CIVIL PROCEDURE2nd Semester, AY 2012-2013

Prof. Victoria A. Avena

Syllabus

[Note: The cases below are either bracketed or unbracketed. When a case is not bracketed, study the pertinent facts and consequent ruling/s. When a case is bracketed, note pertinent ruling/s.]

Part I. Introductory concepts

Part II. Judicial Power

Nature, scope1987 Constitution

defined – Article VIII, sec's. 1, 5; judicial reviewre dec. relief – 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 63, sec. 1 (as

am. by SC Resol. of 2-17-98)re presidential/vice-presidential elections – Art. VII.4re martial law/suspension of writ of habeas corpus – Art.VII.18

statutory base of judicial review – Civil Code, Art. 7judicial legislation – Civil Code, Art’s. 8 & 9

Constitutional protectionsre constitutional status – Art. VIII, sec. 2; Rule 56.3 re statutory increase of appellate jurisdiction – Art. VI.30

PART III. “Prescribed” Jurisdiction – i.e., over subject matter, by law

Sindico v Diaz (G.R. No. 147444, October 1, 2004)

kindsgeneral/limited or specialoriginal/appellateexclusive/concurrent or confluentterritorial

definition/distinguished from exercisedistinguished from venue – Manila Railroad v Atty.-General (20 Phil 523)

1

general rule = jurisdiction cannot be waived; judgment without jurisdiction voidRule 9, sec. 1Abbain v. Chua (22 SCRA 748)-- jurisdiction by estoppel = exception SEAFDEC v. NLRC (206 SCRA 283) Soliven v. Fastforms Phils. (G.R. No. 139031, October 18, 2004)cannot be the subject of compromise – Civil Code, Art. 2035retroactivity – R.A. 7691, sec. 7adherence of jurisdiction - once attached, not ousted by subsequent statute

unless so provided Southern Food v. Salas (206 SCRA 333)

PART IV. “Acquired” jurisdiction

A. Over the personof the plaintiff – Manila Railroad v. Atty.-General (supra; see above)of the defendant

1) by service of summons – Rule 14, sec’s. 1, 2, & 3personal service – sec. 6substituted service – sec. 7service by publication – sec. 14extra-territorial service – sec. 15

2) by voluntary appearance – Rule 14, sec. 20Boticano v. Chu (148 SCRA 541)

3) by voluntary submission Rodriguez v. Alikpala (57 SCRA 455)

B. Over the res – Rule 14, sec. 15Banco-Español-Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil. 921)De Midgely v. Ferandos (64 SCRA 23)

C. Over the issuesRule 18, sec. 7Rule 10, sec. 5

Gonzaga v. CA (G.R. No. 142037, October 18, 2004)

PART V. Specific Jurisdiction of CourtsA. Supreme Court

1987 Constitution

2

Art. VIII, sec. 1, 2, 5 (supra Part II)Art. IX, A, sec. 7B.P. 129, sec. 9 (as amended by R. A. 7902); Rule 43-- question of law

Urbano v. Chavez (183 SCRA 347)Ortigas v. CA (106 SCRA 121) Josefa v. Zhandong Trading Corp. (G.R. No. 150903,

December 8, 2003) -- change of venue – People v. Sola (103 SCRA 393)

P.D. 1606, sec. 7, as am. by R.A. 7975 and R.A. 8249

B. Court of AppealsB.P. 129, sec. 9 (as amended by R.A. 7902) [supra]1987 Cons't., Art. VIII.5.eRule 43.1, .2P.D. 442, as am. By R.A. 6715St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, Sept 16, 1998)SC Resol. A.M. No. 99-2-01 (dismissal for non-compliance w/ St. Martin’s

case) SC A.M. 7-7-12 (December 4, 2007)

C. Regional Trial CourtsB.P. 129 (as am. By R.A. 7691)-- in ordinary civil actions – sec. 19; R.A. 7691, sec’s. 1, 5-- in special civil actions and the special proceeding of habeas corpus – sec. 21

-- exclusive appellate jurisdiction – sec. 22 -- special jurisdiction – sec. 23; Rule 1, sec. 4; Rule 143 -- SC Admin. Circular 09-94 (June 14, 1994); R.A. 7691 -- SC Cir. No. 11-99 (transfer to RTC from MTC of cases w/in jurisdiction of

family courts under R.A. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) -- CB v. CA (208 SCRA 652) [read specially pp. 654-656; 661-665; 673, last

par. – 677, par. after quote; 679-683] Home Guaranty v. R-II Builders (G.R. No. 192649, June 22, 2011)

Ascue v. CA (G.R. No. 84330, May 8, 1991) Baito v. Sarmiento (109 Phil. 148)

