thank you [Music] [Music] foreign [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] foreign foreign [Music] [Music] T of all goodness and Grace because of wisdom the source of intelligence we welcome You O Lord do this auspicious Gathering of your beloved who continuously give you thanks for every opportunity to learn something new and become fruitful to the works of your creation we humbly come to you not because we are worthy but because we find ourselves in need of you who is our strength and our hope to continue despite the challenges we face in health prosperity and our solidarity with one another we pray that today's Gathering made possible by the grace of advancements in technology and social media become successful in its endeavors so we can offer it back to you as our humble offering to honor you glorify you and love you through our deeper connection with everyone may we find Bliss in today's session and become more productive children and co-creators of the Earth this we ask and pray through Christ Our Lord amen foreign [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] good morning everyone and welcome to the Philippine Association of law school's bar operations 2023. of course we'd also like to greet a good morning to our participants who are watching live welcome to the castle discoursal so what this faceted score so this is a discussion of the latest cases decided by the Supreme Court presented by the Philippine Association of law schools in partnership with the Polytechnic University of the Philippines college of law Association of law students of the Philippines National Rex education and Central books Paso discurso is now in its sixth edition we will be starting today with remedial law but this is not only our schedule we will also have property persons and succession on July 21 criminal law on July 26 land titles and deeds on July 28th commercial law on August 4 taxation on August 7 political law on August 9 labor law on August 11 legal ethics on August 14th make sure to like and follow our Facebook pages to be updated with the dates and speakers for each program of course before we will start you would like to acknowledge and thank our collaborators once again the pup College of Law and the association of all students of the Philippines National and of course our sponsors Rex bookstore and Central books now let's watch this video by our sponsors [Music] Acosta Romel proud print production manager artists [Music] production supervisor [Music] proud editor proud researcher our secrets proud daughter Jose Roxanne proud artist akosinelli crowd sales assistant [Music] [Music] to make them whole and responsible Filipinos it's a good feeling is [Music] [Music] manager [Music] [Music] foreign once again thank you to our sponsors Rex bookstore and Central books as mentioned our lecture for today will be on reading's De La Salle University University of Santo Tomas University of Makati and Adamson University she is currently the dean of the College of Law of lyceum of the Philippines University Makati and Cavite campuses let us welcome Dean Soledad Maui's for our remedial law lecture for today din Seoul good morning everybody okay so it's the time of the year when we see each other again and hopefully what we can share with you collectively together with the other Deans and other resource persons will help you during your bar exam okay um so I think can we proceed already ma'am okay so let me now share with you what I have prepared okay okay okay so can we start can I get the confirmation that you hear me excuse me yes okay so we can start again good morning to everybody today we're going to discuss certain cases a number of cases on remedial law basic principles and jurisprudence on the said subject matter okay as always I need to have a disclaimer no what you see by way of images in this PowerPoint are not original works of mind all of them are lifted from the internet using Google images okay now okay the first thing I would like to discuss with you is the expedited rules of procedure and I would like to highlight certain Provisions okay because it is new there is a what I think this is just a feeling no there is a quite a possibility that the bar uh questions may include questions on the expedited rules of procedure okay now insofar as the rules on somebody procedure are concerned okay the following the following will be the scope of the rules on summary procedure first is forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases regardless of the amount of Damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered where attorneys fees are awarded the same shall not exceed 100 000 pesos because when you read okay and you start studying rule 70 read rule 70 and understand that okay side by side with the provision on the rules of somebody procedure because a number of the provisions under rule 70 had been effectively amended by the expedited rules okay now also when you speak of forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases always remember that the fundamental and the primary issue there will always be who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises in question so the amount of Damages or unpaid rentals regardless of whether it's a hundred thousand two hundred thousand really doesn't matter okay the MTC or the first level courts will still have jurisdiction regardless of the amount of Damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered now and insofar as attorneys is Con uh are concerned the same shall not exceed 100 000 pesos and in fact the court can reduce the send amount if it's fine it finds the same unconsionable or unreasonable next all civil actions except probate proceedings admiralty and Maritime actions and small claims falling under rule fourth year of where the total amount of the plaintiffs claim does not exceed 2 million pesos exclusive of Interest damages of whatever kind attorneys fees litigation expenses and costs okay is less than 2 million pesos and please do not include I repeat do not include because the losses exclusive of interest do not include in the computation and in the determination of jurisdiction interest damages of whatever kind attorneys fees litigation expenses and costs Okay then if it does not exceed 2 million pesos it falls within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts or the first level courts and the amount okay to qualify it under um somebody procedure should be it should is an amount that does not exceed 2 million pesos okay always remember that when you speak of the first level chords okay first level chords is it's covered by the rules of small claims rules on summary procedure or ordinary civil action you know why because even if it's the first level Court remember the first level courts okay they administer and Implement okay several kinds of several rules of procedure one will be small claims rules on summary procedure and then okay ordinary civil action so in fact the things are things Arabic I am Maritime and small claims they will not be governed by the rules on somebody procedure but probably it will be the rules okay the the pertinent rules on probate proceedings same with admiralty and Maritime actions and of course small claims are really young rule okay again to repeat okay when you see it's a it is a case involving the jurisdiction of the first level courts the next the first thing you ask will this action be governed by small claims the rules on somebody procedure or ordinary civil action next will be complaints for damages where the claim does not exceed 2 million pesos exclusive of interest in costs a jurisdiction as a computation and interest and cost and attorneys fees and it's always the phrase does not exceed so if it does not exceed 2 million okay then it will it will fall within the first level towards jurisdiction the rules and somebody procedure will apply two million in one person okay it's going to be RTC already okay now cases for enforcement of barangay amicable settlement agreements and arbitration Awards where the money claim exceeds okay one million pesos provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the date of the obligation stipulated or a judge in the arbitration award becomes Jew and demandable okay this this ground contemplates a situation where there was an agreement that was forged okay before the katarungan okay and they sign okay and this amount the money claim involves let's say 2 million pesos okay and there was no execution that was enforced by the barangay within six months from the date of settlement some party does not want to enforce it or honor it then all you have to do now is file okay the necessary action before the first level courts and the first level courts will take cognizance of it and the rules on summary procedure will apply if the money claim exceeds this is the first time exceeds 1 million pesos again subject to the condition that no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the date the obligation stipulated or a judge in the arbitration award becomes Jew and demandable the next is and again this is a new one that was introduced by the expedited rules no the first level courts shall have jurisdiction opticate to hear cases solely for the Revival of Judgment of any Metropolitan trial court Municipal trial court in cities Municipal trial court and Municipal circuit trial court pursuant to rule 39 section 6. and the rules on the revised rules on summary procedure will apply in cases for petitions for Revival of Judgment of any first level Court decisions that was filed pursuant to rule 39 section 6 of the rules of Court un petition for Revival of judgment therefore is um is a decision that was rendered by the RTC okay you have to file it with the RTC and it will not be covered by the rules on summary procedure okay next will be the Civil aspect of a violation of BP 22 you can only do that if no criminal action has been instituted therefore so if you're just going to sue them civilly okay or the Civil aspect for the violation of bp22 is concerned you will have to file it with the MTC or the first level courts and the notes on somebody procedure will apply now should a criminal action be later instituted for the same violation the Civil aspect shall be Consolidated with the criminal action and shall be tried and decided jointly under the rule on somebody procedure all other cases not included therein shall be governed by the regular rules of procedure now on small claims okay Okay small claims okay are claims that does not exceed okay 1 million pesos exclusive of interest and costs one mil does not exceed one million MTC small claims exceeds 1 million but thus up to but at the same time does not exceed 2 million first level question pero rules on summary procedure apply if it exceeds 2 million okay then the jurisdiction now is with the RTC the second level courts and the ordinary rules or the regular rules of civil procedure will apply but in those three instances it should not include in the computation there of the interest and cost so a small claim is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim on relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money it excludes seeking other claims or reliefs outside from the payment or or reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled with professional remedies for example okay let's let's say nine hundred thousand pesos okay obviously it is um it does not exceed 1 million pesos but you ask okay but you ask for a provisional remedy okay professional Remedy let's say writ of preliminary attachment okay foreign because you coupled it with provisional remedies now the claim or demand may be a for money owed under any of the following contract of fleas contract of loan and other credit accommodations contract of services or contract of sale of personal property excluding that recovery of the personal property unless it is made the subject of a compromise agreement okay between the parties if you look at this first group okay they are all based on written documents no based on documents money owed under a contract of lease contract of loan and other credit accommodations contract of services or contract of sale of personal property excluding the recovery of the personal property unless it is made the subject of compromise between the parties if you look at number four it's a contract of sale of personal property only you it small places there's nothing to contract of sale of real properties now excluded their excluded in the prayer will be the recovery of the personal property itself unless precisely it was made subject of a compromise agreement between the parties the second matter that is under that will be governed by the rules on somebody on small claims will be the enforcement of barangay amicable agreements and arbitration Awards where the money claim does not exceed 1 million pesos provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the data obligation stipulated or a judge in the arbitration award becomes Jew and demandable notice compare this and this is sometimes where there is a sometimes you know because the small claims enforcement small claims uh rules may also apply in the enforcement of barangay amicable settlement but the amount should not exceed one million pesos again provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six months compare that okay with the rule under expedited rules okay basis for enforcement of barangay expedite and settlement where the money claim exceeds one million one million it exceeds one million and empty principle but the rule that will be followed and be applied will be the rules on um the right the device rules on somebody procedure now note however okay note further rather for example the amount of the unmicable settlement no that was forged before the barangay okay it's let's say 10 million thus it can you have it in force before the first level courts the answer is still yes because the law here as shown uh insofar as