Cases for Jursidiction REMEDIAL LAW

7/25/2019 Cases for Jursidiction REMEDIAL LAW

1/54

CASES FOR JURSIDICTION

JUDGE PASAL

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007

KAZUHRO HASEGA!A "#$ NPPON ENGNEERNG CONSU%TANTS CO., %T&.,Petitioners,vs.MNORU KTAMURA,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

NACHURA, J.:

"efore the !ourt is a petition for revie# on certiorari under Rule $% of the Rules of !ourt assailin&the 'pril (), *++( Decision(of the !ourt of 'ppeals !'- in !'/.R. SP No. 0+)*1, and the 2ul3 *%,*++( Resolution*den3in& the 4otion for reconsideration thereof.

On March 5+, (666, petitioner Nippon n&ineerin& !onsultants !o., 7td. Nippon-, a 2apaneseconsultanc3 fir4 providin& technical and 4ana&e4ent support in the infrastructure pro8ects of forei&n&overn4ents,5entered into an Independent !ontractor '&ree4ent I!'- #ith respondent Minoru9ita4ura, a 2apanese national per4anentl3 residin& in the Philippines.$The a&ree4ent provides thatrespondent #as to e:tend professional services to Nippon for a 3ear startin& on 'pril (,(666.%Nippon then assi&ned respondent to #or; as the pro8ect 4ana&er of the Southern Ta&alo&

'ccess Road ST'R- Pro8ect in the Philippines, follo#in& the co4pan3ebruar3 *), *+++, petitioner 9a?uhiro Hase&a#a, Nippon


2/54

I!'. His services #ould be en&a&ed b3 the co4pan3 onl3 up to the substantial co4pletion of theST'R Pro8ect on March 5(, *+++, 8ust in ti4e for the I!'or their part, petitioners, contendin& that the I!' had been perfected in 2apan and e:ecuted b3 andbet#een 2apanese nationals, 4oved to dis4iss the co4plaint for lac; of 8urisdiction. The3 assertedthat the clai4 for i4proper preter4ination of respondent


3/54

N'TION'7S, =RITTN =HO77B IN TH 2'P'NS 7'N/G'/ 'ND !GTD INTO9BO, 2'P'N.

". TH HONOR'"7 !OGRT O> 'PP'7S /R'V7B RRD IN OVR7OO9IN/ THND TO RVI= OGR 'DHRN! TO TH PRIN!IP7 O> LEX LOCI SOLUTIONISINTH 7I/HT O> R!NT DV7OPMNTCS IN PRIV'T INTRN'TION'7 7'=S. *0

The pivotal @uestion that this !ourt is called upon to resolve is #hether the sub8ect 4atter 8urisdictionof Philippine courts in civil cases for specific perfor4ance and da4a&es involvin& contracts e:ecutedoutside the countr3 b3 forei&n nationals 4a3 be assailed on the principles of lex locicelebrationis, lex contractus, the Jstate of the 4ost si&nificant relationship rule,J or forum nonconveniens.

Ho#ever, before rulin& on this issue, #e 4ust first dispose of the procedural 4atters raised b3 therespondent.

9ita4ura contends that the finalit3 of the appellate court


4/54

of the re@uire4ents have been 4ade.51/iven that petitioners herein sufficientl3 e:plained their4is&ivin&s on this point and appended to their Repl35)an updated 'uthori?ation56for Hase&a#a toact on behalf of the co4pan3 in the instant petition, the !ourt finds the sa4e as sufficientco4pliance #ith the Rules.

Ho#ever, the !ourt cannot e:tend the sa4e liberal treat4ent to the defect in the verification and

certification. 's respondent pointed out, and to #hich #e a&ree, Hase&a#a is trul3 not authori?ed toact on behalf of Nippon in this case. The aforesaid Septe4ber $, *+++ 'uthori?ation and even thesubse@uent 'u&ust (1, *++( 'uthori?ation #ere issued onl3 b3 Nippon


5/54

phases are the follo#in& @uestionsF (- =here can or should liti&ation be initiatedL *- =hich la# #illthe court appl3L and 5- =here can the resultin& 8ud&4ent be enforcedL %5

'nal3ticall3, 8urisdiction and choice of la# are t#o distinct concepts.%$2urisdiction considers #hetherit is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this stateK choice of la# as;s the further @uestion #hetherthe application of a substantive la# #hich #ill deter4ine the 4erits of the case is fair to both parties.

The po#er to e:ercise 8urisdiction does not auto4aticall3 &ive a state constitutional authorit3 to appl3foru4 la#. =hile 8urisdiction and the choice of the lex fori #ill often coincide, the J4ini4u4 contactsJfor one do not al#a3s provide the necessar3 Jsi&nificant contactsJ for the other.%%The @uestion of#hether the la# of a state can be applied to a transaction is different fro4 the @uestion of #hetherthe courts of that state have 8urisdiction to enter a 8ud&4ent.%0

In this case, onl3 the first phase is at issueE8urisdiction. )*$#"i)2urisdiction, ho#ever, has various aspects.>or a court to validl3 e:ercise its po#er to ad8udicate a controvers3, it 4ust have 8urisdiction over theplaintiff or the petitioner, over the defendant or the respondent, over the sub8ect 4atter, over theissues of the case and, in cases involvin& propert3, over the resor the thin& #hich is the sub8ect ofthe liti&ation.%1In assailin& the trial court


6/54

issue in this case is that of 8urisdiction, choiceofla# rules are not onl3 inapplicable but also not 3etcalled for.

>urther, petitioners< pre4ature invocation of choiceofla# rules is e:posed b3 the fact that the3 havenot 3et pointed out an3 conflict bet#een the la#s of 2apan and ours. "efore deter4inin& #hich la#should appl3, first there should e:ist a conflict of la#s situation re@uirin& the application of the conflict

of la#s rules.1*'lso, #hen the la# of a forei&n countr3 is invo;ed to provide the proper rules for thesolution of a case, the e:istence of such la# 4ust be pleaded and proved.15

It should be noted that #hen a conflicts case, one involvin& a forei&n ele4ent, is brou&ht before acourt or ad4inistrative a&enc3, there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposin& of itF (-dis4iss the case, either because of lac; of 8urisdiction or refusal to assu4e 8urisdiction over thecaseK *- assu4e 8urisdiction over the case and appl3 the internal la# of the foru4K or 5- assu4e

8urisdiction over the case and ta;e into account or appl3 the la# of so4e other State or States.1$ThecourtAs po#er to hear cases and controversies is derived fro4 the !onstitution and the la#s. =hile it4a3 choose to reco&ni?e la#s of forei&n nations, the court is not li4ited b3 forei&n soverei&n la#short of treaties or other for4al a&ree4ents, even in 4atters re&ardin& ri&hts provided b3 forei&nsoverei&ns.1%

Neither can the other &round raised, forum non conveniens,10be used to deprive the trial court of its8urisdiction herein. >irst, it is not a proper basis for a 4otion to dis4iss because Section (, Rule (0 ofthe Rules of !ourt does not include it as a &round.11Second, #hether a suit should be entertained ordis4issed on the basis of the said doctrine depends lar&el3 upon the facts of the particular case andis addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.1)In this case, the RT! decided to assu4e

8urisdiction. Third, the propriet3 of dis4issin& a case based on this principle re@uires a factualdeter4inationK hence, this conflicts principle is 4ore properl3 considered a 4atter of defense.16

'ccordin&l3, since the RT! is vested b3 la# #ith the po#er to entertain and hear the civil case filedb3 respondent and the &rounds raised b3 petitioners to assail that 8urisdiction are inappropriate, thetrial and appellate courts correctl3 denied the petitionersA 4otion to dis4iss.

=HR>OR, pre4ises considered, the petition for revie# on certiorariis DNID.

SO ORDRD.

ANTONO E&UAR&O . NACHURA'ssociate 2ustice

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1241 /"#"r 31, 200
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html#fnt79


7/54

CHESTER &E /OA,Petitioner,vs./U&GE P%AC&O C. MARUEZ, (# () +"5"+(* ") Pre)($(#6 /$6e o' r"#+ 40, M"#("8RTC,PEOP%E O THE PH%PPNES "#$ THE SECRETAR O THE &EPARTMENT O/USTCE,Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition that see;s the !ourt to nullif3 and set aside the #arrantof arrest issued b3 respondent 8ud&e a&ainst petitioner in !ri4inal !ase No. +5*(66%* for violationof 'rticle 5(%, par. *a- of the Revised Penal !ode in relation to Presidential Decree P.D.- No. (0)6.Petitioner asserts that respondent 8ud&e erred in findin& the e:istence of probable cause that 8ustifiesthe issuance of a #arrant of arrest a&ainst hi4 and his coaccused.

Section 0, Rule ((* of the Revised Rules of !ri4inal Procedure providesF

Se+. . When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional Trial Court. =ithin ten (+-da3s fro4 the filin& of the co4plaint or infor4ation, the 8ud&e shall personall3 evaluate the resolutionof the prosecutor and its supportin& evidence. He 4a3 i44ediatel3 dis4iss the case if the evidenceon record clearl3 fails to establish probable cause. ' e '(#$) 5rob"be +")e, e )" ())e ":"rr"#* o' "rre)*, or " +omm(*me#* or$er (' *e "++)e$ ") "re"$ bee# "rre)*e$ 5r)"#**o " :"rr"#* ())e$ b *e ;$6e :o +o#$+*e$ *e 5re(m(#"r (#ve)*(6"*(o# or :e# *e+om5"(#* or (#'orm"*(o# :") '(e$ 5r)"#* *o )e+*(o# 7 o' *() Re. In case of doubt on thee:istence of probable cause, the 8ud&e 4a3 order the prosecutor to present additional evidence#ithin five %- da3s fro4 notice and the issuance 4ust be resolved b3 the court #ithin thirt3 5+- da3sfro4 the filin& of the co4plaint or infor4ation.

