courts of First Instance, because an actionfor support is not capable of pecuniary estimation

c. Husband:as the demand for support is only P720 and not morethan P2,000 (now P5,000), ajustice of the peace or municipalcourthas jurisdiction over the case

d. Action for support is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Anaction for support does not involve the determination of the amount

to be given as support, but also the relation of the parties, the rightto support created by the relation, the needs of the claimant, thefinancial resources of the person from whom the support is sought,all of which are not capable of pecuniary estimation. For thisreason, an action for support falls within the original jurisdiction ofCourts of First Instance under section 44(a) of Republic Act No.296, as amended by Republic Act No. 2613.


10/13

Matling Industrial vs. Coros (2010)

FACTS

o VP Finance (member of Board) was sacked from company.

o VP filed for illegal suspension and dismissalin LA.

LA

o Employer:filed MTDo pertained to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) due to the controversy being intra-corporateo VP: opposed the MTD

o Not formally elected as Director.o Does not own 1 share. (blank indorsement; employer has custody

of certificate)o Was removed as VP, not as Director

o LA:granted MTDo Corporate officer, hence under SEC jurisdiction under PD No. 902.

o Employer: appealedto the NLRC.

NLRC

o NLRC: He is not a corporate officer, hence remand to the Labor Arbiter.o NLRC: denied MRof employer.o Employer: filedpetition for certiorariin CA.

CA

o CA:dismissed petition for certiorari.o What is a corporate officer? For a position to be considered as a

corporate office, or, for that matter, for one to be considered as acorporate officer, the position must, if not listed in the by-laws, havebeen created by the corporation's board of directors, and theoccupant thereof appointed or elected by the same board ofdirectors or stockholders.

o an 'employee' usually occupies no office and generally is employed

not by action of the directors or stockholders but by the managingofficer of the corporation who also determines the compensation tobe paid to such employee

o Employer:filed petition for review on certiorari to the SC.

SC

o SC:dismiss petition for review on certiorari.o Who has jurisdiction over intra-corporate controveries?Intra-

corporate controversies resulting to dismissa of corporate officer is now inthe transferred jurisdictionof the RTC, pursuant to R.A. 8799or

Securities Regulation Code, from the jurisdiction of the SEC under PD No.902.


11/13

o Is he a corporate officer?o Corporate officer should be listed in the By-Laws. While the

employers By-Laws indeed list down the VP Finance as an officer,it was not a corporate officer. There was a distinction betweenordinary and corporate officers. Corporate office must be expressly

mentioned in the By-Laws.o General Managerhired and determined compensation package of

VP Finance. Hence, VP Finance is employee.o Hence, jurisdiction lies with NLRC.

o Board cannot delegate power to create corporate office to the President.o Board may create appointive positions not considered corporate officers.o The fact that VP Finance became stockholder does not divest RTC of

jurisdiction.o The better policy to be followed in determining jurisdiction over a

case should be to consider concurrent factors such as the status orrelationship of the parties or the nature of the question that is the

subject of their controversy.


12/13

UST vs. Sanchez (2010)

1. Facts: Nursing student was included in list of graduation, and attendedgraduation ceremonies. He sought copy of TOR, but was only given aCertificate of Graduation. The school refused to release his records.

Hence, he could not take the nursing board exams.2. Nursing student filed complaint for damagesagainst the school (Board,

Dean, Registrar) for unjustified refusal to release TOR, in RTC. (withprayer to release records)

a. School:i. filed MTD, saying he is not enrolled, even though he took

exams, attended classes, etc. Student also refused to turnover his class scards for scrutiny. Hence, no cause ofaction.

ii. Filed Supplementto MTD: student sought administrativerecourse beofre the CHED through letter-complaint. Thus,

CHED has primary jurisdiction. Hence, complaint in RTC ispremature.

b. RTC: denied schools MTDand MR. Proceed to trial.3. School appealed to the CA:denied. Go to trial.4. School appealed to the SC: denied. Go to trial.

a. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does notapply in this case.

i. Action is for mandamus and damages.ii. the CHED does not have the power to award damages.iii. CHED is not even a quasi-judicial agency.iv. No express grant of quasi-judicial power in RA 7722 (Higher

Education Act).v. Administrative agencies ARE NOT COURTS.vi. rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the

administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatoryfunctions

vii. Provisions cited by school on quasi-judicial power of CHEDonly concern: the conditions and authority of accreditedschools to authorize the graduation of students without theprior authority of the CHED. & schools right to withhold therelease of credentials due to "suspension, expulsion, or non-

payment of financial obligations or property responsibility."(NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT.)b. Not guilty of forum shopping: there can be no forum shopping

precisely because the CHED is without quasi-judicial power, andcannot make any disposition of the case whether favorable orotherwise

c. THERE IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF ACTIONi. The Complaint makes the following essential

allegations: that petitioners unjustifiably refused torelease respondents ToR despite his having obtained adegree from UST; that petitioners claim that respondent

was not officially enrolled is untrue; that as a result ofpetitioners unlawful actions, respondent has not been


13/13

able to take the nursing board exams since 2002; thatpetitioners actions violated Articles 19-21 of the CivilCode; and that petitioners should be ordered to releaserespondents ToR and held liable for P400,000.00 asmoral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages,

P50,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit, andP15,000.00 as actual damages. Clearly, assuming thatthe facts alleged in the Complaint are true, the RTCwould be able to render a valid judgment in accordancewith the prayer in the Complaint.

ii. The complaint includes an allegation that school usedintimidationor use of force to force him to admit that hewas not enrolled.must be ventilated in trial. Not cause forMTD.

d. Go to trial: We fully agree with the RTCs finding that a resolution ofthe case requires the presentation of evidence during trial. Based

on the parties allegations, the issues in this case are far fromsettled. Was respondent enrolled or not? Was his degree obtainedfraudulently? If so, why was he permitted by the petitioners tograduate? Was there fault or negligence on the part of any of theparties? Clearly, these are factual matters which can be bestventilated in a full-blown proceeding before the trial court.

CIVPRO print 2.pdf

Documents

Transcript of CIVPRO print 2.pdf