the revised rules on somebody procedure is concerned okay the money claim May exceed 1 million pesos so it can be 10 million but when you talk about enforcement thereof as long as it was forged before the barangay then it will be filed before the the first level courts with the rules of summary procedure to govern okay now okay now let me talk about certain General common Provisions okay first procedure okay civil actions now rather prohibited buildings okay and with respect to small claims and rules on summary procedure the following pleadings motions or petitions shall not be allowed in cases governed by the rules in civil cases a motion to dismiss the complaint or the statement of claim and in criminal case a motion to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with the requirement of barangay consolation okay let me just let me just cross over huh okay A bit so so revised rules on summary procedure okay so the device rules and somebody procedure such small claims general rules you cannot file a motion to dismiss but you are allowed to file a motion to dismiss on two grounds okay and what are these grounds lack of jurisdiction over the the complaint or or that okay motion to dismiss a complaint or the statement of claim okay lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or or failure to comply with the requirement of barangay conservation compare that with the rules of uh ordinaries for ordinary civil action under the 2019 rules of civil procedure motion to dismiss not allowed okay however you can file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter latest potential dress judicata and prescription okay now in both instances the grounds if they are not allowed to be raised in a motion to dismiss you can raise them by way of affirmative defenses in the answer okay now also you cannot find a motion to hear and resolve affirmative defenses you cannot find a motion for Bill of particulars under small claims and the rules of summary procedure you are likewise not allowed to find a motion for new trial or for the consideration of a judgment on the merits or for the reopening of proceedings now with respect to this gun motion for new trial motion for reconciliation or motion for reopening okay there there is a Supreme Court decision and that's fabros versus Duncan where the Supreme Court said what is prohibited is the filing of a motion for reconsideration for example against a final judgment but if it's a motion for reconsideration against an interlocutory order well the Supreme Court said in that case that is not a prohibited so I repeat the motion for reconsideration okay that is disallowed here is a motion for a consideration against a judgment on the merits okay next so application for relief from judgment is also not allowed okay motion for the extension of time to file pleadings affidavits or any paper motion for a memoranda a petition for sushi mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court okay it's not it's a prohibited bleeding but there was one case in that in that case I will ever issue engineer is the court allowed only once not just once but the rule is really you cannot file a petition for social montamos or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court you are not also allowed to file a motion to declare the defendant in default that's the final answer is okay you are not allowed to find the letter emotions for postponement and emotion for postponement shall be presumed dilatory unless granted on acts of God Force Major or physical inability of counsel or witness to personally appear in court as supported by the requisite affidavit and medical proof okay now rejoinder not allowed third-party complaints not allowed motion for and complaint intervention not allowed motion to admit late judicial affidavits position papers or other evidence except on the ground of more Force measure or acts of God motion for judicial determination of probable cause in criminal cases now let me just discuss briefly the complaints exercises a complaint for unlawful detailer okay the complaint under the rule on summary procedure must contain the following first the names of the affiance whose judicial affidavits will be presented to prove the plaintiff's claim the judicial affidavit shall be attached to the complaint and form an integral part thereof judicial affidavits not attached to the complaint shall not be considered the summary of the statements in the judicial affidavits the documentary and other object evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint and whether the plaintiff consents to service by electronic means or facsimile and so the plaintiff's email addresses or facility members for numbers for such purpose clearly the complaint now under the device rules on summary procedure okay is no longer founded on Ultimate facts only it is now based on Ultimate facts and evidentiary facts okay now let me just focus on the first one on the SEC first one Judith's last paragraph judicial last sentence rather judicial affidavits not attached to the complaint shall not be considered foreign with your complaint can you still file it okay during the preliminary conference or at least three days or five days before the preliminary conference well it is very clear that it is not allowed because judicial affidavits not attached to the complaint shall not be considered okay and then if you submit your position papers can you append to that position paper the judicial affidavits which you were not able to attach to your complaint the answer is no why because the road specifically provides too that a Judicial affidavits which were not earlier attached will not be allowed to be attached and considered if the same were attached in the Precision paper compare that with the rules on regular uh on ordinary civil action under the 2019 rules of civil procedure okay of course you're also required to submit your judicial affidavits you are also required to append the same to your complaint or to your answer okay now however under rule 18 okay rule 18 as amended under the 2019 rules on civil procedure if you cannot submit okay your judicial affidavit you may still be allowed to submit okay make a reservation to submit additional judicial affidavits provided you will have to identify the name of the of the intended additional witness and of course the gist of the testimony okay now okay now insofar as the answer is concerned okay very important under the old rules on summary procedure the period to file an answer is only 10 days now mahabana it is 30 calendar days from receipt of the summons the defendant shall file an answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff and the answer should State the following the names of the fiance whose judicial affidavits will be presented to prove the defendant's allegations the judicial affidavits should be attached to the answer in form an integral part thereof judicial affidavits not attached to the answer shall not be considered the summary of the statements in the judicial affidavits and the documentary and other object evidence in support of the allegations of the answer and of course whether the defendant consents to service by electronic means or facsimally and if so the defendant's email address or facsimile numbers for such purpose of okay then affirmative defenses not pleaded in this answer shall be deemed waved okay shall be dealed except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter note the stressa except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is lack of audition over the defendant I wave yet young lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter he demonerates as affirmative defense not with same with deepest potential West judicata and prescription cross claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall be deemed part okay now let's talk about the counter claims you can race in the answer if at the time the action is commenced the defendant possesses a claim against the defendant that is within the coverage of this rule meaning to say not more than 2 million exclusive of interest and cost and it arose out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties and is not the subject of another pending action the claim shall be filed as a counter claim in fact it's considered a compulsory counter claim otherwise the defendant shall be barred from suing on such counterclaim okay now however if you talk about permissive counter claims okay the defendant may also elect to file a counter claim against the plaintiff that does not arise out of that same transaction or occurrence okay provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid okay any amount pleaded in a counterclaim in excess of 2 million pesos excluding interest and question between okay let's assume Pedro filed a case against one Pedro filed a case against one and it's covered under the rules of summary procedure for example it's based on a promissory note on the amount of 1.5 million pesos 1.5 million pesos won the defendant raised by way of counter claim okay Pedro you don't owe me I don't owe you anything you borrowed money from me 2 million so you know five hundred thousand okay now the question is can one raise the heat the brain promissory note that was executed by Pedro okay in the amount of 2 million okay to have Pedro's claim dismissed and at the same time ask the court to order Pedro to pay him 500 000 pesos the answer is no why what because while the defendant okay defendants counter claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence the amazing amount the amount of his counterclaim exceeded the coverage of the rule okay and if he does insist okay okay this Mission complaint but the 500 000 okay his claim on the excess shall be considered as wind according to the rule how about the filing of a reply all new matters alleged in the answer shall be deemed controverted the plaintiff May file a reply to a counterclaim only when an actionable document is attached to the answer the reply should be filed with intent calendar days from receipt of the answer which is basically the same when it comes to the rule on uh ordinary civil action okay you file a reply if you want to deny the unactionable document and what that is the basis of the defendants answer now you only do that if you want to deny the Dual execution and authenticity of the same actionable document what if your reply is based on an actionable document okay are you now allowed to file a rejoinder under the rules of summary procedure the answer is no and even small claims the answer is no unlike until unlike under the rules of uh ordinary civil action you can file a rejoinder if you are allowed if if the if the foundation of your reply is an actionable document and you want to deny the due execution and authenticity of the said actionable document so to repeat in so far as the revised rules and summary procedure is concerned you cannot file a rejoinder even if your reply is founded on an actionable document earlier I said okay earlier I said that um that uh what you might call this uh earlier I said that what happens if if the defendant failed to file an answer okay okay what happens if the defendant fails to file an answer you know we all know that insofar as ordinary rules of civil actions are concerned and you can find a motion to declare defendant in default but under the rules of summary procedure motion to declare defendant in default is not okay is not a permissible bleeding in fact it's a Expressway it was declared as a prohibited building so what will you do if the defendant failed to file an answer section 9 provides should the defendant fail to file to fail to answer the complaint within the period provided the court on its own okay or upon manifestation by the plaintiff that appeared for filing an answer has already lapsed shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged the complaint and its attachments limited to what is paid for they're in the court May reduce the amount of Damages and attorneys fees claim for being excessive or otherwise unconsolable answer you know the court on its own initiative May review records now you period to file an answer can render judgment based on the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachment limited however to what is praying for therein okay now imagine a judge okay plaintiff will just file a manifestation that there was a complaint that was filed the sermons was served and based on the rules you know it that defended us 30 days within which to to answer the uh said complaint but despite the lapse of that period no answer was filed period respectfully submitted prayer you will not ask even the judge unlike before you file a motion to enter judgment based on the complaint no more all you have to do is just technically inform manifest before the court that the plaintiff that the defendant has not filed that answer after the even after the lapse of the regimentary period good luck okay now now of course in all instances conference insofar as the device rules are concerned revised rules and summary procedure uh are concerned it shall be the duty of the parties and their Council to appear at the preliminary conference Court annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution if the latter is ordered by the court the non-appearance of a party in our Council may be excused only for acts of God Force Major or Julie substantiated physical inability now a representative may appear on behalf of a party but must be fully authorized through a special power of attorney or board resolution as the case may be SBA or board resolution spa or board resolution okay to enter into an amicable settlement that the agent or the representative is authorized to enter into an amicable settlement number two for the representative okay to is authorized to submit to Alternative modes of dispute resolution and third for the representative to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and documents Spa an