: : :(

This !ourt finds fro4 the records of !ri4inal !ase No. +5*(66%* the follo#in& docu4ents tosupport the 4otion of the prosecution for the issuance of a #arrant of arrestF

(. The report of the National "ureau of Investi&ation to !hief State Prosecutor 2ovencito R.uo as re&ards their investi&ation on the co4plaint filed b3 private co4plainant Manuel D3

'#iten a&ainst Mina Tan Hao Ma. /racia Tan Hao and Victor N&o 3 Tan for s3ndicatedestafa. The report sho#s that Hao induced D3 to invest 4ore than a hundred 4illion pesos inState Resources Develop4ent Mana&e4ent !orporation, but #hen the latterAs invest4entsfell due, the chec;s issued b3 Hao in favor of D3 as pa34ent for his invest4ents #eredishonored for bein& dra#n a&ainst insufficient funds or that the account #as closed.*

*. 'ffidavit!o4plaint of private co4plainant Manuel D3 '#iten.5

5. !opies of the chec;s issued b3 private co4plainant in favor of State Resources!orporation.$

$. !opies of the chec;s issued to private co4plainant representin& the supposed return ofhis invest4ents in State Resources.%

%. De4and letter sent b3 private co4plainant to Ma. /racia Tan Hao.0
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt6


8/54

0. Supple4ental 'ffidavit of private co4plainant to include the incorporators and 4e4bers ofthe board of directors of State Resources Develop4ent Mana&e4ent !orporation asparticipants in the conspirac3 to co44it the cri4e of s3ndicated estafa. '4on& thoseincluded #as petitioner !hester De 2o3a.1

1. !ounter'ffidavits of !hester De 2o3a and the other accused, Ma. /racia Hao and Dann3

S. Hao.

'lso included in the records are the resolution issued b3 State Prosecutor "enn3 Nicdao findin&probable cause to indict petitioner and his other coaccused for s3ndicated estafa,)and a cop3 of the

'rticles of Incorporation of State Resources Develop4ent Mana&e4ent !orporation na4in&petitioner as incorporator and director of said corporation.

This !ourt finds that these docu4ents sufficientl3 establish the e:istence of probable cause asre@uired under Section 0, Rule ((* of the Revised Rules of !ri4inal Procedure. Probable cause toissue a #arrant of arrest pertains to facts and circu4stances #hich #ould lead a reasonabl3 discreetand prudent person to believe that an offense has been co44itted b3 the person sou&ht to bearrested. It bears re4e4berin& that Jin deter4inin& probable cause, the avera&e 4an #ei&hs facts

and circu4stances #ithout resortin& to the calibrations of our technical rules of evidence of #hich his;no#led&e is nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of co44on sense of #hich all reasonable 4enhave an abundance.J6Thus, the standard used for the issuance of a #arrant of arrest is lessstrin&ent than that used for establishin& the &uilt of the accused. 's lon& as the evidence presentedsho#s a#rima faciecase a&ainst the accused, the trial court 8ud&e has sufficient &round to issue a#arrant of arrest a&ainst hi4.

The fore&oin& docu4ents found in the records and e:a4ined b3 respondent 8ud&e tend to sho# thattherein private co4plainant #as enticed to invest a lar&e su4 of 4one3 in State ResourcesDevelop4ent Mana&e4ent !orporationK that he issued several chec;s a4ountin&to P(($,*)0,+)0.($ in favor of the corporationK that the corporation, in turn, issued several chec;s toprivate co4plainant, purportedl3 representin& the return of his invest4entsK that said chec;s #erelater dishonored for insufficient funds and closed accountK that petitioner and his coaccused, bein&

incorporators and directors of the corporation, had ;no#led&e of its activities and transactions.These are all that need to be sho#n to establish probable cause for the purpose of issuin& a #arrantof arrest. It need not be sho#n that the accused are indeed &uilt3 of the cri4e char&ed. That 4attershould be left to the trial. It should be e4phasi?ed that before issuin& #arrants of arrest, 8ud&es4erel3 deter4ine personall3 the probabilit3, not the certaint3, of &uilt of an accused. Hence, 8ud&esdo not conduct a !e novohearin& to deter4ine the e:istence of probable cause. The3 8ust personall3revie# the initial deter4ination of the prosecutor findin& a probable cause to see if it is supported b3substantial evidence.(+In case of doubt on the e:istence of probable cause, the Rules allo# the

8ud&e to order the prosecutor to present additional evidence. In the present case, it is notable thatthe resolution issued b3 State Prosecutor "enn3 Nicdao thorou&hl3 e:plains the bases for hisfindin&s that there is probable cause to char&e all the accused #ith violation of 'rticle 5(%, par. *a-of the Revised Penal !ode in relation to P.D. No. (0)6.

The &eneral rule is that this !ourt does not revie# the factual findin&s of the trial court, #hich includethe deter4ination of probable cause for the issuance of #arrant of arrest. It is onl3 in e:ceptionalcases #here this !ourt sets aside the conclusions of the prosecutor and the trial 8ud&e on thee:istence of probable cause, that is, #hen it is necessar3 to prevent the 4isuse of the stron& ar4 ofthe la# or to protect the orderl3 ad4inistration of 8ustice. The facts obtainin& in this case do not#arrant the application of the e:ception. lavv#"+l.ne,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html#fnt10


9/54

In addition, it 4a3 not be a4iss to note that petitioner is not entitled to see; relief fro4 this !ourt norfro4 the trial court as he continuousl3 refuses to surrender and sub4it to the courtAs 8urisdiction.2ustice >loren? D. Re&alado e:plains the re@uisites for the e:ercise of 8urisdiction and ho# the courtac@uires such 8urisdiction, thusF

: : : Re@uisites for the e:ercise of 8urisdiction and ho# the court ac@uires such 8urisdictionF

a. -uris!iction over t"e #laintiff or #etitionerThis is ac@uired b3 the filin& of the co4plaint,petition or initiator3 pleadin& before the court b3 the plaintiff or petitioner.

b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or resondent:T() () "+


10/54

No costs.

SO OR&ERE&.


Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 17394 /#e 19, 2013

OSTON EUT RESOURCES, NC.,Petitioner,vs.COURT O APPEA%S AN& %O%TA G. TO%E&O,Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

"efore the !ourt is a Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari see;in& to reverse and set asideF (- theDecision,(dated *) >ebruar3 *++0 and *- the Resolution,*dated ( 'u&ust *++0 of the !ourt of

'ppeals in !'/.R. SP No. ))%)0. The challen&ed decision &ranted herein respondentacts

On *$ Dece4ber (661, petitioner filed a co4plaint for su4 of 4one3 #ith a pra3er for the issuanceof a #rit of preli4inar3 attach4ent a&ainst the spouses Manuel and 7olita Toledo.0Hereinrespondent filed an 'ns#er dated (6 March (66) but on 1 Ma3 (66), she filed a Motion for 7eave to

'd4it '4ended 'ns#er1in #hich she alle&ed, a4on& others, that her husband and codefendant,Manuel Toledo Manuel-, is alread3 dead.)The death certificate6of Manuel states J(5 2ul3 (66%J asthe date of death. 's a result, petitioner filed a 4otion, dated % 'u&ust (666, to re@uire respondent todisclose the heirs of Manuel.(+In co4pliance #ith the verbal order of the court durin& the (( October(666 hearin& of the case, respondent sub4itted the re@uired na4es and addresses of the

heirs.((

Petitioner then filed a Motion for Substitution,(*

dated () 2anuar3 *+++, pra3in& that Manuelbe substituted b3 his children as part3defendants. It appears that this 4otion #as &ranted b3 thetrial court in an Order dated 6 October *+++.(5

Pretrial thereafter ensued and on () 2ul3 *++(, the trial court issued its pretrial order containin&,a4on& others, the dates of hearin& of the case.($

The trial of the case then proceeded. Herein petitioner, as plaintiff, presented its evidence and itse:hibits #ere thereafter ad4itted.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt14


11/54

On *0 Ma3 *++$, the reception of evidence for herein respondent #as cancelled upon a&ree4ent ofthe parties. On *$ Septe4ber *++$, counsel for herein respondent #as &iven a period of fifteen da3s#ithin #hich to file a de4urrer to evidence.(%Ho#ever, on 1 October *++$, respondent instead filed a4otion to dis4iss the co4plaint, citin& the follo#in& as &roundsF (- that the co4plaint failed toi4plead an indispensable part3 or a real part3 in interestK hence, the case 4ust be dis4issed forfailure to state a cause of actionK *- that the trial court did not ac@uire 8urisdiction over the person of

Manuel pursuant to Section %, Rule )0 of the Revised Rules of !ourtK 5- that the trial court erred inorderin& the substitution of the deceased Manuel b3 his heirsK and $- that the court 4ust alsodis4iss the case a&ainst 7olita Toledo in accordance #ith Section 0, Rule )0 of the Rules of !ourt.(0