Matling Industrial v. Coros (G.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010) University of Sto. Tomas v. Sanchez (G.R. No. 165569, July 29, 2010) Rule 47

D. Metropolitan, Municipal, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

3

Rule 5, sec. 2B.P. 129, sec’s. 28, 29, 30, 31, as am. By R.A. 7691; A.O. 33; P.D. 537A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (October 1, 2008)- exclusive original jurisdiction

- in civil and estate settlement proceedings/over provisional remedies - B.P. 129, sec. 33 (1); R.A. 7691, sec’s. 3 & 5

- SC Admin. Circular 09-94 (June 4, 1994) - in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases

- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (2); R.A. 7691, sec. 3Lim Kieh Tong v. CA (G.R. No. 93451, March 18, 1991)

- in civil actions involving title to or possession of real property- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (3) as am.; R.A. 7691, sec. 3 BF Citiland Corporation v. Otake (G.R. No. 173351, July 29,

2010)Russel v. Vestil (304 SCRA 738)

- delegated jurisdiction – B.P. 129, sec. 34; R.A. 7691, sec. 4; SC Circular 38-97

− special jurisdiction – B.P. 129, sec. 35− summary procedure in special cases – B.P. 129, sec. 36

E. Special Courts

Sandiganbayan (Article XIII.5; P.D. 1486)Shari'a District Courts (P.D. 1083), Shari'a Appellate Courts (R.A. 6734)

[Tomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434, March 5, 2010][Republic v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 108208, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 211]

Family Courts (R.A. 8369)Special Agrarian Courts (R.A. 6657)

[Land Bank v. Villegas (G.R. No. 180891, March 26, 2010]Special Commercial Courts (R.A. 8799.5.2)

[STRADEC v. SIDC, G.R. No. 187872, November 17, 2010]National Commission on Indigenous People

[City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng (G.R. No. 180206, February 4, 2009)]

F. Special Rules

Manufacturer’s Distributors v. Yu Siu Liong (11 SCRA 680)Cruz v. Tan (87 Phil. 627)Lapitan v. Scandia (24 SCRA 477)Good Development v. Tutaan (73 SCRA 189)

4

Part VI. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

A. Scope and Construction – Rule 1, sec’s. 2, 3, 4, 6B. Uniform procedure – Rule 5, sec. 1C. Actions

Kinds – Rule 1, sec. 3Nature

real/personal/mixedHernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena (81 SCRA 75)

in personam/ in rem/ quasi in remDe Midgely v. Ferandos (64 SCRA 23; supra, Part IV, B)

Rule 1, sec. 5 – commencement; Rule 14, sec. 1CB v. CA (supra, Part V, C. [emphasis on pp. 682-683]Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., et al. v. Pyramid

Logistics and Trucking Corporation (G.R. No. 16514, July 9, 2008)

Go v. Tong (G.R. No. 151942, November 27, 2003)Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Perez (G.R. No.

181842, February 5, 2010)

Rule 2 – cause of actionsec. 1 – basissec. 2 – definition

Felipe v. Leuterio (91 Phil. 482)Santiago v. Bautista ( 32 SCRA 188)Sagrada Orden de Precadores del Santisimo Rosario de

Filipinas v. National Coconut Corporation (92 Phil.503)

Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios (79 Phil. 666)Danfoss v. Continental Cement (G.R. No. 143788, Sep. 9,

2005)Bayan Muna v. Romulo (G.R. No. 159618, February 1,

2011) Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906,

October 7, 2008) sec. 3 – one suit for a single cause of action sec. 4 – effect of splitting

Rule 16, sec. 1 (e), (f) sec. 5 – joinder of causes of action

Rule 3, sec. 6Rule 3.13

5

Rule 8.2B.P. 129.33.1

sec. 6 – misjoinder

D. Parties – Rule 3

requisitessec. 1 – who may be parties; Rule 3.15

Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115 SCRA 783)sec. 2 – parties in interest; Rule 16.1.g

Carillo v. Dabon (G.R. No. 121165, Sep. 26, 2006)Joya v. PCGG (225 SCRA 568)Miñoza v. Lopez (G.R. No. 170914, April 13, 2011)Ablaza v. Republic (G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010)Bayan Muna v. Romulo (G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011;

supra)Oposa v. Factoran (224 SCRA 792)

kindssec. 3 – representativessec. 4 – spouses

E.O. 209 (Family Code) – Art’s. 145, 111 sec. 5 – minor or incompetent

R.A. 6809 – sec.'s 1 (re E.O. 209, art's. 234 & 236), 4 & 5 E.O. 209 – Art. 5

sec. 6 – permissive joinderFlores v. Mallare-Phillips (144 SCRA 377)

sec. 8 – necessary party Wee v. De Castro (G.R. No. 176405, August 20, 2008)sec. 9 – non-joinder to be pleadedsec. 13 – alternative defendantssec. 7 – compulsory joinder of indispensable parties