authority which fails to include all these acts shall be ineffective and the party represented shall be deemed absent the failure despite notice of the plaintiff and or his counsel to appear at the preliminary conference so because for the dismissal of the complaint the defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff therefore shall be entitled to judgment on the counter claims all counter claims shall be dismissed if a soul defendant and or his counsel or Her counsel fail to appear at the preliminary conference the plaintiff shall be entitled to in accordance with section 9 of this rule this rule however shall not apply where one or two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action and who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the pre-trial okay so this last sentence contemplates a situation where you have a plaintiff in at least two two or more dependents and these defendants are all sued under the same cause of action for example joint and solidarity obligation okay yeah let's say 2 million okay and they pleaded the same com the same defense payment but defendant number one failed to appear defendant number two appeared okay now then in that situation okay the plaintiff shall not be entitled to judgment immediately in accordance with section 9 of the rule okay preliminary conference paper now the preliminary conference order is mandatory and the party and the court shall refer okay the parties to um alternative modes of dispute resolution Court annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution okay now the court May in the same preliminary conference order declared the case submitted for judgment if on the basis of the pleadings and their attachments as well as the stipulations and admissions made by the parties judgment may be rendered without the need of submission of position papers in this event the court shall render judgment within 30 calendar days from the issuance of the order the court order shall not be subject of our motion for Recon or a petition for certiorari prohibition or mandamus but maybe among the mattress raised on appeal after judgment on the minutes okay let me just discuss this briefly and then later compare it with the rules under ordinary civil action during the preliminary Conference held for a case that uh is under the rules of summary procedure okay complaint your judicial affidavits and all other documentary evidence in support of your complaint or in support of your answer this during the preliminary conference admissions paper number one genuine issue okay so in that case the court will now in the preliminary conference order state that the case now is submitted for judgment okay okay for judgment you court order submitting the case for judgment take note without need for the submission of position papers that order is not and cannot be subject to a motion for equality or reputation for social prohibition or mandamus okay file competition for social prohibitions okay you find an appeal and in the and when you file the appeal make sure you raise on a pill okay the impropriety or the error that was committed when the case was submitted to judgment without okay that the court or submitting the case for judgment without allowing the parties to submit the respective position papers okay so that's under the rules of summary procedure the the same is basically okay also present under the rules on ordinary civil action under rule 18 of the 2019 rules of summary of 2019 rules of uh of a civil procedure if during the pre-trial the court okay even without motion the court on its own can or can now submit the case on the basis of Judgment of the pleadings or summary judgment that order okay of the Court submitting the case on the basis of summary judgment or judgment on the police we likewise not be subjected to a motion for it cannot be cannot be subjected or be a subject of a motion for the competition for their social prohibition or mandapas and the remedy is get this uh unfavorable decision you the decision and raise by way of one by way of error the impropriety or the mistake in submitting the case submitting the case on the basis of judgment on the pleaders or summary judgment okay now if the court however deems the submission of position paper is still necessary you're only given a period of 10 days from receipt of the preliminary conference order within which to submit the send position paper please take note no other judicial affidavits or evidence will be admitted even if filed with the position paper now this is very important and you read this together with rule 70. implications okay remember under rule 70 that's a rule 70 is involves the filing of complaints for unlawful detainer or and or forcible forcible entry okay so you filed it with the MTC deny I dismissed dismissed or okay you filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the NPC MTC ruled that say in favor of the defendant okay okay the defendant now appeals okay to the RTC ordinary appeal okay rule 4D okay then it stops there why because under the expedited rules okay any judgment final order or final resolution in a summary preceding procedure case as maybe appealed to the appropriate RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory under rule 40 for civil cases the appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal together with the proof of payment of the appeal fees with the court that will enter the judgment period to appeal is 15 days but the judgment and look at your section two of the RTC on the appeal shall be final executory and unappealable which means you cannot file a petition for review under rule 42 anymore no more it's just a one-step appeal so if the if the decision okay if you imagine you have to pay for particular attention remember the MTC okay that remember the MTC implements three rules of procedure at the very least Okay small claims summary device rules and summary procedure and then you have rules on ordinary civil actions rule on summary procedure okay why because the amount involved let's say is 1.5 appeal okay yes based on rule 40 you just find an ordinary appeal okay within the period of 15 days and of course you pay the fees RTC now acting as an appellate court okay it takes cognizance of course of the appeal renders a decision once the RPC decides the decision of the RTC can no longer be appealed to the ca okay why because it is a rule that is covered under the rules of summary procedure and under section c are rules section c section 2 of part C of the rules of summary procedure the Judgment of the RTC on the appeal shall be final executory and unappealable okay now compare that for example with the decisions rendered by the MTC on small claims okay as a small change that's it you cannot appeal okay because the decision of the MTC on small claims cases okay is immediately final and executory if at all okay you can file a petition for social against that decision according to the case of al-nang network okay it will be a rule 65 petition but of course if the issue there will be jurisdictional okay now five minutes I would like to take a break one for you to stand up and walk around okay and then and for me to catch my breath so let's just have a five minute break and I will continue with the next topic rule on small claims thank you five minutes we'll be back in five minutes for let's take a short break first thank you foreign [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] foreign foreign [Music] [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] foreign thank you foreign [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] foreign okay I guess we can start now I'm sorry I was waiting for the queue okay okay now we talk on small claims we talk about small claims this rule shall govern the procedure in actions before the first level courts for payment or reimbursement of a sum of money where the value of the claim does not exceed one million pesos pesos okay um a small claims as defined where the money does not exceed one million exclusive of interest and costs though you do not include in the computation again the interest a small claim is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim are really phrased by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money it excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from payment or reimbursement of a sum of money in those coupled with professional remedies and we have discussed also the matters that are considered a falling under small claims okay now let me just now proceed to the venue for small claims okay the regular rules on venue shall apply so the regular rules on rule fall under the 2019 rules of civil procedure will apply however if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of Lending banking in some similar activities and as a branch within the municipality or city where the defendant resides or is holding business the statement of claims shall be filed in the port of the city or the municipality where the defendant resides or is holding business if there are two or more defendants it should be filed in the court of the city or municipality where any one of them resides for his holding business at the option of the plaintiff sorry please pardon me if there are Corrections no let's do the spelling because I copied it from the web and then when I put it okay now jointer of claims plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or more separate claims against the defend that again provided that the amount claimed exclusive of interest and cost does not exceed 1 million now after the court determines that the case falls under this rule which meaning small teams no it may from an examination of the allegations of the statement of claims such evidence attached thereto on its own initiative dismissed the case outright on any of the following grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter that there is another pending action between the same parties okay the claim is wired by prior judgment okay the claim is wired by statute of limitation the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant venue in property plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue the statement of claims States no cause of action that the condition precedented for the five the claim has not been complied with and plenty failed to submit the required affidavits as provided under the rule the order of dismissal should state if it is with or without prejudice if during the hitting the court is able to determine that there exists a ground for the dismissal of the statement of claims the court on its own initiative dismissed the case even if such ground is not pleaded in the defendant's response okay I think okay now okay let me now proceed with discussing the rules on civil procedure but because the rules on civil procedure is very long this will be our approach I will be discussing cases okay decided by the Supreme Court before the cutoff of the before the cutoff now let's talk about general principles the first case will be Palafox versus pendiola at 2021 case now in this particular case Okay Senator angara while holding office in Pasay City filed a complaint for damages against Palafox in his answer Palafox argued that the venue was improper delayed since the complaint was filed in the RTC of pasai instead of Makati were both parties reside Senator angara opposed this and pointed out that under article 360 of the RPC it allows the filing of the civil action where the public officer holds office so in response Palafox argued the threes article 360 is inapplicable because the action involves is a civil action four damages and not a criminal action for libel meanwhile Senator angara served Palafox with a notice to take deposition upon oral examination Palafox suppose such notice on the ground that the deposition was premature as pre-trial had not yet been terminated so in an order the trial court held that the venue was proper since a filing of a separate civil action for damages for the public officer holds office is allowed under article 360. it also denied palafox's motion to dismiss for improper venue the trial court likewise granted Senator agara's motion to take oral deposition okay which does not expressly required the termination of a pre-trial before the taking of the deposition consideration was denied okay and so Palo Fox filed application for sociality after the trial court denied his Mr okay now okay so the issue here is whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that the venue as under provided under article 360 of the RPC is applicable in a civil case for moral and exemplary damages arising from alleged defamatory statements where no criminal case is commenced or filed please take note okay that this petition for surgery was filed before The Supreme Court immediately no so from the denial from the denial of his Mr palak Fox filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court immediately the essay dismissed the petition why for violation of the rule on hierarchy of Courts the Supreme Court said it may only act when absolutely necessary on when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception and the serious and important reasons must be clearly stated in the petition here Palafox Junior filed his petition directly to the Supreme Court despite the concurrent jurisdiction of the Appellate Court significantly he did not bother to provide any reason or explanation okay to justify his non-compliance to the rule on hierarchy of Courts further when required to reply to Senator angara's comment containing the latter's argument on the violation of hierarchy of Courts he simply manifested his adoption of his previous arguments in the petition and that constituted a clear disregard of the hierarchy of Courts and merits the dismissal of the petition now in the case of Heirs of Marquez versus Heirs of Hernandez here okay in this case actually talks about the nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought and the law in effect when the action was found irrespective of whether he is entitled to only or all of some of all of the reliefs as played for okay now Let Me Now go to the facts of the case respondent Heirs of Hernandez filed a complained for a specific performance with damages against hermino Marquez in their amended complaint respondents okay impleaded petitioner Marquez respondents are the children and legal Heirs of epiphany okay since 1955 the respondents in epiphania have been occupying the subject property the subject property forms part of a 1417 square meter property previously owned by spouses Cruz epiphanya and respondents had built their house on the subject property with the consent and tolerance of its previous owners now in 1967 both spouses sold the 1417 square meters now in 1985 herminus sold 200 square meter of that plot to epiphania okay where epiphanya built her house and in view of this agreement epiphania supposedly undertook to pay that menu the total price of the subject property within one year of its purchase or sometime before the end of 1985. Epiphany then made payment by way of export installment to hermino by depositing certain amounts of money in a joint account of a bifania and herminion epifanio also paid through hermino various metrobank checks all of which were in the amounts of 500 pesos each according to the respondents Epiphany was able to pay the full in full the agreed purchase price for the subject property before her death now subsequently the Rural Bank of del Pilar ceased operations so after processing the deposit Insurance claim with pdic okay the same was received by hermania only on in June of 2000 meanwhile okay on December 15 1999 and July 17 2000 respondents received from Marquez demand letters to vacate the premises of the subject property because it appeared that Marquez and hermino executed an extra judicial settlement of estate with waiver of Rights whereby the property that was sold to to which Mahal this to epifania okay hermino waved all his rights and interest and participation there too so despite the respondent's demand hermino allegedly refused to execute a deed of absolute sale over the subject property which he sold to Epiphany so the respondents filed the complaint for specific performance against her Nino now because Marquez was was now the registered owner of that subject property the respondents filed an amended complaint and impleaded Marquez as a defendant so it's The Heirs versus Marquez and hernino in the amended complaint the respondents prayed that the Judgment be rendered directing hermino and Marquez to cause the execution of a deed of absolute sale for the subject property in favor of the respondents and that the title over the subject property be transferred to their names now hermino argued in an answer that number one Epiphany basically did not pay okay and the number two he is not a real party in interest as the title over the entire property was already transferred to Marquez as early as 96. Marquez on the other hand okay argued that again epiphanya did not pay and that all amounts accepted by herminia from epiphanya were all considered as rental payments and number three the respondents are guilty of latches and estoppel and that the action had already prescribed now the lower court the RTC held that since the amended complaint is one for the quieting of title the same does not prescribe against epiphania and her heirs who were in possession of the subject property now the ca denied the appeal for lack of Merit and the ca affirmed okay the findings of the RTC that the complaint filed by the respondents is not for specific performance but one for quieting of title and the ca held at the extra judicial settlement or with waiver of Rights executed by hermino in favor of Marquez had the effect of casting a cloud on respondents Equitable Title over the subject property so the issue here and completely responded it by specific performance or is it all specific performance of an end for quieting and title now the second issue is whether an action for quieting of title which involves a challenge to the validity of the title is a collateral attack to a certificate of title which is prohibited by law and whether the ca earned in ruling that the rhc has no jurisdiction to order the partition of the subject property because partition of real property is a special proceeding which cannot be a subject of an ordinary civil action for quieting of title okay the first issue whether the respondents complaint is not only for specific performance but also for quieting of title the nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the complainant and the law in effect when the action was filed regardless of whether he is entitled to all or any or only part of the relief according to the allegations in the amended complaint of respondents readily show that the complaint was not only for specific performance but also for quieting of Titan now what are two of the Essential Elements for a complaint to be considered as an action to quiet okay number one the plaintiff or complaint as a legal or Equitable in title or interest in the real property subject of the action two the deed claim encumbrance or proceedings claimed to be casting clout on his deed must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its primary appearance of validity or legal efficacy now applying this principle in the instant case in the instant case ownership of the subject property was transferred to epiphania as early as 1985 by virtue of its delivery by herminion The respondents Heirs of epiphany thus acquired an equitable title to the subject property however the extrajudicial settlement of estate with waiver of Rights presented by my guests which resulted to the cancellation and the issuance of a new title to Marquez okay cast doubt on the cloud cast cast a doubt on the said Equitable Title of the respondents over the said property it is for this reason that respondents filed the present action against petition to once and for all remove such cloud or to quiet the title accordingly respondents are guilty of latches since their continuous actual possession the subject property has surrendered their right to bring an action for quieting of title in prescriptable moreover it Bears noting that Marquez demanded okay the respondents to vacate the subject premises in a letter dated 1999 and 2000. it was only during these instances that respondents came to know that resp but Marquez was claiming ownership over the property respondents then filed in 2000 while the amended complaint was filed in 2001 clearly therefore latches has not yet set in against the respondent now however okay assuming Marquez is that allowed okay is that a collateral attack on the certificate of title of Marquez Sabine and Supreme Court no what cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of the title and not the title itself there is a whale of a difference between the certificate of title and the title itself the certificate referred to is the document issued by the Rd known as the TCT in contrast the title referred by law means or refers to the ownership which is represented by that document title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title evidencing ownership what respondents are assailing is marquez's claim of ownership over the subject property Hindi um so in any event placing a land under the thorium system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be attacked or disputed a certificate cannot always be considered as a conclusive evidence of ownership even on the premise that respondents seek to invalidate the title in an action for quality of title said action is in fact not a collateral attack but a direct attack there do since it is essential in such action that respondents show the invalidity of the deed which casts the crowd under title over the subject property so in other words a campaign for quieting of title does not amount to a collateral attack because at the heart of the action of that action writing of title is the adjudication of the ownership of the disputed property and the consequent nullification of the question certificate of title if so warranted by the circumstances of the case those two are different okay those two are different now on the third issue whether the caered in ruling that the RTC had no jurisdiction to order the partition of the property because partition of real property is a special proceeding which cannot be subject of an ordinary civil action for quieting of Titan okay yes this court of appeals heard according to the Supreme Court it Bears noting that in its January 2016 decision the RTC ordered the Rd to cause the cancellation of the Titan and issue separate titles in the name of epiphania and Marquez each reflecting their respective shares in the 1417 square meter property in this regard the court is aware that it is improper for the RTC to order a partition of an estate in an action for quieting of Titan this holds true with the co-owned property itself has not been judicially or extraditionally partitioned by its co-owners however in the instant case there was already a prior partial partition of the 1417 square meter property when at the time of the sale hermania pointed out the area and the location of the 200 square meters portion sold to him by sold by him to Epiphany actual partition so this partition of the co-owned property although partial was created and later embodied in the extra judicial settlement of The Heirs of epifania Hernandez the RTC therefore did not earn in issuing the above mentioned directives to the argue as it merely upheld contract of and reiterated the constituted partial partition of the said property it Bears to emphasize according to the Supreme Court that the essential facts of the case for the determination of ownership and the title's validity are new before the court thus to record the parties in this case to Institute separate partition and or cancellation proceedings would be a necessary circuitous and against the interests of Justice okay now next is the case of Mo versus gabello okay here we are supposed to discuss the party's failure to comply with the requirement of Prior barangay conciliation before filing a case okay would render the same complaint dismissible okay now what filed against before the RTC of Manila a complaint for Recovery of possession of a personal plan against gabelo in his complaint not alleged that he is a lawful and absolute owner of a subject property okay which was uh the subject of a deed of absolute sale between himself and PRC Philippine Realty Corporation okay he aware that despite repeated repeated demands gabello et al refused to locate the subject property now the defendants in the answer maintained that Mo has no personal no legal personality to sue moreover they avert that the Supreme Court in a different case no did not declare Mo as the absolute owner of the subject property but merely identified him as one of those who could buy the lot from PRC so they insisted that Noah failed to comply with the condition precedent for the file of the action since he failed to bring the matter to the barangay for conservation okay additionally they avert that the validity of the alleged title under the name of ma is already being assailed before another Court so after the pre-trial the RTC issued an order directing the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the barangay law requirements the ca found the artistic committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the said order the she reasoned out that was failure to comply with the condition precedent of barundai conciliation did not warrant the dismissal of the complaint but rather that the RTC should have merely suspended the proceeding spending the referral of the case to barangay consecration so whether the failure to comply with the requirement of barangay conciliation before filing a case in court would render his complaint dismissible the answer is yes ra 7160 provides that barangay conciliation proceedings is a con is a precondition to a filing to the filing of a complaint in the in court between persons actually residing in the same barangay to explore possibility of amicable settlement okay now apart is failure to comply with the requirement of Prior balance before filing a case in court would render his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply with the condition president pursuant to section 1j of rule 16 which is now section 13 rule 15 of the 2019 rules of civil procedure okay now let's discuss the next case and the case is uh case is uh a mega fishing Corp versus a state of Gonzalez okay in May 2000 the estate of Francisco through the recital filed the case against Esperanza mercedita MFC Garcia and Sarah principal seeking to anal and cancel several titles and the estate you know the previous title the RTC decided in favor of the respondent it found that the new owners duplicate copy in the name of Francisco Gonzalez was null and void for being fraudulently obtained the artistic further ruled that several titers were both invalidly issued and therefore not invoyed now on appealed the ca required MFC to file its appellants brief a motion to be given the opportunity to file its appeals to file its appeal brief it alleged that it received a notice dated August 15 2013 sometime in September and not until October 15 2013 within which to file its brief however MFC only discovered that said notice which was apparently filed in another case folder during their year-end inventory in December 2013. thus MFC asked for an additional period of 30 days from December 19 2013 or until January 19 2014 within which to file its brief and the ca granted the said motion now MFC filed its motion to admit a balance brief but this time the ca denied mfc's motion CA held at MFC failed to file its brief within the regulatory period it noted that despite the grant of an extension of time it only filed its