The trial court, in an Order dated ) Nove4ber *++$, denied the 4otion to dis4iss for havin& beenfiled out of ti4e, citin& Section (, Rule (0 of the (661 Rules of !ourt #hich states thatF J=ithin theti4e for but before filin& the ans#er to the co4plaint or pleadin& assertin& a clai4, a 4otion todis4iss 4a3 be 4ade : : :.J(1RespondentAs 4otion for reconsideration of the order of denial #asli;e#ise denied on the &round that JdefendantsA attac; on the 8urisdiction of this !ourt is no# barredb3 estoppel b3 lachesJ since respondent failed to raise the issue despite several chances to do so.()

'&&rieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari #ith the !ourt of 'ppeals alle&in& that the trial

court seriousl3 erred and &ravel3 abused its discretion in den3in& her 4otion to dis4iss despitediscover3, durin& the trial of the case, of evidence that #ould constitute a &round for dis4issal of thecase.(6

The !ourt of 'ppeals &ranted the petition based on the follo#in& &roundsF

It is ele4entar3 that courts ac@uire 8urisdiction over the person of the defendant : : : onl3 #hen thelatter voluntaril3 appeared or sub4itted to the court or b3 coercive process issued b3 the court tohi4, : : :. In this case, it is undisputed that #hen petitioner "oston filed the co4plaint on Dece4ber*$, (661, defendant Manuel S. Toledo #as alread3 dead, : : :. Such bein& the case, the court a @uocould not have ac@uired 8urisdiction over the person of defendant Manuel S. Toledo.

: : : the court a @uoAs denial of respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss #as based on its findin& thatrespondentAs attac; on the 8urisdiction of the court #as alread3 barred b3 laches as respondentfailed to raise the said &round in its Csic a4ended ans#er and durin& the pretrial, despite her activeparticipation in the proceedin&s.

Ho#ever, : : : it is #ellsettled that issue on 8urisdiction 4a3 be raised at an3 sta&e of theproceedin&, even for the first ti4e on appeal. "3 ti4el3 raisin& the issue on 8urisdiction in her 4otionto dis4iss : : : respondent is not estopped fro4 raisin& the @uestion on 8urisdiction.

Moreover, #hen issue on 8urisdiction #as raised b3 respondent, the court a @uo had not 3et decidedthe case, hence, there is no basis for the court a @uo to invo;e estoppel to 8ustif3 its denial of the4otion for reconsiderationK

It should be stressed that #hen the co4plaint #as filed, defendant Manuel S. Toledo #as alread3dead. The co4plaint should have i4pleaded the estate of Manuel S. Toledo as defendant, not onl3the #ife, considerin& that the estate of Manuel S. Toledo is an indispensable part3, #hich stands tobe benefited or be in8ured in the outco4e of the case. : : :

: : : :
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt19


12/54

RespondentAs 4otion to dis4iss the co4plaint should have been &ranted b3 public respondent 8ud&eas the sa4e #as in order. !onsiderin& that the obli&ation of Manuel S. Toledo is solidar3 #ithanother debtor, : : :, the clai4 : : : should be filed a&ainst the estate of Manuel S. Toledo, inconfor4it3 #ith the provision of Section 0, Rule )0 of the Rules of !ourt, : : :.*+

The !ourt of 'ppeals denied petitionerAs 4otion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

The Issues

Petitioner clai4s that the !ourt of 'ppeals erred in not holdin& thatF

(. Respondent is alread3 estopped fro4 @uestionin& the trial courtAs 8urisdictionK

*. Petitioner never failed to i4plead an indispensable part3 as the estate of Manuel is not anindispensable part3K

5. The inclusion of Manuel as part3defendant is a 4ere 4is8oinder of part3 not #arrantin&the dis4issal of the case before the lo#er courtK and

$. Since the estate of Manuel is not an indispensable part3, it is not necessar3 that petitionerfile its clai4 a&ainst the estate of Manuel.

In essence, #hat is at issue here is the correctness of the trial courtAs orders den3in& respondentAs4otion to dis4iss.

The Rulin& of the !ourt

=e find 4erit in the petition.

Motion to dis4iss filed out of ti4e

To be&in #ith, the !ourt of 'ppeals erred in &rantin& the #rit of certiorari in favor of respondent. =ellsettled is the rule that the special civil action for certiorari is not the proper re4ed3 to assail thedenial b3 the trial court of a 4otion to dis4iss. The order of the trial court den3in& a 4otion todis4iss is 4erel3 interlocutor3, as it neither ter4inates nor finall3 disposes of a case and still leavesso4ethin& to be done b3 the court before a case is finall3 decided on the 4erits.*(Therefore, Jtheproper re4ed3 in such a case is to appeal after a decision has been rendered.J**

's the Supre4e !ourt held in Indiana 'erospace Gniversit3 v. !o44. on Hi&her ducationF*5

' #rit of certiorari is not intended to correct ever3 controversial interlocutor3 rulin&K it is resorted onl3to correct a &rave abuse of discretion or a #hi4sical e:ercise of 8ud&4ent e@uivalent to lac; of

8urisdiction. Its function is li4ited to ;eepin& an inferior court #ithin its 8urisdiction and to relievepersons fro4 arbitrar3 acts acts #hich courts or 8ud&es have no po#er or authorit3 in la# toperfor4. It is not desi&ned to correct erroneous findin&s and conclusions 4ade b3 the courts.4phasis supplied-

ven assu4in& that certiorari is the proper re4ed3, the trial court did not co44it &rave abuse ofdiscretion in den3in& respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss. It, in fact, acted correctl3 #hen it issued the@uestioned orders as respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss #as filed SI B'RS 'ND >IV MONTHS

'>TR SH >I7D HR 'MNDD 'NS=R. This circu4stance alone alread3 #arranted the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt23


13/54

outri&ht dis4issal of the 4otion for havin& been filed in clear contravention of the e:press 4andateof Section (, Rule (0, of the Revised Rules of !ourt. Gnder this provision, a 4otion to dis4iss shallbe filed #ithin the ti4e for but before the filin& of an ans#er to the co4plaint or pleadin& assertin& aclai4.*$

More i4portantl3, respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss #as filed after petitioner has co4pleted the

presentation of its evidence in the trial court, &ivin& credence to petitionerAs and the trial courtAsconclusion that the filin& of the 4otion to dis4iss #as a 4ere plo3 on the part of respondent to dela3the pro4pt resolution of the case a&ainst her.

'lso #orth 4entionin& is the fact that respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss under consideration herein isnot the first 4otion to dis4iss she filed in the trial court. It appears that she had filed an earlier4otion to dis4iss*0on the sole &round of the unenforceabilit3 of petitionerAs clai4 under the Statuteof >rauds, #hich 4otion #as denied b3 the trial court. More tellin& is the follo#in& narration of thetrial court in its Order den3in& respondentAs 4otion for reconsideration of the denial of her 4otion todis4issF

's can be &leaned fro4 the records, #ith the ad4ission of plaintiffAs e:hibits, reception of

defendantsA evidence #as set on March 5(, and 'pril *5, *++$ : : : . On 4otion of the defendants,the hearin& on March 5(, *++$ #as cancelled.

On 'pril ($, *++$, defendants sou&ht the issuance of subpoena ad testificandu4 and duces tecu4to one /ina M. Madulid, to appear and testif3 for the defendants on 'pril *5, *++$. Reception ofdefendantsA evidence #as a&ain deferred to Ma3 *0, 2une * and 2une 5+, *++$, : : :.

On Ma3 (5, *++$, defendants sou&ht a&ain the issuance of a subpoena duces tecu4 and adtestificandu4 to the said /ina Madulid. On Ma3 *0, *++$, reception of defendants Csic evidence#as cancelled upon the a&ree4ent of the parties. On 2ul3 *), *++$, in the absence of defendantsA#itness, hearin& #as reset to Septe4ber *$ and October ), *++$ : : :.

On Septe4ber *$, *++$, counsel for defendants #as &iven a period of fifteen (%- da3s to file ade4urrer to evidence. On October 1, *++$, defendants filed instead a Motion to Dis4iss : : :.*1

RespondentAs act of filin& 4ultiple 4otions, such as the first and earlier 4otion to dis4iss and thenthe 4otion to dis4iss at issue here, as #ell as several 4otions for postpone4ent, lends credibilit3 tothe position ta;en b3 petitioner, #hich is shared b3 the trial court, that respondent is

deliberatel3 i4pedin& the earl3 disposition of this case. The filin& of the second 4otion to dis4iss#as, therefore, Jnot onl3 i4proper but also dilator3.J*)Thus, the trial court, Jfar fro4 deviatin& orstra3in& off course fro4 established 8urisprudence on the 4atter, : : : had in fact faithfull3 observedthe la# and le&al precedents in this case.J*6The !ourt of 'ppeals, therefore, erred not onl3 inentertainin& respondentAs petition for certiorari, it li;e#ise erred in rulin& that the trial court co44itted&rave abuse of discretion #hen it denied respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss.

On #hether or not respondent is estopped fro4@uestionin& the 8urisdiction of the trial court

't the outset, it 4ust be here stated that, as the succeedin& discussions #ill de4onstrate,8urisdiction over the person of Manuel should not be an issue in this case. ' protracted discourse on8urisdiction is, nevertheless, de4anded b3 the fact that 8urisdiction has been raised as an issue fro4the lo#er court, to the !ourt of 'ppeals and, finall3, before this !ourt. >or the sa;e of clarit3, and in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt29


14/54

order to finall3 settle the controvers3 and full3 dispose of all the issues in this case, it #as dee4edi4perative to resolve the issue of 8urisdiction.