Wee v. De Castro (G.R. No. 176405, August 20, 2008)Arcelona v. CA (G.R. No. 102900, Oct. 2, 1997)Cerezo v. Tuazon (G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004)Quiombing v. CA (G.R. 93010, August 30, 1990)Orbeta v. Sendiong (G.R. No. 155236, July 8, 2005)Chua v. Beltran (G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005)[Limos v. Odones (G.R. No. 186979, August 11, 2010)][Manalo v. Robles Transportation Company (G.R. No. L-8171,

August 16, 1956)] sec. 10 – unwilling co-plaintiff

6

sec. 12 – class suitNewsweek v. IAC (142 SCRA 171)Manila Int’l. Airport Authority v. Rivera Village (G.R. No.

143870, Sep. 30, 2005) Re: Request of the Heirs of the Passengers of Doña Paz (A.M. No.

88-1-6460, March 3, 1988)[Filipinas Port Services, Inc. v. Go (G.R. No. 161886, March 16,

2007][Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, et al.,

G.R. No. G.R. No. 165744, August 11, 2008)]

sec. 14 – unknown name or identitysec. 15 – defendants w/o juridical personalitysec. 21 – indigent partysec. 22 – when Solicitor General required to be party

effectssec. 11 – misjoinder and non-joinder

Chua v. Beltran (G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005) sec. 18 – incompetency/ incapacitysec. 16 – death

Cruz v. Cruz (G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010)sec. 17 – death/ separation of public officer-party

Gojo v. Goyala (35 SCRA 557)sec. 19 – transfer of interest

[Heirs of Medrano v. De Vera (G.R. No. 165770, August 9, 2010)]sec. 20 – re contractual money claim

Del Castillo v. Jaymalin (G.R. No. L-28256, March 17, 1982)[Carabeo v. Spouses Dingco (G.R. No. 190823, April 4, 2011)]

E. Venue – Rule 4People v. Sola (supra, Part V, A)Time, Inc. v. Reyes (39 SCRA 303)Pilipino Telephone v. Tecson (G.R. No. 156966, May 7, 2004)Marcos-Araneta v. CA (G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008)[Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74854, April 2,

1991)][Board of Trustees of GSIS v. Velasco, et. al. (G.R. No. 170463, February

2, 2011)] [Navida et. al. v. Dizon (G.R. No. 125078, May 30, 2011)]

F. Pleadings

7

1. In generalRule 6 – kinds of pleadings

sec. 1 – pleadings definedsec. 2 – pleadings allowed

Rule 8 – manner of making allegations in pleadingssec. 1 – form in generalsec. 7 – actionable document

Rule 8.1

2. The claim

Rule 6sec. 2 – where asserted

Rule 8.2sec. 3 – complaintsec. 6 – counterclaimsec. 8 – cross-claimsec. 9 – counter-counterclaim and counter-cross-claimsec. 10, par. 2 – reply

Rule 11 – when to file responsive pleadingssec. 9 – counterclaim/ cross-claim after answer

Namarco v. Federacion (49 SCRA 238)Rule 6, sec. 12 – bringing in new parties; Rule 1.5Rule 10, sec. 6 – amended and supplemental pleadings

Young v Sy (G.R. No. 157745, Sep. 26, 2006)Rule 6, sec. 11 – third-party complaint, etc.

Republic v. Central Surety (26 SCRA 741)Asian Construction v CA (G.R. No. 160242, May 17, 2005)Pentacapital v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 171736, 181482, July 5,

2010)Rule 16, sec. 6, par. 2 – counterclaim where claim dismissed thru

defendant's motion to dismissRule 17, sec. 2, 3 – dismissal of actions

3A Apparel v. Metropolitan Bank (G.R. No. 186175, August 25, 2010)

Compulsory counterclaim/ cross-claim

Rule 6, sec. 7 – compulsory counterclaimMeliton v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 101883, December

11, 1992)

8

Gojo v. Goyala (35 SCRA 557; supra)Namarco v. Federacion (49 SCRA 238; supra)GSIS v. Caballero (G.R. No. 158090, October 4, 2010)Calo v. Ajax (22 SCRA 996)

Rule 11, sec. 8 – existing compulsory counterclaim/ cross-claimRule 9, sec. 2 – barred if not set up

Chavez v. Sandiganbayan (193 SCRA 282)Cojuangco v. Villegas (G.R. 76838, April 17, 1990, 184

SCRA 374)Chan v. CA (G.R. No. 109020) Mar. 3, 1994)