brief on February 6 or 18 dates after the last day of extension granted by the CA and then the ca issued a resolution closing and terminating the case in view of the fact that no Mr or petition to the Supreme Court was filed by MFC now what was the ruling now whether MFC should be afforded the empress opportunity for its case to be generated to be decided on the merits and not on mere technicalities okay generally the rules of procedure must be strictly followed because the right to appeal is not a natural right or it's not even part of due process so it's really not part of due process it is as appeal is a statutory privilege and therefore may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law so a party who seeks to Avail off the right must therefore comply with the requirements of the rules failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost acting on such appeals the ca has the authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the applicants brief in the exercise of its judicial discretion however the seeing must still adhere to the fundamentals of justice and fairness bearing in mind the peculiar circumstances and deciding matters on a case-to-case basis now according to the Supreme Court okay the Supreme Court allowed the filing of the late filing of the appellant's brief due to its council's negligence it is apparent in this case that there is strong desire to file an appellant's brief on petitioner's part when petitioner filed its motion attaching there with appellance brief there was a clear intention on the part of petitioner not to abandon his appeal as a matter of fact when it's not for its council's Act of inadvertently misplacing the notice to file brief in another file petitioner could have seasonably filed it's a balanced brief as its Council had already prepared the same even way before the receipt of the notice to fight it Bears stressing that the rule that which states mistakes of counsel bind the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in outright deprivation of the client's Liberty okay of Liberty or property or where the interests of Justice Soul requires remember that procedural interfermities take a vaccine against substantive rights of litigants okay must also be stressed that the petitioner had no participatory negligence in the dismissal of its appeal hence the ensuing dismissal of its appeal was completely attributable to the gross negligence of its Council okay now let's now talk of the concept of course of action okay Paloma versus Del Moline Magno Del Moline Paloma versus denolin Magno 2021 case are all the legitimate children of spouses Santiago and Del Mourinho Cristobal died okay and was survived by his wife and children in 1967 Santiago before the issuance of OCT okay sold the portion of the lot to Christina okay after more than three decades postina registered the same meanwhile Esther constructed a house on the lot Jose then showed the deed of sale to Esther and demanded the partition of the property at this put a dispute Among The Heirs ensue eventually the land dispute Among The Heirs was brought to the sanghunian barangay of San Pablo City during the Conference held before the sanguni ambarangai the parties agreed to Partition so the certificate of agreement okay was signed by Esther okay my Michael another relative by the barangaycher person and by The Agrarian agrarian reform Council chairman however rostina okay the sister refused to sign the agreement and opted to consult the lawyer first nevertheless an agreement of partition was prepared and submitted to the Land Management Bureau which the latter approved the agreement of partition board the same contents as a certificate of agreement executed before the sanury okay by virtue of the agreement of partition Michael constructed offense surrounding the lot to them with a full knowledge and consent of fustina Christine on the other hand hired a genetic engineer who undertook the subdivision survey and shared in the expenses incurred for the survey of the land however despite Esther and Abigail's request to partition the disputed that Christina still refused to implement the partition agreement thus the dispute again was referred to the segundi due to their failure to reach a settlement the office of the punong barangay issued a certificate to file action so the respondents filed a petition for annulment of the TCT in barangay Partition and judicial partition of the interstate estate of the late Santiago Del Molina the RTC ruled in favor okay of the plaintiffs the issue of misjoinder of action was brought up on appeal the ca affirmed the artist's decision and held that Miss jointer of action is not a ground for the dismissal so the issue here is whether Miss jointer of causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of an action and that a misjoined cause of action May on motion of a party or on the initiative of Court be severed and proceeded with separately now in this case the petitioners argue that the court erroneousness erroneously ruled upon the misjoined causes of action for annulment of title and partition causes of action to the complaint is one for annulment of title in Partition phoenixama so since annulment of title is governed by the rules of ordinary civil action and partition is governed by special civil action they cannot be joined okay misjoinder Supreme Court petitioner a petitioners are mistaken section 6 of rule 2 of the rules of Court explicitly states that a misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of an action and that the misjoined cause of action May on motion of a party or on the initiative of the Court be severed and proceeded with separately dismissed while the cortical may have overlooked the misjoint actions such fact is not a ground to assail the validity of the decision or a ground for the dismissal of the case absent any objection on the part of the petitioner or a directive from the cortico for the annulment of title and partition to proceed separately both causes of action were validly adjudicated upon considering that a quarter's jurisdiction over both causes of action okay now also in an earlier case Ada versus bylon okay Supreme Court said that Miss Joiner of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal what you have to do is you file a motion to drop motion to severe into the courses of the power acting upon the motion of a party to cause or Sue opponent to order the severance of the means joint cause of action to be preceded with separately however if there is no objection to the improper jointer or the court did not move to propriet direct perseverance then there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joint causes of action okay it should be emphasized that the foregoing rule only applies if the court trying the case has jurisdiction over all the causes of action they're in notwithstanding the disjointer of the same if the court trying the case as no jurisdiction over a misjoint cause of action then such misjoined cause of action has to be severed from the other causes of action and if not so severed any adjudication rendered by the court with respect to that quote unquote misjoined cause of action the where the court does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide would be a patentality okay also in an earlier case in the plazo case Okay moreover the fact that the respondents complaint also prayed for the annulment of title and recovery of possession does that strip the trial court of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the case asking for the annulment of certain transfers of property could very well be achieved in an action for partition as can be seen in cases where the courts determine the party's rights arising from the complaints asking not only for the partition but for the annulment of titles and recovery of ownership okay so the SC found no merit in petitioners contention that the Court ruled upon the validity of the sale in favor of Christina even if it was none what not one of the reliefs prayed for by the respondents why because according to the Supreme Court okay you General prayer for other relief and remedies under the prevalences as we redeemed just and equitable by The Honorable Court okay it's sufficient okay that General prayer can be construed to include the knowledge of the deed of sale since it's also warranted by the facts allege in the complaint and even abused in trial okay case of uh Santos okay Santos Ventura coma Foundation Inc svhfi versus mabalacat Institute so as alcohol you know Santos claimed that it is the ABS it is the absolute owner of a parcel of land which is okay occupied said lot without paying rent and only through the tolerance since nine the year 1983 until 2002. so nevertheless Santos Inc okay in a letter in form at beginning April 1 2002 it will be charging a rental rate for its own use and occupancy which is payable on or before the fifth day of each month however mabalaka Inc refused to comply with Santos in in King's demand wrote another letter demanding the rental payment for the months of April to July 2002 within 15 days from the receipt there of otherwise it must vacate the subject line again failed to heed the demand so Santos in filed a complaint for collection of some of money against the case was raffled to RTC instead of finding an answer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground at a quarter Co had not validly acquired jurisdiction because it was not properly served with someone's okay okay now um the court denied the said motion to dismiss Mr of mabalakat ink denied order through a petition for sociality now the issues that were raised before The Supreme Court okay where the where was the what's the petition whether the lower court okay heard when it considered the petition as an unsigned pleading for failure to verify okay or whether the petition not sufficient showing that the same judgment was tainted with grave abuse of discretion meanwhile while the case is spending before the high court in fact its answer with compulsory claim before the lower court okay during the pre-trial okay before the lower court in filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of foreign shopping it argued that the failure of Santos in to report to the court a CO that it filed an ejectment case despite the explicit requirement of section 5c of Route 7 was willful and deliberate Act of form shopping on account of which the complaint should be dismissed okay now this time acting on the motion to dismiss files the court dismissed The Collection case so the issue in this case now is whether an action for collection of sum of money may not be joined with an ejectment suit otherwise a misjoinder of causes of action would ensure Section 5 rule 2 of the rules of Court prohibits the jointer of an ordinary action such as an action for collection of some of money and a special civil action such as an injectment suit the provision reads as follows okay a party May in one course of action okay a party May in one pleading in the alternative or or otherwise okay as many May in one pleading assert in the alternative of otherwise as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party subject to the following conditions just give me a minute please okay the party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on join their parties second the jointer shall not shall not include shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules third were the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions the Joiner may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of Action Falls within the jurisdiction of the Zen court and venue lies therein and where the claims in all causes of action are principally for Recovery of money the aggregate amount in claim shall be the test of jurisdiction so here you have an action for a collection of money okay okay and then also you have an ejectment case two separate cases now an action for collection of some of money may not be properly joined with an action for injectment why because an action for collection of some of money requires a full-blown trial while an unlawful detainer case is a special civil action which requires summary procedure so insofar as a complaint for collection of sum of money is concerned it is not a simple case of recovering unpaid balance of rentals it must be pointed out that there are several factors to consider if and when the collection of sum of money will prosper the determination if indeed recover the alleged balance is proper the correct amount of rental to be paid or recovered the intention or the agreement of the parties as to terms and payment of rental in order to arrive at a correct amount among others so as correctly observed okay by the Appellate point the resolution of whether to have a paid the correct rental fees and there is a deficiency in the payment of rentals requires a full-blown trial through the submission of documentary and testimonial evidence and therefore cannot be passed upon in a summary proceeding now just a minute please in this case we're discussing the collection case requires a full volume trial for the parties to show evidence on the propriety of paying rent and its rightful amount they must they this may not be accomplished in an adjacent proceeding which is summary in nature therefore this court finds Santos not guilty of forum shopping when it filed the exactment case subsequent to the collection case while the latter is still pending in both cases there is no identity of Rights asserted and relief spread for and that the judgment on any of these cases would not amount to rest judicata note that the ejectment case the cause of action stemmed from the Prejudice that Santos Inc allegedly suffered due to the loss of possession of the lab on the other hand the collection case was founded on the appropriate amount of rental fees that are allegedly Jew and damages that Santos Inc allegedly suffered but which have no direct relation to the loss