(. 'spects of 2urisdiction

Petitioner calls attention to the fact that respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss @uestionin& the trial courtAs

8urisdiction #as filed 4ore than si: 3ears after her a4ended ans#er #as filed. 'ccordin& topetitioner, respondent had several opportunities, at various sta&es of the proceedin&s, to assail thetrial courtAs 8urisdiction but never did so for si: strai&ht 3ears. !itin& the doctrine laid do#n in thecase of Ti8a4, et al. v. Sibon&hano3, et al.5+petitioner clai4ed that respondentAs failure to raise the@uestion of 8urisdiction at an earlier sta&e bars her fro4 later @uestionin& it, especiall3 since sheactivel3 participated in the proceedin&s conducted b3 the trial court.

PetitionerAs ar&u4ent is 4isplaced, in that, it failed to consider that the concept of 8urisdiction hasseveral aspects, na4el3F (- 8urisdiction over the sub8ect 4atterK *- 8urisdiction over the partiesK 5-

8urisdiction over the issues of the caseK and $- in cases involvin& propert3, 8urisdiction over the resor the thin& #hich is the sub8ect of the liti&ation.5(

The aspect of 8urisdiction #hich 4a3 be barred fro4 bein& assailed as a result of estoppel b3 lachesis 8urisdiction over the sub8ect 4atter. Thus, in Ti8a4, the case relied upon b3 petitioner, the issueinvolved #as the authorit3 of the then !ourt of >irst Instance to hear a case for the collection of asu4 of 4one3 in the a4ount of P(,6+).++ #hich a4ount #as, at that ti4e, #ithin the e:clusiveori&inal 8urisdiction of the 4unicipal courts.

In subse@uent cases citin& the rulin& of the !ourt in Ti8a4, #hat #as li;e#ise at issue #as the8urisdiction of the trial court over the sub8ect 4atter of the case. 'ccordin&l3, in Spouses /on?a&a v.!ourt of 'ppeals,5*the issue for consideration #as the authorit3 of the re&ional trial court to hear anddecide an action for refor4ation of contract and da4a&es involvin& a subdivision lot, it bein& ar&uedtherein that 8urisdiction is vested in the Housin& and 7and Gse Re&ulator3 "oard pursuant to PD 6%1The Subdivision and !ondo4iniu4 "u3ers Protective Decree-. In 7ee v. Presidin& 2ud&e, MT!,7e&aspi !it3,55petitioners ar&ued that the respondent 4unicipal trial court had no 8urisdiction overthe co4plaint for e8ect4ent because the issue of o#nership #as raised in the pleadin&s. >inall3, inPeople v. !asu&a,5$accusedappellant clai4ed that the cri4e of &rave slander, of #hich she #aschar&ed, falls #ithin the concurrent 8urisdiction of 4unicipal courts or cit3 courts and the then courtsof first instance, and that the 8ud&4ent of the court of first instance, to #hich she had appealed the4unicipal court


15/54

Section (. Defenses and ob8ections not pleaded. Defenses and ob8ections not pleaded either in a4otion to dis4iss or in the ans#er are dee4ed #aived. Ho#ever, #hen it appears fro4 thepleadin&s or the evidence on record that the court has no 8urisdiction over the sub8ect 4atter, thatthere is another action pendin& bet#een the sa4e parties for the sa4e cause, or that the action isbarred b3 a prior 8ud&4ent or b3 statute of li4itations, the court shall dis4iss the clai4.

RG7 (%MOTIONS

Sec. ). O4nibus 4otion. Sub8ect to the provisions of Section ( of Rule 6, a 4otion attac;in& apleadin&, order, 8ud&4ent, or proceedin& shall include all ob8ections then available, and all ob8ectionsnot so included shall be dee4ed #aived.

"ased on the fore&oin& provisions, the Job8ection on 8urisdictional &rounds #hich is not #aived evenif not alle&ed in a 4otion to dis4iss or the ans#er is lac; of 8urisdiction over the sub8ect 4atter. : : :7ac; of 8urisdiction over the sub8ect 4atter can al#a3s be raised an3ti4e, even for the first ti4e onappeal, since 8urisdictional issues cannot be #aived : : : sub8ect, ho#ever, to the principle ofestoppel b3 laches.J50

Since the defense of lac; of 8urisdiction over the person of a part3 to a case is not one of thosedefenses #hich are not dee4ed #aived under Section ( of Rule 6, such defense 4ust be invo;ed#hen an ans#er or a 4otion to dis4iss is filed in order to prevent a #aiver of the defense.51If theob8ection is not raised either in a 4otion to dis4iss or in the ans#er, the ob8ection to the 8urisdictionover the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is dee4ed #aived b3 virtue of the first sentence ofthe above@uoted Section ( of Rule 6 of the Rules of !ourt.5)

The !ourt of 'ppeals, therefore, erred #hen it 4ade a s#eepin& pronounce4ent in its @uestioneddecision, statin& that Jissue on 8urisdiction 4a3 be raised at an3 sta&e of the proceedin&, even forthe first ti4e on appealJ and that, therefore, respondent ti4el3 raised the issue in her 4otion todis4iss and is, conse@uentl3, not estopped fro4 raisin& the @uestion of 8urisdiction. 's the @uestionof 8urisdiction involved here is that over the person of the defendant Manuel, the sa4e is dee4ed#aived if not raised in the ans#er or a 4otion to dis4iss. In an3 case, respondent cannot clai4 thedefense since Jlac; of 8urisdiction over the person, bein& sub8ect to #aiver, is a personal defense#hich can onl3 be asserted b3 the part3 #ho can thereb3 #aive it b3 silence.J56

*. 2urisdiction over the person of a defendant is ac@uired throu&h a valid service of su44onsK trialcourt did not ac@uire 8urisdiction over the person of Manuel Toledo

In the first place, 8urisdiction over the person of Manuel #as never ac@uired b3 the trial court. 'defendant is infor4ed of a case a&ainst hi4 #hen he receives su44ons. JSu44ons is a #rit b3#hich the defendant is notified of the action brou&ht a&ainst hi4. Service of such #rit is the 4eansb3 #hich the court ac@uires 8urisdiction over his person.J$+

In the case at bar, the trial court did not ac@uire 8urisdiction over the person of Manuel since there#as no valid service of su44ons upon hi4, precisel3 because he #as alread3 dead even before theco4plaint a&ainst hi4 and his #ife #as filed in the trial court. The issues presented in this case aresi4ilar to those in the case of Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te.$(

In Sarsaba, the N7R! rendered a decision declarin& that Patricio Sereno #as ille&all3 dis4issedfro4 e4plo34ent and orderin& the pa34ent of his 4onetar3 clai4s. To satisf3 the clai4, a truc; inthe possession of SerenoAs e4plo3er #as levied upon b3 a sheriff of the N7R!, acco4panied b3Sereno and his la#3er, Ro&elio Sarsaba, the petitioner in that case. ' co4plaint for recover3 of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt41


16/54

4otor vehicle and da4a&es, #ith pra3er for the deliver3 of the truc; pendente lite #as eventuall3filed a&ainst Sarsaba, Sereno, the N7R! sheriff and the N7R! b3 the re&istered o#ner of the truc;.

'fter his 4otion to dis4iss #as denied b3 the trial court, petitioner Sarsaba filed his ans#er. 7ateron, ho#ever, he filed an o4nibus 4otion to dis4iss citin&, as one of the &rounds, lac; of 8urisdictionover one of the principal defendants, in vie# of the fact that Sereno #as alread3 dead #hen theco4plaint for recover3 of possession #as filed.

'lthou&h the factual 4ilieu of the present case is not e:actl3 si4ilar to that of Sarsaba, one of theissues sub4itted for resolution in both cases is si4ilarF #hether or not a case, #here one of thena4ed defendants #as alread3 dead at the ti4e of its filin&, should be dis4issed so that the clai44a3 be pursued instead in the proceedin&s for the settle4ent of the estate of the deceaseddefendant. The petitioner in the Sarsaba !ase clai4ed, as did respondent herein, that since one ofthe defendants died before su44ons #as served on hi4, the trial court should have dis4issed theco4plaint a&ainst all the defendants and the clai4 should be filed a&ainst the estate of the deceaseddefendant. The petitioner in Sarsaba, therefore, pra3ed that the co4plaint be dis4issed, not onl3a&ainst Sereno, but as to all the defendants, considerin& that the RT! did not ac@uire 8urisdictionover the person of Sereno.$*This is e:actl3 the sa4e pra3er 4ade b3 respondent herein in her4otion to dis4iss.

The !ourt, in the Sarsaba !ase, resolved the issue in this #iseF

: : : =e cannot countenance petitionerAs ar&u4ent that the co4plaint a&ainst the other defendantsshould have been dis4issed, considerin& that the RT! never ac@uired 8urisdiction over the person ofSereno. The courtAs failure to ac@uire 8urisdiction over oneAs person is a defense #hich is personal tothe person clai4in& it. Obviousl3, it is no# i4possible for Sereno to invo;e the sa4e in vie# of hisdeath. Neither can petitioner invo;e such &round, on behalf of Sereno, so as to reap the benefit ofhavin& the case dis4issed a&ainst all of the defendants. >ailure to serve su44ons on SerenoAsperson #ill not be a cause for the dis4issal of the co4plaint a&ainst the other defendants,considerin& that the3 have been served #ith copies of the su44ons and co4plaints and have lon&sub4itted their respective responsive pleadin&s. In fact, the other defendants in the co4plaint #ere&iven the chance to raise all possible defenses and ob8ections personal to the4 in their respective

4otions to dis4iss and their subse@uent ans#ers.$54phasis supplied.-

Hence, the Supre4e !ourt affir4ed the dis4issal b3 the trial court of the co4plaint a&ainst Serenoonl3.