3. The answer

Rule 6sec. 2 – pleadings allowedsec. 4 – answersec. 13 – answer to third-party complaint, etc.sec. 5 – defenses

Gojo v. Goyala (supra)Rule 16, sec. 6 – grounds for dismissal as affirmative

defensesRule 8

sec. 10 – specific denialsec. 11 – allegations deemed admitted

Tec Bi v. Chartered Bank of India (41 Phil. 596)Phil. Advertising v. Revilla (52 SCRA 246)Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill (129 SCRA 439)CB Circular 905

sec. 7 – based on documentsec. 8 – how to contest document

Phil. Banking Corp. v. CA (G.R. No. 133710, Jan 13, 2004)sec. 2 – alternative defenses; Rule 3.13

Rule 9, sec. 1 – defense/ objection waivedKaton v. Palanca (G.R. No. 151149, Sep. 7, 2004)[Valientes v. Ramas (G.R. No. 157852, December 15,

2010)] [Rumarate v. Hernandez (G.R. No. 168222, April 18,

2006)] [Alicer v. Compas, et al. (G.R. No. 187720, May 30,

2011)]

4. The reply

9

Rule 6 – sec’s. 2 and 10

5. Common Provisions

a) re parts of pleading – Rule 7

Rule 7.2(c) Baguioro v. Barrios (G.R. No. L-277, Aug. 30, 1946)[Morales v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112140, June 23,

2005)]

Rule 7.3Bar Matter No. 1922 Bar Matter No. 287 (September 26, 2000)Bar Matter No. 1132Wee v. Galvez (G.R. No. 147394, Aug. 11, 2004)

Rule 7.4; Rule 7.5; SC Circular No. 48-2000Garcia v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 165835, June 22, 2005)Disini v. SB (G.R. No. 175730, July 5, 2010)Benguet v. CA (GR No. 153571, September 18, 2003)Palma v. Galvez (G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010)Cruz-Agana v. Hon. Santiago Lagman (G.R. No. 139018, Apr. 11,

2005)Wee v. Galvez (G.R. No. 147394, Aug. 11, 2004)[Chua v. Beltran (G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005); supra, Rule

3.11] [Ali-Bondagjy v. Artadi (G.R. No. 170406, August 11, 2008)][Asia United Bank, et. al. v. Goodland Company, Inc. (G.R. No.

190231, December 8, 2010)][Paradero v. Abragan (G.R. No. 158917, March 1, 2004)][Hasegawa v. Kitamura (G.R. No. 149177, November 23, 2007)][Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation v. Tablante (G.R. No.

162924, February 4, 2010)][BPI v. CA (G.R. No. 168313, October 6, 2010)][Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig (G.R. No. 175512, May 30,

2011)] [Disini v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 175730, July 5, 2010)]

b) re manner of making allegations – Rule 8 except sec’s. 2, 7, 8, 10 and

10

11 (supra)Perpetual Savings v. Fajardo (223 SCRA 720)Wee v. Galvez (supra)

c) re effect of failure to plead – Rule 9; Rule 30.9Cerezo v. Tuazon (supra)Sps. Delos Santos v. RTC (G.R. No.153696, Sep. 11, 2006)

d) striking out pleadings – Rule 8, sec. 12

6. Amended/ supplemental pleadings – Rule 10; Rule 1.5Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115 SCRA 178; supra)Dauden-Hernaez v. de los Angeles (27 SCRA 1276)Phil. Export v. Phil. Infrastructures (G.R. No. 120384, Jan 13,

2004)Surigao Mining v. Harris (69 Phil. 113)[Bormaheco v. Malayan (G.R. No. 156599, July 26, 2010)]

7. When to file responsive pleadings – Rule 11

8. Filing/Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers – Rule 13Rule 13.3 icow Rule 51.9SC Resolution of February 17, 1998Bautista v. Maya-Maya (G.R. 148361, Nov. 29, 2005)GCP-Manny v. Principe (G.R. 141484, Nov. 11, 2005)

Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation and Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 161219, October 6, 2008)

Camper Realty v. Pajo-Reyes (G.R. No. 179543, October 6, 2010)[GSIS v. NLRC (G.R. No. 180045, November 17, 2010)]

9. Computation of Time – Rule 22A.M. No. 00-2-14-SCLuz v. National Amnesty Commission (G.R. No. 159708, Sep. 24,

2004)

10. Bill of Particulars – Rule 12

G. Summons – Rule 14

- contents, when issued, by whom issued – sec’s. 2, 1, 3, 5- modes of service

11

1. service in person – sec. 6Toyota Cubao v. CA (G.R. No. 126321, Oct. 23, 1997)