of material possession okay next is the case of PRC versus aloe aloe was formerly charged with unprofessional conduct and dishonorable conduct before the board for professional teachers which operates under the PRC for using fraud or receipt in obtaining a certificate of registration and professional license when he did a falsified board resolution making it appear that he is a registered he was registered as a professional teacher for her defense Allah alleged in her counter affidavit that she is a holder of a degree okay in Bachelor of Science in elementary education and had been a public school teacher before he secured okay a certificate of registration and professional license in fact she is still and at the time the case was spending still a public school teacher now in 2007 Alo allegedly went to the PRC head office in Manila to apply for a professional teacher's license based on section 26c of Ra 7836 7836 under certain conditions grants a certificate of registration and professional license to qualified applicants without need of examination allo admittedly was not a pastor of the board Examination for professional teachers she claimed that she knew of some professional teachers who were granted permanent appointments appointments under the said law and believed that she was qualified to be extended the same privilege since she has been teaching in the public school from 1995 to 2006. she avert that when she went to the PRC she was given forms to fill out and was made to pay various fees a few days later she was issued a professional identification card followed by a certificate of good standing and a certificate of membership in the National Organization of professional teachers Inc allo maintained that there was no iota of proof that she used the alleged falsifying board resolution in obtaining her certificate of registration and professional license she claimed that she never knew that of the existence of such board resolution and it was the first time she heard about it she claimed too that she never attached the said board resolution to her application for registration and noted that the accusation against sir belitted the efficiency of the PRC Personnel okay now the board rendered a decision against allo the satisfied a motion for reconsideration which was denied without elevating the case to PRC allo directly filed a petition for review under rule 43. now the ca issued a minute resolution requiring the board in the PRC okay which was implanted in the petition to file their respective comments on others petition for review however since the important PRC failed to file the comment within the regimentary period the ca deemed the case submitted for decision okay and the ca rendered a sales decision granting aloe's petition for review and reversing the ruling of the world now the first issue is whether the ca's jurisdiction to directly review the board's decision considering that the same belongs to the PRC and secondly whether the respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that's a doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies the case for her must be against her must be dismissed now the ca has jurisdiction to directly review the board board's decision preliminarily it must be reiterated that jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the court to win and decide the case in order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits it must acquire among others jurisdiction over the subject matter the court has long held the jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power and deter and the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong it is conferred by law it cannot be subject to the consent of the parties or even the Acquisitions of the parties now the above Provisions okay by the PRC was showing that they may have appellate jurisdiction over the decisions or Board of or orders of the board does not divest the ca of its own appellate jurisdiction there is no law granting the PRC exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the board nor is there any law excluding such cases from being taken cognizance by the ca through a petition for review on the rule 43. in fact bp129 okay section 9 provides that the ca shall exercise jurisdiction over among others okay in fact exclusive appellate jurisdiction overall final judgments decisions resolutions orders of the RTC and quasi and judicial agencies instrumentalities boards or commissions okay Etc in rule 43 of the rules is consistent with a forecotted provision particularly section 93 of BP one to nine which grants the ca exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments decisions resolutions orders or Awards and quasi judicials agencies instrumentalities boards or commissions okay and in fact it is clear from the provisions of rule 43 that the sea includes all Awards judgments final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasite judicial functions except those under the labor code okay now the question therefore is the board the teacher's board is it a great side judicial agency the answer is yes judicial agency is a body or agency which is an organ the government other than a court and other than a legislature which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule making the very definition of an administrative agency includes it's being invested with quasi-judicial function okay judicial function on the other hand applies to the action discretion of a public administrative officers or bodies who are required to investigate a certain existence of facts hold healings and Drug conclusions from them as basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a Judicial nature okay so given that discussion the board of teachers group agency okay that board is vested with crazy judicial function so therefore its decision can be appealed to the Sea via rule 43. problem is okay the respondent failed to exhaust all administrative remedies and this and thus under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies her case must be dismissed for lack of cost of action the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is grounded on practical conditions including allowing administrative agencies concerned to take opportunity to correct its own errors okay now the general rule is that before a party May seek the intervention of the Court he should first Avail of all means afforded by him by administrative process okay now so the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are subject however to exceptions a where they stop and where the stopping on the part of the party invoking the doctrine they were the challenge administrative app is patently illegal amount the lack of jurisdiction see when there is an unreasonable delay or official action that will irretrievably produce these Prejudice the complainant they were the amount involved so relatively small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive he were the question involved is purely legal and it's best to for the courts to decide it every judicial intervention is urgent G where the application the docking may cause great and irreparable damage each with a controverted facts violate the process due process I were the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered mode J where there is no no other brain speedy and Advocate remedy K were public strong interest is involved and of course in Coldwater cities now in this case the records which show that none of these exceptions are present aloe file the petition for review with the ca on May 2 2013 without any justification or reason why she did not find an appeal with a PRC considering that the latter is the proper procedure and it was still within the 15-day regulatory period so what is cleared in the aloe case is this okay from the T they are from the fact that the board's decision is appealable to the PRC does not divest okay the ca to do a exercise jurisdiction over the decision rendered by the board in accordance with rule 43 because there is no law that precludes okay the decision of the P of the board from being elevated to the ca however in this so that is the rule and that is the rule as correctly pointed out by the Supreme Court however the petition that you filed before the city must be dismissed on another ground and the ground being failing to exhaust administrative remedies okay let's have that five minute break again and I will discuss parties to civil actions okay five minutes please thank you thank you [Music] [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] foreign [Music] foreign foreign [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] foreign [Music] foreign [Music] okay before I continue okay I am very very sure that I will not be able to share with you everything I have prepared okay because the topic and the scope is just very long so what I will do is I will give this to to our sponsor or to Mariel no who are executive director and she will post it so everybody can download load whatever I have prepared okay so thank you very much I will now continue allow me to okay okay the next case I will discuss will be republic versus Castillo and this will touch upon parties to civil actions now in 1990 the sold gen acting on behalf of the petitioner Republic of the Philippines father complained for expropriation before the RTC of dagupan against the respondents who are co-owners of the subject property meanwhile during the pendants of the case before the trial court respondent Aleppo died and was substituted by his spouse and their 11 children and then the case was archived to give petitioner Republic of the Philippines ample time to identify uh to verify rather the identity of The Heirs of the disease responded now respondent Benjamin falden ex part emotion to dismiss claiming that for almost six years petitioner Republic of the Philippines had not taken any step to further prosecute the case and had not deposited the requisite amount representing the fair market value in accordance with PD 76 and 1533 the case was ordered dismissed by the RTC for lack of interest to prosecute pursuant to section 3 rule 17. thereafter the petitioner RP filed a motion to revive and set the case for hearing since it had already identified The Heirs of George and Cornelia kagiwa the spouses Galvan and manawis prayed for the substitution by their heirs and the Revival and setting the case for hearing respondents Benjamin and Israel filed a motion to set aside the order it was denied for lack of Merit so the parties were ordered to file the respective prior pre-trial briefs but it was only the Republic of the Philippines that filed a pre-trial brief now the petitioner Republic also filed an amended complaint alleging that the the gopan city National High School the school had been in continuous possession of the subject properties since 1947 and the market value of the said properties during the time was 50 centavos per square meter so the RTC rendered its decision dismissing the amended complaint and ordering the the petitioner RP to restore the possession of the subject property with a total air of 2 000 square meters to the respondents on appeal.ca reverse and set aside the decision of the RTC the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings and to compute just compensation in accordance with rule 67. so the issue is whether what is the recommend date of the computation of just compensation is it the date of taking in 1947 or is it that the date of filing of the original complaint in 1980 or the date of the filing of the amended complaint in 1989. and number two whether the soldier had authority to file an expropriation case on behalf of RP okay petitional Republic of the Philippines argues that taking occurs when the expropriator enters a private plan not only for a momentary period but for a more permanent generation or for the purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such a manner as to house the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof claims that it had been in actual possession of the subject property since 1947 as the school constructed a building and planted crops therein contrary to respondents claimed that they were in possession of the subject property petitioner RP actually had beneficial enjoyment thereof moreover petitioner Republic of the Philippine Philippines averse that the respondents failed to specifically deny in their answer petitioner RP's material a verment that it had been in possession of the subject property since 1947. thus respondents are deemed to have admitted that petitioner has indeed the possession of the property since 1947. also respondents with the right to disprove and rebut the said material government when they did not present any witness during the trial furthermore petitioner are be contents that even if the taking is not reckoned from its actual taking in 1947 the just compensation should be completed based on the filing of the original complaint and not from the date of the filing of the amended complaint in 1989. it a verse that amended complaint did not raise any new issue that would have wanted using the date of the filing of said amended complaint as the Reckoning date in the determination of just compensation for the taking of the subject property on the other hand responded Benjamin in his complaint a sales Authority gen to file the complaint for EXP Republic of the Philippines he argues that the soul gen filed the instant complaint for expropriation without presenting any law or authorization in fact during the trial the principal of the school Pearl admitted that it was only upon her initiative that the surgeon filed the said complaint so Benjamin claims that the authority should emanate from either the national government or the Department of Education through an executive order or Department order so first on the issue does the sergeant have the authority to find the expropriation case okay a student authority of the surgeon to file the complaint for