"ased on the fore&oin& pronounce4ents, there is no basis for dis4issin& the co4plaint a&ainstrespondent herein. Thus, as alread3 e4phasi?ed above, the trial court correctl3 denied her 4otion todis4iss.

On #hether or not the estate of Manuel

Toledo is an indispensable part3

Rule 5, Section 1 of the (661 Rules of !ourt statesF

S!. 1. !o4pulsor3 8oinder of indispensable parties. Partiesininterest #ithout #ho4 no finaldeter4ination can be had of an action shall be 8oined either as plaintiffs or defendants.

'n indispensable part3 is one #ho has such an interest in the controvers3 or sub8ect 4atter of acase that a final ad8udication cannot be 4ade in his or her absence, #ithout in8urin& or affectin& that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt43


17/54

interest. He or she is a part3 #ho has not onl3 an interest in the sub8ect 4atter of the controvers3,but Jan interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be 4ade #ithout affectin& that interest orleavin& the controvers3 in such a condition that its final deter4ination 4a3 be #holl3 inconsistent#ith e@uit3 and &ood conscience. It has also been considered that an indispensable part3 is aperson in #hose absence there cannot be a deter4ination bet#een the parties alread3 before thecourt #hich is effective, co4plete or [email protected] >urther, an indispensable part3 is one #ho 4ust be

included in an action before it 4a3 properl3 proceed.$$

On the other hand, a Jperson is not an indispensable part3 if his interest in the controvers3 or sub8ect4atter is separable fro4 the interest of the other parties, so that it #ill not necessaril3 be directl3 orin8uriousl3 affected b3 a decree #hich does co4plete 8ustice bet#een the4. 'lso, a person is not anindispensable part3 if his presence #ould 4erel3 per4it co4plete relief bet#een hi4 or her andthose alread3 parties to the action, or if he or she has no interest in the sub8ect 4atter of the action.JIt is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable part3 si4pl3 because his orher presence #ill avoid 4ultiple liti&ations.$%

'ppl3in& the fore&oin& pronounce4ents to the case at bar, it is clear that the estate of Manuel is notan indispensable part3 to the collection case, for the si4ple reason that the obli&ation of Manuel and

his #ife, respondent herein, is solidar3.

The contract bet#een petitioner, on the one hand and respondent and respondentAs husband, on theother, statesF

>OR V'7G R!IVD, IQ=e 8ointl3 and severall3$0in sole4n- pro4ise to pa3 "OSTON GITBRSOGR!S, IN!. : : : the su4 of PSOSF CON MI77ION >OGR HGNDRD P(,$++,+++.++- :: :.$1

The provisions and stipulations of the contract #ere then follo#ed b3 the respective si&natures ofrespondent as JM'9RJ and her husband as J!OM'9R.J$)Thus, pursuant to 'rticle (*(0 of the!ivil !ode, petitioner 4a3 collect the entire a4ount of the obli&ation fro4 respondent onl3. Theafore4entioned provision statesF JThe creditor 4a3 proceed a&ainst an3 one of the solidar3 debtorsor so4e or all of the4 si4ultaneousl3. The de4and 4ade a&ainst one of the4 shall not be anobstacle to those #hich 4a3 subse@uentl3 be directed a&ainst the others, so lon& as the debt hasnot been full3 collected.J

In other #ords, the collection case can proceed and the de4ands of petitioner can be satisfied b3respondent onl3, even #ithout i4pleadin& the estate of Manuel. !onse@uentl3, the estate of Manuelis not an indispensable part3 to petitionerAs co4plaint for su4 of 4one3.

Ho#ever, the !ourt of 'ppeals, a&reein& #ith the contention of respondent, held that the clai4 ofpetitioner should have been filed a&ainst the estate of Manuel in accordance #ith Sections % and 0of Rule )0 of the Rules of !ourt. The afore4entioned provisions provideF

S!. %. !lai4s #hich 4ust be filed under the notice. If not filed, barredK e:ceptions. 'll clai4s for4one3 a&ainst the decedent, arisin& fro4 contract, e:press or i4plied, #hether the sa4e be due,not due, or contin&ent, all clai4s for funeral e:penses and 8ud&4ent for 4one3 a&ainst thedecedent, 4ust be filed #ithin the ti4e li4ited in the noticeK other#ise, the3 are barred forever,e:cept that the3 4a3 be set forth as counterclai4s in an3 action that the e:ecutor or ad4inistrator4a3 brin& a&ainst the clai4ants. : : :.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt48


18/54

S!. 0. Solidar3 obli&ation of decedent. =here the obli&ation of the decedent is solidar3 #ithanother debtor, the clai4 shall be filed a&ainst the decedent as if he #ere the onl3 debtor, #ithoutpre8udice to the ri&ht of the estate to recover contribution fro4 the other debtor. : : :.

The !ourt of 'ppeals erred in its interpretation of the above@uoted provisions.

In construin& Section 0, Rule )1 of the old Rules of !ourt, the precursor of Section 0, Rule )0 of theRevised Rules of !ourt, #hich latter provision has been retained in the present Rules of !ourt#ithout an3 revisions, the Supre4e !ourt, in the case of Manila Suret3 >idelit3 !o., Inc. v.Villara4a, et. al.,$6heldF%+

!onstruin& Section 06) of the !ode of !ivil Procedure fro4 #hence CSection 0, Rule )1 #as ta;en,this !ourt held that #here t#o persons are bound in solidu4 for the sa4e debt and one of the4dies, the #hole indebtedness can be proved a&ainst the estate of the latter, the decedentAs liabilit3bein& absolute and pri4ar3K : : :. It is evident fro4 the fore&oin& that Section 0 of Rule )1 providesthe procedure should the creditor desire to &o a&ainst the deceased debtor, but there is certainl3nothin& in the said provision 4a;in& co4pliance #ith such procedure a condition precedent beforean ordinar3 action a&ainst the survivin& solidar3 debtors, should the creditor choose to de4and

pa34ent fro4 the latter, could be entertained to the e:tent that failure to observe the sa4e #oulddeprive the court 8urisdiction to ta;e co&ni?ance of the action a&ainst the survivin& debtors. Gpon theother hand, the !ivil !ode e:pressl3 allo#s the creditor to proceed a&ainst an3 one of the solidar3debtors or so4e or all of the4 si4ultaneousl3. There is, therefore, nothin& i4proper in the creditorAsfilin& of an action a&ainst the survivin& solidar3 debtors alone, instead of institutin& a proceedin& forthe settle4ent of the estate of the deceased debtor #herein his clai4 could be filed.

The fore&oin& rulin& #as reiterated and e:pounded in the later case of Philippine National "an; v.'suncion%(#here the Supre4e !ourt pronouncedF

' cursor3 perusal of Section 0, Rule )0 of the Revised Rules of !ourt reveals that nothin& thereinprevents a creditor fro4 proceedin& a&ainst the survivin& solidar3 debtors. Said provision 4erel3sets up the procedure in enforcin& collection in case a creditor chooses to pursue his clai4 a&ainstthe estate of the deceased solidar3 debtor. The rule has been set forth that a creditor in a solidar3obli&ation- has the option #hether to file or not to file a clai4 a&ainst the estate of the solidar3debtor. : : :

: : : :

It is cr3stal clear that 'rticle (*(0 of the Ne# !ivil !ode is the applicable provision in this 4atter.Said provision &ives the creditor the ri&ht to Jproceed a&ainst an3one of the solidar3 debtors or so4eor all of the4 si4ultaneousl3.J The choice is undoubtedl3 left to the solidar3 creditor to deter4inea&ainst #ho4 he #ill enforce collection. In case of the death of one of the solidar3 debtors, he thecreditor- 4a3, if he so chooses, proceed a&ainst the survivin& solidar3 debtors #ithout necessit3 offilin& a clai4 in the estate of the deceased debtors. It is not 4andator3 for hi4 to have the case

dis4issed as a&ainst the survivin& debtors and file its clai4 a&ainst the estate of the deceasedsolidar3 debtor, : : :. >or to re@uire the creditor to proceed a&ainst the estate, 4a;in& it a conditionprecedent for an3 collection action a&ainst the survivin& debtors to prosper, #ould deprive hi4 of hissubstantive ri&htsprovided b3 'rticle (*(0 of the Ne# !ivil !ode. 4phasis supplied.-

's correctl3 ar&ued b3 petitioner, if Section 0, Rule )0 of the Revised Rules of !ourt #ere appliedliterall3, 'rticle (*(0 of the Ne# !ivil !ode #ould, in effect, be repealed since under the Rules of!ourt, petitioner has no choice but to proceed a&ainst the estate of Cthe deceased debtor onl3.Obviousl3, this provision di4inishes the CcreditorAs ri&ht under the Ne# !ivil !ode to proceed
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt51


19/54

a&ainst an3 one, so4e or all of the solidar3 debtors. Such a construction is not sanctioned b3principle, #hich is too #ell settled to re@uire citation, that a substantive la# cannot be a4ended b3 aprocedural rule. Other#ise stated, Section 0, Rule )0 of the Revised Rules of !ourt cannot be 4adeto prevail over 'rticle (*(0 of the Ne# !ivil !ode, the for4er bein& 4erel3 procedural, #hile thelatter, substantive.