2. substituted service – sec. 7Gentle Supreme v. Consulta (G.R. No. 183182, September 1,

2010)Andy Quelnan v. VHF Phil. (G.R. No. 138500, Sep. 16, 2005)Robinson v. Miralles (G.R. No. 163584, December 12, 2006)Palma v. Galvez (supra)Afdal v. Carlos (G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010)

3. extra-territorial service – sec. 15Dial Corp. v. Soriano (161 SCRA 737)Montalban v. Maximo (22 SCRA 1070)De Midgley v. Ferandos (supra)Sahagun v. CA (G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991)Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros (G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003) R.A. 4883; P.D. 1079

4. by publication – sec’s. 14, 15, 16

- mode of service upon certain defendants

1. upon domestic private juridical entity – sec. 11Paluwagan ng Bayan v. King (172 SCRA 62)Dole Philippines, Inc. vs. Hon. Reinato G. Quilala, (G.R. No.

168723 July 9, 2008)

2. upon foreign private juridical entity – sec. 12; sec. 12; SC A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC (New Rule on Service of Summons on Foreign Private Juridical Entity)Facilities Management v. De la Osa (89 SCRA 131)

3. upon resident temporarily abroad – sec. 16Montalban v. Maximo (supra)Palma v. Galvez (supra)

4. upon defendant whose identity/ whereabouts unknown – sec. 14Baltazar v. CA (168 SCRA 354)

– leave of court – sec. 17

12

5. upon others – sec’s. 8, 9, 10, 13

– voluntary appearance – sec. 20; Rule 16.1.a

– voluntary submission – Rodriguez v. Alikpala (supra)

-- return/proof of service – sec’s. 4, 18, 19

H. Motions in general – Rule 15City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority (G.R. No. 168973,

August 24, 2011)[Bacelonia v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 143440, February 11, 2003)][Philippine National Railways v. Rustia (G.R. No. 153721, September 15,

2006)]

I. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 16

U.S. v Ruiz (136 SCRA 487); SEAFDEC v. NLRC (supra, Part III)Rule 2.2, 2.4Rule 9, sec. 1Rule 6, sec. 5 (b)Rule 7, sec. 5Rule 39, sec.47Section 133, B.P. 68R16.1

Philville v. Javier (G.R. No.147738, Dec. 13, 2005) Carillo v. Dabon (G.R. No. 121165, Sep. 26, 2006; supra); Arcelona v. CA

(G.R. No. 102900, Oct. 2, 1997; supra)[Universal Robina Corporation v. Lim (G.R. No. 154338, October 5, 2007)] Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation (G.R. No.

172242, August 14, 2007; supra)Global Business v. Surecomp Software (G.R. No. 173463, October 13, 2010)Allied Agri-Business Development Company v. CA (G.R. No. 118438,

December 4, 1998)Lee Bun Ting v. Aligaen (76 SCRA 178)Villarino v. Avila (G.R. No.131191, Sep. 26, 2006)Lacap v. Lee (G.R. No. 142131, December 11, 2002) Santos v. National Statistics Office (G.R. No. 171129, April 06, 2011)[Panganiban v. Pilipinas (G.R. No. 131471, January 22, 2003)]Del Rosario v. Donato (G.R. No. 180595, March 5, 2010)

13

Santiago v. De Los Santos (61 SCRA 146)Heirs of Licaros v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 157438, Oct. 18, 2004)Balo v. CA (G.R. No. 129704, Sep 30, 2005)Katon v. Palanca (supra, Part VI.F.3)Tancuntian v. Gempesaw (G.R. No.149097, Oct. 18, 2004)Goodyear v. Sy (G.R. 154554, Nov. 9, 2005)Malion v. Alcantara (G.R. No.141528, Oct. 31, 2006)Swagman Hotel v. CA (G.R. 161135, Apr. 8, 2005)Regala v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No.105938, Sep. 20, 1996)[Bank of America v. Court of Appeals] (G.R. No. 120135, March 31, 2003)[Robern v. Quitain (G.R. No. 135042, September 23, 1999)][Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. CA (G.R. 126212, Mar. 2, 2000)][Wee v. De Castro (G.R. No. 176405, August 20, 2008; supra)]

Santiago v. De Los Santos (61 SCRA 146)[Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, et

al. v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc. (G.R. No. 170599, September 22, 2010)]

[Suplico v. Neda (G.R. No. 178830, July 14 2008)]

R16.6

[Gochan v. Gochan (G.R. No. 146089, December 13, 2001)]

J. Dismissal by claimant – Rule 17Goho v. Goyala (supra)

K. Judgment on the Pleadings – Rule 34; Rule 18, sec. 2; Rule 9.3

Reillo v. San Jose (G.R. No. 166393, June 18, 2009)