expropriation at the time of the institution of the case in 1980 section 1A of PD number 478 okay otherwise known as defining the powers and function of the office of the salt gen provides that the slogan has the power to represent the government and its officers before The Supreme Court and the court of appeals and all other courts on tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the government or any officer thereof in His official capacity is a party moreover section 1K of PD number 478 okay provides that the sergeant can act and represent the RP and or people before any Court tribunal body or Commission in any matter action or proceedings in which in his opinion affects the welfare of the people as the end of Justice may require so with that in mind the surgeon has the authority to initiate the present expropriation case and contrary to the respondent's arguments the sergeant has the authority to file the instant expropriation case of parts of bleedings of 20 to 21 case okay petitioners a word that rosello respondents processor committed Forum Shopping by splitting his cause of action when he filed separate complaints namely number one Declaration of nullity of documents and damages with preliminary injection before the rtcy of Palo Leyte okay and also another case for ownership and possession of property with accounting and damages complaint for Recovery of ownership with the RTC of murugan later petitioners argued that these two cases involve a similar cause of action centered on the same issue which is the validity of the deed of the nation and required the presentation of the same evidence respondents on the other hand countered that rosello did not split his cause of action since the complaints were distinct from one another one was for the Declaration of finality of documents while the other one was foreign there was also variance in the relief spread for according to the respondents what is more petitioner raised the issue of forum shopping for the first time on appeal before the ca respondents argued that this issue should have been raised at the earliest opportunity such as when they filed a motion to dismiss before the trial court and yet petitioners actively submitted and participated in the proceedings before the second Court of now additioners replied okay and what was petitioners replied petitioners replaced that that a complaint for Recovery of ownership falls under the exception where an action may be dismissed on the ground of foreign shopping even if the same was invoked for the first time according to petitioners dismissal may be allowed during dependency of another action involving the same parties for the same crossword result despite the fact that said issue was not raising the complaint for Recovery of ownership the same may still be assigned in the instant case now is there a case of Forum Shopping well Sabina Supreme Court voila okay Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents while the observation of petitioners as to resellers Commission of forum shopping is correct that is Raising Center bill on the raising the said issue on appeal is already too late in the day jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements as to the element of forum shopping first there must be identity of parties both the petitioners and the respondents in this case okay or their predecessors where the contenting parties in both complaints second there must be similarity of Rights asserted and relief spring form where the relief is anchored on the same facts while the caption of both complaints are evidently distinct the allegations contained in the respective body seek a similar relief that is the element entitlement to the properties and reconveyance thereof in favor of rosello and eventually to the respondents who are The latter's Heirs it is hornbook doctrine that the cause of action is determined by the allegations of the complaint and not by the caption or designation by the parties considering that the latter is not even indispensable to the complaint third the Judgment rendered in any of the actions would amount to rest judicata the finality of the research decision rendered by the RTC of murawan the second case as affirmed by the Appellate Court and it reached the Supreme Court okay operated as West Judy Kata on the matter of the deed of the nation's validity since three of these elements are attendant in the case rosello indeed committed form shopping the arguments of the properties are located outside the club and City and are thus outside the jurisdiction of artists of Tacoma cannot be appreciated venue is a juridical it's a venue it's a geographical location where suits are brought while jurisdiction is conferred by law despite the variance in the warnings of the reliefs both complaints actually sought for reconveyance in such case the property situated in a certain location may be part of the suit involving properties located in another case otherwise it would result in the splitting of the cause of action and Forum Shopping as it did in this case the fact that rosello may have committed foreign shopping should not have escaped petitioner's attention in order for them to take appropriate action however petitioners opted to actively participate in the proceedings before the RTC of burawen instead of raising the issue of forum shopping in their answer or in a motion to dismiss this issue was only raised on appeal pursuant to section 1 rule nine of the rules of Court defenses and objections are deemed waived when they are not pleaded in the answer or in a motion to dismiss even more reason dictates that dismissing this case on the basis of forum shopping would only leave contrasting decisions of the RTC of Tacloban and the artists of barawan which had already attained finality hence it is high time to resolve the controversy okay now on another Point petitioners content that the Appellate Court exercise unwanted liberality in the application of the rules of procedure now when it admitted the belated filing of the balance brief what was the Rooney of the Supreme Court on this matter remember that motion for extension of time are not motions for extension of time to file a pleading are not to be granted as a matter of right but left to the sound of discussion of their Court there must be a good reason and the court is well aware that the credit Court issued a resolution which extensively discuss its reasons for granting and admitting the belatedly filed appellants brief okay so so the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the essay on this regard okay next is the case of a Jonas versus Corpus Jonas was appointed Municipal treasurer of uh the municipality of baknotan alleging that she was not paid rata or representation and time allowance the case was dismissed for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies the decision was affirmed by the Sea and the same became final and executorial then later on Johannes sought the opinion of the Department of budget and management on her entitlementurata she was advised at her rata entitled would only cover the fiscal year 1999 unsatisfied Jonas father petition for sociality before the CE she sought to compel bonkadin and mayor fontanilla to pay her rata the ca ordered respondents to pay rata that despite the decision say decision becoming final and executory Leona's rata remained unpaid filed a petition for mandamus against the lgu the case ended in a compromise agreement where it was agreed among others that the rata amounting to over a million shall be paid in installments okay and then upon full payment of the rattalion move for the dismissal of the case so that this so the municipality was able to pay the rata as scheduled in June 2012 Leones learned that she was dropped from the role payroll and asserted that it was tantamount to Illegal dismissal so the officer the mayor emphasize the provisions of the compromise agreement meanwhile the municipality through its mayor moved for the issuance of a bit of execution of the compromise agreement the RTC issued the Writ and the sheriff proceeded to enforce the compromise agreement but lioness refused to comply be honest opposed the execution of the compromise agreement and claimed that the compromise was null in void okay further Learners stated that the compromise judgment compelled her to voluntarily retire from its from employment mayor fontanilla opposed a motion and moved that lioness be cited for contempt of court for her stubborn refusal to comply and abide by the terms of the compromise agreement where leonis knowingly affects her conformity so the ITC upheld the compromise agreement and declared the decision on gr 16726 did not constitute the rest judicata in the mandamus case filed by Leones against the mayor okay so Leones sought direct records to the Supreme Court Johannes claims before The Supreme Court that the trials assailed order in SCA number 007-11 is barred by the Court's prior judgment in gr numbers 169726 and the court disagrees barred by prior judgment is one of the two facets of rest judicata remember there are two concepts okay of rest judicata one is bar by prior judgment the other one is conclusiveness of judgment okay now this is embodied in section 47b rule 39 of the rules of court the fact of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines having jurisdiction to pronounce the Judgment or final order may be as follows okay letter B in other cases the Judgment or final order with respect to the matter directly a judge or us to any other matter that could have been a judge in relation then to conclusively between the parties and their successor in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity to Bar a subsequent action the following elements must be present number one the Judgment sought to Bar the new action must be final number two the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties three the disposition of the case must be judgment on the merits and number four there must be a us between the first and second action identity of parties subject matter and causes of action now with respect to the three requisites they are established through the finality of the Court's decision that this post gr number 169726 on the merits in 2010. the fourth however is lacking according to the Supreme Court contrary to the conclusions of the trial court the parties in gr number 169726 and SCA numbers 007-11 are identical while the respondents in both cases fontanelia and fontanilla are not the same persons both are ever were sued in their official capacity as mayor of municipality of baknottan both suits sprouted from one in the same event the non-payment of the rata pertaining to leonis's employment in the municipality of baknogan but the similarities of these two cases end there gr number 169726 determine the factual and legal basis of lioness entitlement of ferrata whereas SCA number007-11 is concerned with a manner of execution of the actual payment of the rata judicially awarded to be honest with the smart differences in subject matters the bone of contention in sca-007-11 cannot be deemed to have finally resolved by final disposition the Court's decision in gr number 169726 to consider SCA number 00117-11 as Barbed by prior judgment will run counter to the very meaning of rest judicata what is the meaning of Resident a matter a judge a thing judicially acted upon or decided a thing or matter settled by judgment the factual and legal basis of Luna's entitlement the manner of executing the actual payment of tarata clearly the two subject matters are different from one another since all the requisites of rest judicata are not obtaining in the case the same will not deter the proceedings and resolution of SCA number 00-11 incidentally estoppel has no ex um vacation here be honest assert that she is not a stop to raise jurisdictional issues by the bare fact that she instituted the mandamus case that culminated in the compromise agreement this assertion is legally sound but factually and practically grounded there's no more issue on jurisdiction as it had been established that the prop that the art is it properly assumed an exercise jurisdiction over the case okay I have already discussed a case of Santos no um bottom shopping okay let me cut now discuss filing and servings of readings okay okay um okay just give me a minute please can you still see my presentation can you still stay my presentation yes we divert a bit let me divert a bit please okay sorry I just have to discuss a specific tool okay give me a minute okay got my notes all right if you will notice under rule 13 okay before I continue further no let me bring your attention to rule 13 of the 2019 uh I mean 2019 amendments to the rule of civil procedure particularly I would like to call your attention to section just give me a minute please section presumptive service section 10 presumptive service section 10 okay now in section 10 okay there should be presumptive notice to a party of a court setting if such notice appears on the records to have been mailed at least 20 calendar days prior to the scheduled date of hearing and if the addressee is from within the same judicial region of the Court where the case is spending or at least 30 calendar days if the addressee is from outside the judicial region so this role of presumptive service okay I want to discuss with you presentive service if the addressee is from the same judicial region of the Court where the case is spending there is presumptive notice of a court setting if it appears on the records to have been mailed at least 20 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing example okay court order setting the case for healing let's say June uh I received it June 20. and the hearing was set let's say per order of the court June 30. June 30 and I'm supposed to present my evidence court June 30. records of the case there's nothing on the records that will show that it was that the order setting the case for hearing let's say