"ased on the fore&oin&, the estate of Manuel is not an indispensable part3 and the case canproceed as a&ainst respondent onl3. That petitioner opted to collect fro4 respondent and not fro4the estate of Manuel is evidenced b3 its opposition to respondentAs 4otion to dis4iss assertin& thatthe case, as a&ainst her, should be dis4issed so that petitioner can proceed a&ainst the estate ofManuel.

On #hether or not the inclusion of Manuel aspart3 defendant is a 4is8oinder of part3

Section (( of Rule 5 of the Rules of !ourt states that Jneither 4is8oinder nor non8oinder of parties is&round for dis4issal of an action. Parties 4a3 be dropped or added b3 order of the court on 4otionof an3 part3 or on its o#n initiative at an3 sta&e of the action and on such ter4s as are 8ust. 'n3

clai4 a&ainst a 4is8oined part3 4a3 be severed and proceeded #ith separatel3.J

"ased on the last sentence of the afore@uoted provision of la#, a 4is8oined part3 4ust have thecapacit3 to sue or be sued in the event that the clai4 b3 or a&ainst the 4is8oined part3 is pursued ina separate case. In this case, therefore, the inclusion of Manuel in the co4plaint cannot beconsidered a 4is8oinder, as in fact, the action #ould have proceeded a&ainst hi4 had he been aliveat the ti4e the collection case #as filed b3 petitioner. This bein& the case, the re4ed3 provided b3Section (( of Rule 5 does not obtain here. The na4e of Manuel as part3defendant cannot si4pl3 bedropped fro4 the case. Instead, the procedure ta;en b3 the !ourt in Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te,%*#hosefacts, as 4entioned earlier, rese4ble those of this case, should be follo#ed herein. There, theSupre4e !ourt a&reed #ith the trial court #hen it resolved the issue of 8urisdiction over the person ofthe deceased Sereno in this #iseF

's correctl3 pointed b3 defendants, the Honorable !ourt has not ac@uired 8urisdiction over theperson of Patricio Sereno since there #as indeed no valid service of su44ons insofar as PatricioSereno is concerned. Patricio Sereno died before the su44ons, to&ether #ith a cop3 of theco4plaint and its anne:es, could be served upon hi4.

Ho#ever, the failure to effect service of su44ons unto Patricio Sereno, one of the defendantsherein, does not render the action DISMISSI"7, considerin& that the three 5- other defendants, : ::, #ere validl3 served #ith su44ons and the case #ith respect to the ans#erin& defendants 4a3still proceed independentl3. "e it recalled that the three 5- ans#erin& defendants have previousl3filed a Motion to Dis4iss the !o4plaint #hich #as denied b3 the !ourt.

Hence, onl3 the case a&ainst Patricio Sereno #ill be DISMISSD and the sa4e 4a3 be filed as a

clai4 a&ainst the estate of Patricio Sereno, but the case #ith respect to the three 5- other accusedCsic #ill proceed. 4phasis supplied.-%5

's a result, the case, as a&ainst Manuel, 4ust be dis4issed.

In addition, the dis4issal of the case a&ainst Manuel is further #arranted b3 Section ( of Rule 5 ofthe Rules of !ourt, #hich states thatF onl3 natural or 8uridical persons, or entities authori?ed b3 la#4a3 be parties in a civil action.J 'ppl3in& this provision of la#, the !ourt, in the case of Ventura v.Militante,%$heldF
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt54


20/54

Parties 4a3 be either plaintiffs or defendants. : : :. In order to 4aintain an action in a court of8ustice, the plaintiff 4ust have an actual le&al e:istence, that is, he, she or it 4ust be a person in la#and possessed of a le&al entit3 as either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can be la#full3prosecuted save in the na4e of such a person.

The rule is no different as re&ards part3 defendants. It is incu4bent upon a plaintiff, #hen he

institutes a 8udicial proceedin&, to na4e the proper part3 defendant to his cause of action. In a suit orproceedin& in persona4 of an adversar3 character, the court can ac@uire no 8urisdiction for thepurpose of trial or 8ud&4ent until a part3 defendant #ho actuall3 or le&all3 e:ists and is le&all3capable of bein& sued, is brou&ht before it. It has even been held that the @uestion of the le&alpersonalit3 of a part3 defendant is a @uestion of substance &oin& to the 8urisdiction of the court andnot one of procedure.

The ori&inal co4plaint of petitioner na4ed the Jestate of !arlos N&o as represented b3 survivin&spouse Ms. Sulpicia VenturaJ as the defendant.)*$#"i)Petitioner 4oved to dis4iss the sa4e on the&round that the defendant as na4ed in the co4plaint had no le&al personalit3. =e a&ree.

: : :. !onsiderin& that capacit3 to be sued is a correlative of the capacit3 to sue, to the sa4e e:tent,

a decedent does not have the capacit3 to be sued and 4a3 not be na4ed a part3 defendant in acourt action. 4phases supplied.-

Indeed, #here the defendant is neither a natural nor a 8uridical person or an entit3 authori?ed b3 la#,the co4plaint 4a3 be dis4issed on the &round that the pleadin& assertin& the clai4 states no causeof action or for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Section (&- of Rule (0 of the Rules of!ourt, because a co4plaint cannot possibl3 state a cause of action a&ainst one #ho cannot be apart3 to a civil action.%%

Since the proper course of action a&ainst the #ron&ful inclusion of Manuel as part3defendant is thedis4issal of the case as a&ainst hi4, thus did the trial court err #hen it ordered the substitution ofManuel b3 his heirs. Substitution is proper onl3 #here the part3 to be substituted died durin& thependenc3 of the case, as e:pressl3 provided for b3 Section (0, Rule 5 of the Rules of !ourt, #hichstatesF

Death of part3Kdut3 of counsel. =henever a part3 to a pendin& action dies, and the clai4 is notthereb3 e:tin&uished, it shall be the dut3 of his counsel to infor4 the court #ithin thirt3 5+- da3safter such death of the fact thereof, and to &ive the na4e and address of his le&al representative orrepresentatives. : : :

The heirs of the deceased 4a3 be allo#ed to be substituted for the deceased, #ithout re@uirin& theappoint4ent of an e:ecutor or ad4inistrator : : :.

The court shall forth#ith order said le&al representative or representatives to appear and besubstituted #ithin a period of thirt3 5+- da3s fro4 notice. 4phasis supplied.-

Here, since Manuel #as alread3 dead at the ti4e of the filin& of the co4plaint, the court neverac@uired 8urisdiction over his person and, in effect, there #as no part3 to be substituted.

=HR>OR, the petition is /R'NTD. The Decision dated *) >ebruar3 *++0 and the Resolutiondated ( 'u&ust *++0 of the !ourt of 'ppeals in !'/.R. SP No. ))%)0 are RVRSD and ST

'SID. The Orders of the Re&ional Trial !ourt dated ) Nove4ber *++$ and ** Dece4ber *++$,respectivel3, in !ivil !ase No. 61)001*, are RINST'TD. The Re&ional Trial !ourt, "ranch *$,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_173946_2013.html#fnt55


21/54

Manila is hereb3 DIR!TD to proceed #ith the trial of !ivil !ase No. 61)001* a&ainst respondent7olita /. Toledo onl3, in accordance #ith the above pronounce4ents of the !ourt, and to decide thecase #ith dispatch.

SO ORDRD.


Manila

S!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 19=033 O+*ober 12, 2011

AGG Tr+>(#6 "#$?or Ae@ A#6 G"e($,Petitioners,vs.ME%ANO . UAG,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

In this Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari under Rule $% #ith Pra3er for Issuance of =rit of Te4porar3andQor Per4anent In8unction, assailed is the *5 2une *+(+ Decision of the !ourt of 'ppeals !'-,!a&a3an de Oro !it3, in !'/.R. SP No. +()%$MIN.(Reversin& the 5+ Nove4ber *++0 Resolutionof the National 7abor Relations !o44ission and reinstatin&, #ith 4odification, the 5+ 'u&ust *++0Decision of the labor arbiter, the !' disposed as follo#sF

=HR>OR, pre4ises considered, the instant Petition is hereb3 /R'NTD, and the Resolutiondated Nove4ber 5+, *++0 is hereb3 RINST'TD sub8ect to MODI>I!'TION, thusF

Private respondent 'le: 'n& /aeid andQor ''/ Truc;in& is hereb3 ORDRD to pa3 petitionerMelanio ". Bua& or his heirs or assi&ns the follo#in&F

(- >G77 "'!9='/S, inclusive of all allo#ances, other benefits or their 4onetar3e@uivalent co4puted fro4 the ti4e petitioner


22/54

$- MP7'RB D'M'/S in the a4ount of >ive Thousand Pesos Php%,+++.++- as acorrective 4easure in order to set out an e:a4ple to serve as a ne&ative incentive ordeterrent a&ainst sociall3 deleterious actions.