L. Pre-trial – Rule 18SC A.M. 03-1-09-SCJonathan Landoil Int’l. v. Mangudadatu (G.R. No.155010, Aug. 16, 2004)Paredes v. Verano (G.R. No.164375, Oct 12, 2006)

Agulto v. Tecson (G.R. No. 145276, November 29, 2005) [Ramos v. Sps. Alvendia, et al. (G.R. No. 176706, October 8, 2008)]

M. Course of Trial

1. Trial proper – Rule 30OCA Cir. No. 39-98SC Cir. 1-89

14

2. Kinds of triala. consolidated/separate – Rule 31

Sps. Yu v. Magno Construction (G.R. No.138701-02, October 17, 2006)

Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank (G.R. No. 175380, March 22, 2010)

b. trial by commissioners – Rule 32; Rule 67, sec. 5; Rule 30.9Angara v. Fedman Dev’t. Corp. (G.R. No.156822, Oct 18, 2004)

3. Incidents/processesa. calendar of cases – Rule 20b. intervention – Rule 19; Rule 11.3

Holiday Inn v. Sandiganbayan (186 SCRA 447)Ordoñez v. Gustilo (182 SCRA 469)

c. subpoena – Rule 21; Rule 71, sec. 3 (f)d. Rule 22

Uy v. First Metro (G.R. No.167245, Sep. 27, 2006)e. modes of discovery

AM No. 03-1-09-SC (July 13, 2004)

1) deposition pending action – Rule 23Jonathan Landoil v. Mangadadatu (supra, PART VI, L)

2) interrogatories to parties – Rule 25PBP v. CA (G.R. No. 110495, January 29, 1998)

3) admission by adverse party – Rule 26 Allied Agri-Business v. CA (G.R. No. 118438, December 4, 1998)4) production/inspection of documents/things – Rule 27 Yu v. CA (G.R. No. 154115, June 28, 2006)5) physical/mental examination of persons – Rule 29

-- refusal to comply with modes of discovery – Rule 29

f) summary judgment – Rule 35Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 152154, July 15,

2003)Grand Farms v. CA (193 SCRA 748)Cucueco v. CA (G.R. No. 139278, October 25, 2004)Bitanga v. Pyramid Construction Engineering Corporation (G.R.

No. 173526, August 28, 2008)D.M. Consunji v. Duvaz (G.R. No. 155174, August 4, 2009)[BPI v. Yu (G.R. No. 184122, January 20, 2010)]

15

g) demurrer to evidence – Rule 33Northwest Airlines – G.R. No. 120334, January 20, 1998)Choa v. Choa (G.R. No. 143376, November 26, 2002)

h) lis pendens – Rule 13.4Romero v. CA (G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005)[Sps. Pudadera v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 170073, October 18,

2010)]

i) archivalSC Adm. Cir. No. 7-A-92 (June 21, 1993)

N. Judgments, Final Orders and Entry thereof – Rule 36

Macias v. Macias (G.R. No. 149617, September 3, 2003)1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, sec’s. 13 and 14; Rule 36.1; B.P. 129.38Velarde v. SJS (G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004)

1. Effect of Judgment

Rule 39, sec’s. 47 and 48Art. 2037, Civil Code

Lee Bun Ting v. Aligaen (supra, Part VI, I)Oropesa v. Allied Bank (G.R. No. 129788, December 3, 2002)Nabus v. CA (193 SCRA 732)Buan v. Lopez (145 SCRA 34)Buazon v. CA (220 SCRA 182)Ali-Bondagjy v. Artadi (G.R. No. 170406, August 11, 2008)Tumbokon v. Legaspi (G.R. No. 153736, August 4, 2010)[Sps. Antonio v. Vda. De Monje (G.R. No. 149624, September 29,

2010)][San Diego v. CA (G.R. No. 159230, October 18, 2010)][Chavez v. CA (G.R. No. 159411, March 18, 2005)]

2. Execution, Satisfaction of JudgmentsArticle 1491, Civil CodeRule 39, sec’s. 1 to 46SC Cir. 5-98 (January 12, 1998)SC Cir. 6-93 (February 9, 1993)SC Cir. 10-25-2000

Heirs of Divinagracia v. Ruiz (G.R. No. 165582, July 9, 2010)Villeza v. German Management (G.R. No. 182937, August 8, 2010

16

Bausa v. Heirs of Dino (G.R. No. 167281, August 28, 2008)La Campana Development v. Ledesma (G.R. No. 154152, August

25, 2010)Briones-Vasquez v. CA (G.R. No. 144882, February 4, 2005)Chinabank v. Ordinario (G.R. No. 121943, March 24, 2003)Perla Compania v. Ramolete (G.R. No. L-60887, November 13,