!onsiderin& that a person


23/54

pa3.**Subse@uentl3, after the delivered &oods to the !oca!ola Plant #ere #ei&hed on 6 Dece4ber*++$, it #as found out that there #as a shorta&e of ((( ba&s of su&ar, e@uivalent to P (00,+++.*5

Respondent ar&ued that he #as #hi4sicall3 dis4issed, 8ust because he had not been able toans#er his e4plo3er


24/54

ti4e of dis4issin& co4plainant fro4 his 8ob #hen he uttered the said #ords to hi4, there is no proofsho#in& of an3 overt act subse@uentl3 done b3 Mr. /aeid that #ould su&&est he carried out suchintention. There is no notice of ter4ination served to co4plainant. 7iterall3 construin& the re4ar;s ofMr. /aeid as havin& been dis4issed fro4 his 8ob, co4plainant i44ediatel3 filed the instantco4plaint for ille&al dis4issal on the sa4e da3 #ithout first ascertainin& the veracit3 of the sa4e.The ho#, #h3 and the #herefore of his alle&ed dis4issal should be clearl3 de4onstrated b3

substantial evidence. !o4plainant failed to do soK hence, he cannot clai4 that he #as ille&all3dis4issed fro4 e4plo34ent.J5$

The N7R! further held thusF

't best, co4plainant should be considered on leave of absence #ithout pa3 pendin& his ne#assi&n4ent. Not havin& been dis4issed 4uch less ille&all3, co4plainant is not entitled to thea#arded benefits of bac;#a&es and separation pa3 for lac; of le&al and factual basis.J5%

The N7R! li;e#ise held that the co4plainant #as not entitled to (5th 4onth pa3, since he #as paidon purel3 co44ission basis, an e:ception under Presidential Decree No. )%( the la# re@uirin&e4plo3ers to pa3 (5th 4onth pa3 to their e4plo3ees.50

Respondent 4oved for reconsideration,51in effect ar&uin& that petitioner should not be allo#ed tochan&e the latterAs theor3. Supposedl3, the ar&u4ent in the position paper of petitioner #as thatthere #as no e4plo3ere4plo3ee relationship bet#een the4, and that he #as co4pelled to dis4issrespondent because of the heav3 losses the latter #as brin&in& to petitioner. In this Motion forReconsideration, respondent ad4itted that his #ife had received the Resolution on (* 2anuar3 *++1,but that he learned of it 4uch later, on 1 >ebruar3 *++1, 8ustif3in& the unti4el3 filin& of the 4otion.5)

The N7R! denied the Motion for Reconsideration for bein& filed out of ti4e.56He and his counseleach received notice of the N7R!


25/54

TH !OGRT O> 'PP'7S RRD IN RVRSIN/ TH N7R! =ITHOGT 'NB >INDIN/O> /R'V '"GS O> DIS!RTION 'MOGNTIN/ TO 7'!9 OR !SS O>2GRISDI!TIONK

II

TH !OGRT O> 'PP'7S RRD IN NTRT'ININ/ RSPONDNT THN7R!


26/54

8ud&4ent #ould be a void 8ud&4ent. In such a situation, the ad4inistration of 8ustice #ould notsurvive. Hence, #here the issue or @uestion involved affects the #isdo4 or le&al soundness of thedecision not the 8urisdiction of the court to render said decision the sa4e is be3ond the provinceof a special civil action for certiorari.$$citations o4itted-

Petitioner is correct in its ar&u4ent that there 4ust first be a findin& on #hether the N7R! co44itted

&rave abuse of discretion and on #hat these acts #ere. In this case, the !' see4ed to havefor&otten that its function in resolvin& a petition for certiorari #as to deter4ine #hether there #as&rave abuse of discretion a4ountin& to lac; or e:cess of 8urisdiction on the part of public respondentN7R!. The !' proceeded to revie# the records and to rule on issues that #ere no lon&er disputeddurin& the appeal to the N7R!, such as the e:istence of an e4plo3ere4plo3ee relationship. Thepivotal issue before the N7R! #as #hether petitionerAs tellin& respondent to ta;e a rest, or to have abrea;, #as alread3 a positive act of dis4issin& hi4. This issue #as not discussed b3 the !'.

' readin& of the assailed Decision #ill readil3 reveal the patent errors of the !'. On pa&e (( of itsDecision, it held as follo#sF JT"e NL2C like$ise conclu!e! t"at #etitioner $as not entitle! tose#aration #a( because "e $as not a re0ular em#lo(ee of #rivate res#on!ent4 "e /t"e #etitioner1bein0 #ai! on #urel( 6commission7 or 6#ak(a$7 basis.J The !' too; off fro4 that point to &ive a

discussion on re&ular e4plo34ent and further heldF

To Gs, private respondenturther, the appreciation b3 the !' of the N7R! Resolution #as erroneous. The fact is that therefusal b3 the N7R! to &rant separation pa3 #as 4erel3 consistent #ith its rulin& that there #as nodis4issal. Since respondent #as not dis4issed, 4uch less ille&all3 dis4issed, separation pa3 #asunnecessar3. The !' loo;ed at the issue differentl3 and erroneousl3, as it held that the N7R!refused to &rant the a#ard of separation pa3 because respondent had not been found to be are&ular e4plo3ee. The N7R! had in fact 4ade no such rulin&. These are fla&rant errors that arereversible b3 this

!ourt. The3 should be corrected for the sa;e not onl3 of the liti&ants, but also of the !', so that it#ould beco4e 4ore circu4spect in its appreciation of the records before it.

=e revie#ed the N7R! Resolution that reversed the 7' Decision and found nothin& in it that #as#hi4sical, unreasonable or patentl3 violative of the la#. It #as the !' #hich erred in findin& faultsthat #ere ine:istent in the N7R! Resolution.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_195033_2011.html#fnt46


27/54


28/54

as lenienc3 re&ardin& this re@uire4ent #ill i4pin&e on the ri&ht of the #innin& liti&ant to peace of4ind resultin& fro4 the la3in& to rest of the controvers3.

's to the third issue, since the !' could no lon&er 4odif3 the N7R! Resolution, it lo&icall3 follo#sthat the 4odification of the a#ard cannot be done either. Had the Resolution not 3et attained finalit3,the !' could have &ranted so4e other relief, even if not specificall3 sou&ht b3 petitioner, if such

rulin& is proper under the circu4stances. Rule 0% of the Rules of !ourt providesF

Section. ). Proceedin&s after co44ent is filed. 'fter the co44ent or other pleadin&s re@uired b3 thecourt are filed, or the ti4e for the filin& thereof has e:pired, the court 4a3 hear the case or re@uirethe parties to sub4it 4e4oranda. If after such hearin& or filin& of 4e4oranda or upon the e:pirationof the period for filin&, the court finds that the alle&ations of the petition are true, it shall render

8ud&4ent for such relief to #hich the petitioner is entitled.

Ho#ever, the N7R! Resolution sou&ht to be set aside had beco4e final and e:ecutor3 *% da3sbefore respondent filed his Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, subse@uent proceedin&s and4odifications are not allo#ed and are dee4ed null and void.

N BE! O THE OREGONG, the Petition is GRANTE&. The assailed *5 2une *+(+ Decision ofthe !ourt of 'ppeals and its *+ Dece4ber *+(+ Resolution are hereb3 SET AS&E. The 5+Nove4ber *++0 and 5+ March *+(+ Resolutions of the N7R! are ARME&and sustained.

SO ORDRD.

MARA %OUR&ES P. A. SERENO'ssociate 2ustice


Manila

>IRST DIVISION

G.R. No). 197=92 2022 November 27, 2013

THE PROBNCE O AK%AN,Petitioner,vs./O& KNG CONSTRUCTON AN& &EBE%OPMENT CORP.,Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

B%%ARAMA, /R., J.:

These consolidated petitions for revie# on certiorari see; to reverse and set aside the follo#in&F (-Decision(dated October (), *+(+ and Resolution *dated 2ul3 %, *+(( of the !ourt of 'ppeals !'- in!'/.R. SP No. (((1%$K and *- Decision5dated 'u&ust 5(, *+(( and Resolution$dated 2une *1,*+(* in !'/.R. SP No. (($+15.

The >acts
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt4


29/54

On 2anuar3 (*, (66), the Province of ';lan petitioner- and 2od3 9in& !onstruction andDevelop4ent !orp. respondent- entered into a contract for the desi&n and construction of the!aticlan 2ett3 Port and Ter4inal Phase I- in Mala3, ';lan. The total pro8ect cost is P5),6++,+++F P(),1++,+++ for the desi&n and construction of passen&er ter4inal, and P*+,*++,+++ for the desi&nand construction of the 8ett3 port facilit3.%In the course of construction, petitioner issuedvariationQchan&e orders for additional #or;s. The scope of #or; under these chan&e orders #ere

a&reed upon b3 petitioner and respondent.0

On 2anuar3 %, *++(, petitioner entered into a ne&otiated contract #ith respondent for theconstruction of Passen&er Ter4inal "uildin& Phase II- also at !aticlan 2ett3 Port in Mala3, ';lan.The contract price for Phase II is P*,$1%,5$%.%$.1

On October **, *++(, respondent 4ade a de4and for the total a4ount of P**,$(6,((*.60 coverin&the follo#in& ite4s #hich petitioner alle&edl3 failed to settleF

(. Gnpaid acco4plish4ents on additional #or;sunderta;en Php (*,560,($5.+6

*. Refund of ta:es levied despite it not bein&covered b3 ori&inal contract Php ))$,+6).%6

5. Price escalation !onsistent #ith Section 1.%,Ori&inal !ontract Php (,*6(,1($.6)

$. 'dditional 7abor !ost resultin& Cfro4nu4erous chan&e orders issued sporadicall3 Php 5,5+5,$)0.0+

%. 'dditional Overhead !ost resultin& Cfro4nu4erous Orders issued sporadicall3 Php (,(+(,(0*.0+

0. Interest resultin& Cfro4 pa34ent dela3sconsistent #ith Section 1.5.b of the Ori&inal!ontract Php 5,$$*,%+1.%+.)

On 2ul3 (5, *++0, respondent sued petitioner in the Re&ional Trial !ourt RT!- of Mari;ina !it3 !ivil!ase No. +0((**M9- to collect the aforesaid a4ounts.6On 'u&ust (1, *++0, the trial court issued a#rit of preli4inar3 attach4ent.(+

Petitioner denied an3 unpaid balance and interest due to respondent. It asserted that the su4s bein&clai4ed b3 respondent #ere not indicated in !han&e Order No. 5 as approved b3 the Office ofProvincial /overnor. 'lso cited #as respondentAs 2une (+, *++5 letter absolvin& petitioner fro4liabilit3 for an3 cost in connection #ith the !aticlan Passen&er Ter4inal Pro8ect.((

'fter trial, the trial court rendered its Decision(*on 'u&ust ($, *++6, the dispositive portion of #hichreadsF

=HR>OR, fore&oin& pre4ises considered, 8ud&4ent is hereb3 rendered in favor of plaintiff 2od39in& !onstruction 'nd Develop4ent !orporation and a&ainst defendant Province of ';lan, asfollo#sF
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt12


30/54

(. orderin& the defendant to pa3 to the plaintiff the a4ount of Php1,560,($5.+6 representin&the unpaid acco4plish4ent on additional #or;s underta;en b3 the plaintiffK

*. orderin& the defendant to refund to the plaintiff the a4ount of Php))$,+6).%6 representin&additional * ta: levied upon a&ainst the plaintiffK

5. orderin& the defendant to pa3 to the plaintiff price escalation in the a4ount ofPhp(,*6(,1($.6) pursuant to Section 1.% of the ori&inal contractK

$. orderin& the defendant to pa3 to the plaintiff the a4ount of Php5,5+5,$)0.0+ representin&additional labor cost resultin& fro4 chan&e orders issued b3 the defendantK

%. orderin& the defendant to pa3 to the plaintiff the su4 of Php(,(+(,(0*.++ overhead costresultin& fro4 chan&e orders issued b3 the defendantK

0. orderin& the defendant to pa3 the su4 of Php5,$$*,%+1.%+ representin& interest resultin&fro4 pa34ent dela3s up to October (%, *++( pursuant to Section 1.5.b of the ori&inalcontractK

1. orderin& the defendant to pa3 interest of 5 per 4onth fro4 unpaid clai4s as of October(0, *++( to date of actual pa34ent pursuant to Section 1.5.bCK

). orderin& the Cdefendant to pa3 to the plaintiff the su4 of Php%++,+++.++ as 4oralda4a&esK

6. orderin& the defendant to pa3 to the plaintiff the su4 of Php5++,+++.++ as e:e4plar3da4a&esK

(+. orderin& the defendant to pa3 the plaintiff the su4 of Php*++,+++.++, as and forattorne3As feesK and

((. orderin& the defendant to pa3 the cost of suit.

SO ORDRD.(5

Petitioner filed its 4otion for reconsideration($on October 6, *++6 statin& that it received a cop3 ofthe decision on Septe4ber *%, *++6. In its Order(%dated October *1, *++6, the trial court denied the4otion for reconsideration upon verification fro4 the records that as sho#n b3 the return card, cop3of the decision #as actuall3 received b3 both 'ssistant Provincial Prosecutor Ronaldo ". In&enteand 'tt3. 7ee T. Manares on Septe4ber *5, *++6. Since petitioner onl3 had until October ), *++6#ithin #hich to file a 4otion for reconsideration, its 4otion filed on October 6, *++6 #as filed one da3after the finalit3 of the decision. The trial court further noted that there #as a deliberate atte4pt on

both 'tt3. Manares and Prosecutor In&ente to 4islead the court and 4a;e it appear that their 4otionfor reconsideration #as filed on ti4e. Petitioner filed a Manifestation(0reiteratin& the e:planation setforth in its Re8oinder to respondentAs co44entQopposition and 4otion to dis4iss that the #ron& dateof receipt of the decision stated in the 4otion for reconsideration #as due to pure inadvertenceattributable to the staff of petitionerAs counsel. It stressed that there #as no intention to 4islead thetrial court nor cause undue pre8udice to the case, as in fact its counsel i44ediatel3 corrected theerror upon discover3 b3 e:plainin& the attendant circu4stances in the Re8oinder dated October *6,*++6.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt16


31/54

On Nove4ber *$, *++6, the trial court issued a #rit of e:ecution orderin& Sheriff IV 'ntonio ./a4boa, 2r. to de4and fro4 petitioner the i44ediate pa34ent of P01,+*1,51).5$ and tender thesa4e to the respondent. !onse@uentl3, Sheriff /a4boa served notices of &arnish4ent on 7and"an; of the Philippines, Philippine National "an; and Develop4ent "an; of the Philippines at theirbranches in 9alibo, ';lan for the satisfaction of the 8ud&4ent debt fro4 the funds deposited underthe account of petitioner. Said ban;s, ho#ever, refused to &ive due course to the court order, citin&

the relevant provisions of statutes, circulars and 8urisprudence on the deter4ination of &overn4ent4onetar3 liabilities, their enforce4ent and satisfaction.(1

Petitioner filed in the !' a petition for certiorari #ith application for te4porar3 restrainin& orderTRO- and preli4inar3 in8unction assailin& the =rit of :ecution dated Nove4ber *$, *++6, doc;etedas !'/.R. SP No. (((1%$.

On Dece4ber 1, *++6, the trial court denied petitionerAs notice of appeal filed on Dece4ber (, *++6.PetitionerAs 4otion for reconsideration of the Dece4ber 1, *++6 Order #as li;e#ise denied. ()On Ma3*+, *+(+, petitioner filed another petition for certiorari in the !' @uestionin& the aforesaid ordersden3in& due course to its notice of appeal, doc;eted as !'/.R. SP No. (($+15.

"3 Decision dated October (), *+(+, the !'As >irst Division dis4issed the petition in !'/.R. SPNo. (((1%$ as it found no &rave abuse of discretion in the lo#er courtAs issuance of the #rit ofe:ecution. Petitioner filed a 4otion for reconsideration #hich #as li;e#ise denied b3 the !'. The !'stressed that even assu4in& as true the alle&ed errors co44itted b3 the trial court, these #ereinsufficient for a rulin& that &rave abuse of discretion had been co44itted. On the 4atter ofe:ecution of the trial courtAs decision, the appellate court said that it #as rendered 4oot b3respondentAs filin& of a petition before the !o44ission on 'udit !O'-.

On 'u&ust 5(, *+((, the !'As Si:teenth Division rendered its Decision dis4issin& the petition in !'/.R. SP No. (($+15. The !' said that petitioner failed to provide valid 8ustification for its failure tofile a ti4el3 4otion for reconsiderationK counselAs e:planation that he believed in &ood faith that the

'u&ust ($, *++6 Decision of the trial court #as received on Septe4ber *%, *++6 because it #ashanded to hi4 b3 his personnel onl3 on that da3 is not a 8ustifiable e:cuse that #ould #arrant the

rela:ation of the rule on re&le4entar3 period of appeal. The !' also held that petitioner is estoppedfro4 invo;in& the doctrine of pri4ar3 8urisdiction as it onl3 raised the issue of !O'As pri4ar3

8urisdiction after its notice of appeal #as denied and a #rit of e:ecution #as issued a&ainst it.

The !ases

In /.R. No. (61%6*, petitioner sub4its the follo#in& issuesF

I.

=HTHR OR NOT TH D!ISION D'TD ($ 'G/GST *++6 RNDRD "B THR/ION'7 TRI'7 !OGRT, "R'N!H *15, M'RI9IN' !ITB 'ND TH =RIT O>

!GTION D'TD *$ NOVM"R *++6 SHOG7D " RNDRD VOID >OR 7'!9 O>2GRISDI!TION OVR TH SG"2!T M'TTR O> TH !'S.

II.

=HTHR OR NOT TH R/ION'7 TRI'7 !OGRT, "R'N!H *15, M'RI9IN' !ITB/R'V7B '"GSD ITS DIS!RTION 'MOGNTIN/ TO 7'!9 OR IN !SS O>2GRISDI!TION IN RNDRIN/ TH D!ISION D'TD ($ 'G/GST *++6 'ND ISSGIN/
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_197592_2013.html#fnt18


32/54

TH =RIT O> !GTION D'TD *$ NOVM"R *++6 VN IT >'I7D TO DISPOS'77 TH ISSGS O> TH !'S "B NOT RSO7VIN/ PTITIONRAS JGR/NTMOTION TO DIS!H'R/ P'RT =RIT O> PR7IMIN'RB 'TT'!HMNTJ D'TD 5(

'G/GST *++0.

III.

=HTHR OR NOT TH =RIT O> !GTION D'TD *$ NOVM"R *++6 =HI!H='S H'STI7B ISSGD IN VIO7'TION O> SGPRM !OGRT 'DMINISTR'TIV!IR!G7'R NO. (+

Documents

Cases for Jursidiction REMEDIAL LAW