1991)Heirs of Pidacan v. Air Transportation Office (G.R. No. 186192,

August 25, 2010[Diesel Construction v. Jollibee (G.R. No. 136805, January 28,

2000)][BPI v. Roxas (G.R. No. 157833, October 15, 2007)][Villarin v. Munasque (G.R. No. 169444, September 17, 2008)]

O. New Trial or Reconsideration – Rule 37; Rule 40.2; Rule 41.3

Cansino v. CA (G.R. No. 125799, August 21, 2003)PAL v. Salcedo (G.R. No. L-22119, September 29, 1967)People v. Amparado (G.R. No. L-48656, December 21, 1987)Helmuth, Jr. v. People (G.R. No. 57058, March 15, 1982)People v. Del Mundo (G.R. Nos. 119964-69, September 20, 1996)Cuenca v. People (G.R. No. 109870, December 1, 1995)

P. Relief from Judgments, Orders or Other Proceedings – Rule 38

Cerezo v. Tuazon (supra, Part VI, D)Agan v. Nueva (G.R. No. 155018, December 11, 2003)Legarda v. CA 195 SCRA 418; G.R. No. 94457, October 16, 1997) Fukuzumi v. Sanritsu (G.R. No. 140630, August 12, 2004) Redeña v. CA (G.R. No. 146611, February 6, 2007)

Q. Appeal

1. From MTC to RTC – Rule 40 2. From MTC to RTC to CA – Rule 42

3. From RTC to CA – Rule 41

SC A.M. 7-7-12 (December 4, 2007) SC Cir. 48-2000 Heirs of Poe v. Malayan (G.R. 156302, April 7, 2009)

Diesel v. Jolibee (supra, above) GSIS v. Phil. Village Hotel (G.R. No. 150922, September 21,

17

2004) Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., et al. vs. Hon. Marietta J.

Homena- Valencia (G.R. No. 173942, June 25, 2008) Palma v. Galvez (G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010)

4. From QJA to CA – Rule 43

CHED v. Dasig (G.R. No. 172776, December 17, 2008)

5. To SC – Rule 45; Rule 64

SC A.M. No. 04-7-03-SC (July 13, 2004) SC A.M. No. 7-7-12 (December 4, 2007) SC Admin. Cir. 3-96 (February 9, 1993) Wee v. Galvez (supra, Part VI, F, 5) Maramag v. Maramag (supra, Part V, I)

R. Original Actions in CA – Rules 46 and 47

Lazaro v. Rural Bank (G.R. No. 139895, August 15, 2003)Tolentino v. Leviste (G.R. No. 156118, November 19, 2004)

Tible & Tible Company, Inc. et al. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association (G.R. No. 155806, April 8, 2008)

Almelor v. RTC Las Pinas (G.R. No. 179620, August 26, 2008)

S. Procedure in CA – Rule 44 and Rules 48 to 54

SC Resolution of February 17, 1998 (supra, Part VI.F.10)Cucueco v. CA (supra, Part VI, M, 3, e)

T. Procedure in SC – Rule 56 icow Rules 45, 48, 51.1, 51.2, 51.5-11 and 52

U. Provisional Remedies

A.M. 99-2-01-SCA.M. No. 02-11-12-SC (March 15, 2003) A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (November 15, 2004)

V. Preliminary Attachment – Rule 57Mabanag v. Gallemore (G.R. No. L-825, July 20, 1948; 81 Phil.

254)

18

Cuartero v. CA (G.R. No. 102448, August 5, 1992)Foundation Specialists v. Betonval Ready Concrete (G.R. No. 170674,

August 24, 2009)

W. Preliminary Injunction – Rule 58 SC A.M. No. 7-7-12 (December 4, 2007)

SC Admin. Cir. No. 11-2000R.A. 8975SC Cir. 68-94 (November 3, 1994)SC Resolution of February 17, 1998 (supra, Part VI, F, 10)SC Cir. 13-93P.D. 1818 (1989)SC Admin. Cir. 20-95 (February 12 ,1995)SC Admin. Cir. 29-2002 (July 1, 2002)SC Admin. Cir. 38-2002 (August 28, 2002)

Republic v. Migrino (189 SCRA 289)International Container v. CA (214 SCRA 456); Rule 16.6Benguet v. CA (G.R. No. 153571, September 18, 2003)Dungog v. CA (G.R. No. 139767, August 5, 2003)Traders Royal Bank v. IAC (G.R. No. 66321, October 31, 1984)China Banking Corporation v. Co (G.R. No. 174569, September 17, 2008)Lim v. BPI Agricultural Development Bank (G.R. No. 179230, March 9,

2010)

X. Receivership – Rule 59Talag v. CA (189 SCRA 801)

Y. Replevin – Rule 60

Sapugay v. CA (G.R. No. 86792, March 21, 1990)

Z. Support Pendente Lite – Rule 61

VII. Special Civil Actions

SC A.M. No. 99-2-04-SC

A. Interpleader -- Rule 62

B. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies – Rule 63

19

SC Resolution of February 17, 1998 (supra, Part VI, F, 10)Velarde v. SJS (supra, Part VI, N, 2)PDIC v. CA (G.R. No. 126911, April 30, 2003) Ferrer v. Roco (G.R. No. 174129, July 5, 2010)

C. Rule 64 SC Resolution of February 17, 1998 (supra, Part VI, F, 10)

D. Certiorari – 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, sec. 1; Rule 65 SC A.M. No. 7-7-12 (December 4, 2007) SC Admin. Cir. No. 3-96 (supra, see Rule 45) SC Resolution of February 9, 1999 re A.M. No. 99-2-01-SC

Tano v. Socrates (G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997)Calagui v. CA (G.R. No. 47518, June 18, 1990, 186 SCRA 564)Republic v. CA (G.R. No. 129846, January 18, 2000)Siena Realty Corp. v. Gal-lang (G.R. No. 145169, May 13, 2004)Tesorero v. Mathay (185 SCRA 124)Wee v. Galvez (supra, Part VI, F, 5)Dungog v. CA (supra, Part VI, U, 2)

Badua v. Cordillera Bodong (G.R. No. 92649, February 14, 1991, 194 SCRA 101)

Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee v. Desierto (G.R. No. 135703, April 15, 2009)

[Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 159275, August 25, 2010)]

E. Prohibition – Rule 65Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS (G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997)Francisco v. Fernando (G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006)

F. Mandamus – Rule 65PALEA v. PAL (G.R. No. 31396, January 30, 1982)United Housing v. Dayrit (G.R. No. 76422, January 22, 1990)Vital-Gozon v. CA (G.R. No. 101428, August 5, 1992)Municipality of Makati v. CA (G.R. No. 89898-99, October 1, 1990)Systems Plus v. Local Government (G.R. No. 14638, August 7, 2003)MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay (G.R. Nos. 171947-48,

December 18, 2008)Eng v. Lee (G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010)

G. Quo Warranto – Rule 66

Moro v. Del Castillo (G.R. No. 184980, March 30, 2011)

20

[Villanueva v. Rosqueta (G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010)]

H. Expropriation – Rule 67R.A. 8974NAPOCOR v. CA (G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004)Bardillon v. Bgy. Masili (G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003)NPC v. Gutierrez (193 SCRA 1)Ansaldo v. Tantuico (188 SCRA 300)[Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada (G.R. No. 176625,

February 25, 2010)]

I. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage – Rule 68Rosales v. Alfonso (G.R. No. 137792, August 12, 2003)

J. Partition – Rule 69

K. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer – Rule70Lacap v. Lee (G.R. No. 142131, December 11, 2002)Santos v. National Statistics Office (G.R. No. 171129, April 06, 2011)Macasaet v. Macasaet (G.R. No. 154391-92, September 30, 2004)Alcaraz v. Tangga-an (G.R. No. 128568, April 9, 2003)Laurora v. Sterling (G.R. No. 146815, April 9, 2003)Jakihaca v. Aquino (181 SCRA 67)Benitez v. CA (G.R. No. 104828, January 16, 1997)

L. Contempt – Rule 71Igot v. Meralco Land Bank v. Listana (G.R. No. 152611, August 5, 2003)Regalado v. Go (G.R. No. 167988, February 6, 2007)

Select Procedural Laws

R.A. 7160, sec’s. 399-422 (Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law)R.A. 9285Berba v. Pablo (G.R. No.160032, Nov. 11, 2005)Pascual v. Pascual (G.R. No. 157830, Nov. 17, 2005)

Select Procedural Rules

A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC 25 (September 25, 2007) (Rule on the Writ of Amparo)A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data)

Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. (G.R. No. 180906, October 7,

21

2008)Tapuz v. Hon. Judge del Rosario (G.R. No. 182484, June 17, 2008)[Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo (G.R. No. 183871, February 18,

2010)] [So v. Tacla, Jr., G.R. No. 190108, 190473, October 19, 2010)]

1991 Revised Rule on Summary ProcedureA.M. No. 02-11-11-SC (March 15, 2003)A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (March 15, 2003)SC Adm. Memo. No. 01-2-04A.M. No. 04-9-07-SCA.M. No. 02-1-06-SCSC Circular 2-89A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, October 1, 2008 (Rule on Small Claims Cases)

22