on June 25 was received okay by the opposing party I noticed however okay that the order setting the case for hitting June 25 was mailed more than 20 calendar days prior to the scheduled date of healing foreign foreign what will I do will the court now cancel the hearing just because other party wasn't there well all I what I can do is this I can invoke now the rule on presumptive service I will say before the court that considering that based on the Court's record it appears that the order is setting the case for hearing today was mailed more than 10 days more than I'm sorry 20 days calendar days prior to the schedule did it and considering that both this representation me and the opposing Council have their offices within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Court RTC Makati then I will invoke presumptive service and say that yeah we can now presume that the other party okay was duly notified of today's hitting and be in view of their absence of the absence of opposing party May I now be allowed okay to present my evidence on the basis of the presumptive service mentioned in section 10 of rule 13 and the court will allow now so if if on the other hand I am from Makati college is outside the judicial region of the Court where the case in pending and in my example it is RTC Makati then before you can invoke presumptive service you have to show that the said order was mailed at least 30 calendar days prior to the schedule getting a June 25 no so clearly under Section 10 okay section 10 of rule 13 okay section 10 of rule 13. it is the court that is the one that is sending the notice to the parties okay so that's the first no okay now also I I just to stress now if it's a if it's service okay filing is filing in court services service to the other party filing in court you have to get the approval of the court and even filing and service but electronic it has to be approved by the court and with the consent of the other party okay now let's now go back to the cases okay case of Henson versus Commission on audit okay under the administration of IA or intramural Administration it tells the public bidding of the for the construction of three houses other bids however exceeded the approved estimate AAE of the project but because of time constraints and to avoid the possible reversion of the funds bidding an awards Committee of IE opted not to conduct a second meeting and instead negotiated with the lower lowest Bidar are news to reduce its bid to to the project fund Arcus agreed on the condition that IA would Supply construction materials so Argus completed the project and was paid a total of 18 million the incoming administrator I of I attorney but young requested the KOA to conduct a post-inspection of the project and a re-examination of related documents in view of the inherent and hidden defects in the construction of the project notice of allowance was issued disallowing the amount of 2 million plus so Henson was held liable for approving the payment okay the ND the notice of this allowance was upheld by the national government audit office petitioner Henson appealed arguing among others that the disallowance that was not supported by evidence and was denied due process as the audit team failed to disclose its findings within a reasonable time okay now The coeacp partially granted appeal as it found out that petitioner and Alcantara were not afford the due process while the source of reference values or base prices were disclosed to petitioner and Alcantara the auditive failed to furnish them with authenticated copies of the source documents for them to compare the price quotations and to refute the allowances the auditor failed to conduct actual canvas of the prices but relied on data supported by the price evaluation division the COA CP also found that the provisions of the law on bidding were not complied with thus aside from petitioner in Alcantara it also held like it also held live world for the disallowance a corresponding notice of settlement of suspension and disallowance charge for the reconsidered disallowance and the national and the national ending in the amount of 1 million plus okay several persons were held liable so and so on sought a reconsideration but it was denied so hence the application so the issue in this case is whether the counting of the period should commence on March the 13 2017 in the absence of proof that service was made January 17 and 26 2017. in this case the petitioner contents the counting of the period should commence on March 13 2017 in the absence of proof that service was made on January 17 and 26. petitioner however fails to realize that the burden of proving the timeliness of the petition lies with her not with the respondent boa it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove first that service was made on her council's council's former address was ineffectual because her Council was able to promptly inform KOA CP of a change of address and second that her Council received a December 26 27 2016 resolution only on March 13 2017. this she failed to do so okay it Bears stressing that in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address the service of the order or resolution of a court upon the parties must be made at the last address of their Council of record hence in case there is a change of address it is the duty of the lawyer to promptly inform the court and the parties of such change to ensure that all official and judicial Communications sent by mail will reach them okay now let me discuss with you now rule 14 but before I discuss the decision allow me to discuss certain provisions of rule 14 because 14. okay now okay please take note of section three someones may be served by the sheriff the deputy of the sheriff other proper court officer the plaintiff provided that there must be failure of service of sermons by the sheriff or his deputy plaintiff must be authorized by the court and his authority to serve summons must be stated in the summons itself now if the sermons is to be served in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court good morning national capital judicial region where the case is pending the plaintiff must comply with the requirements and what are the requirements there must be failure of service of summons by the sheriff of his Deputy plaintiff must be authorized by the court and third his authority to serve summons must be stated in the summons itself you have to show compliance if plaintiff is a juretic on the other hand in cases where sermons is to be served outside the territorial jurisdiction RTC okay of Manila national capital judicial leader okay the First Judicial region Ilocos Notte then the court were the where the case is spending the plaintiff needs only to be authorized to cost the service of summons prior attempt by the sheriff himself plaintive provided of course the court authorized him to serve so much now number two if the plaintiff is a juridical entity it shall notify the court in writing and name its authorized representative and you have to attach a board resolution stating that such representative is duly authorized okay if the plaintiff misrepresents that the defendant was served with summons the case shall be dismissed with prejudice you cannot prepare the proceedings nullified and the plaintiff shall be meted with appropriate sanctions now if someone's is returned without being served on any or all of the defendants the court shall order the plaintiffs to cause the service of summons by other means available under the rules and failure to comply with the order shall cause the dismissal of the initiatory bleeding without prejudice which means you can refile okay now another provision that I would like to discuss with you okay before we proceed with the cases is this section 6 substituted service of summons when is substituted service of summons allowed and how is it done if for justifiable risk causes the defendant cannot be served personally after at least three attempts on two different dates service may be affected by number one leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a person at least 18 years of age and of sufficient discretion residing the ring number two by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's office or regular pace of business with some competent person in charge thereof and a competent person includes but is not limited to one who customarily receives correspondences for the defendant three by leaving copies of the summons if refuse entry upon making his or her Authority and purpose known with any of the officers or of the homeowners association or condominium Corporation or the building where the defendant may be found in by sending an electronic mail to the defendant's electronic mail address if Allowed by the court so very clear when resorting to substituted service the following statutory requirements must be strictly faithfully and fully observed okay in other words return it must indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant and state that the summons were served upon a person of sufficient age and discussion who is residing in the address or a person in charge of the office or regular place of Misses of the defendant it is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving the circumstances must be stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return so failure to comply with this rule renders absolutely void the substituted service along with the proceedings taken thereafter for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant okay okay the place where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made even though he may be temporarily out of the country at that time number two person of sufficient discretion discretion is defined as the ability to make decisions which represent a person a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful right or wise may be pursued so to be of sufficient discretion the person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the impart of the summons and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time so that the person may be able to take appropriate action thus the person must have a relation of confidence to the defendant ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons and that is the statement of the Supreme Court in the case of Prudential Bank versus magdamin to be competent okay person to be a competent person the person to receive the song means that he should be duly qualified and having sufficient capacity ability or authority and the rule pressure poses that again a relation of confidence must exist between the person with whom the cut of the process is left and the defendant and therefore assumes that such person will deliver the process to the defendant or in some way give him notice thereof and a competent person includes but is not limited to one who customarily receives correspondence for the defendant for the defendant and that is for the example the secretary a stated under Section 6 of rule 14 of the 2019 rules now to be in charge okay means have to take care and custody or under control or entrusted to the management or direction of so it must be a managing so the person must be one managing the office or the business of the defender such as the president and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand the obligation of the defendant in the summons its importance in the prejudicial effects arising from inaction okay now parenting example 2019 rules okay the the special appearance special appearance okay now the court uh did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant who is your client and so when you when the court set the case for let's say there's the case yet let's say something required you to be present in court and then the court said okay so you're the president and then you send you're entering your appearance by way of special appearance because you do not want precisely to be uh to be considered as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court given the improper service of summons that part will just do what section 13 provides where the sermons is improperly served by a by serve and then the lawyer makes a special appearance on behalf of the defendant to among others question the validity of service of summons the council can now be deputized by the court to serve summons to his or her crime and the lawyer cannot say no to it okay okay okay now let me now continue with the cases and the rule 14. so how do I do this again there okay now roll 40. in the case of Yale versus spouses Chua here the Supreme Court thoroughly discussed that the deputy sheriff laboro did not exert serious efforts to personally serve the summons to the gods before resorting to substituted service neither did he prove that he tried to personally serve the summons to them on at least three separate instances nor did he offer any justification why personal service was ineffectual moreover it must be stressed that sheriff Nur did not even validate the Patricia alempai is a person of suitable age with full legal capacity and is considered to have enough discernment to comprehend the import of the summons and fully realize the need to deliver the same to the gods as the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action clearly the substitute and service of summons on the person of the ghost is in proper hands the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their person Now The spouse's Chua also argued that the rule on substitution service should not be strictly applied as the gods were guilty of evident avoidance well Southern Supreme Court wrong contrary to the findings of the ca alabai's receipt of The spouse's Jewish motion for Deacon that was filed on November 23 1990 does not conclude that the ghost flagrantly refused or avoided to receive the service of sermons at most it only showed that alampai received a copy of the motion of the Jews this alone does not validate the presence of the requisites prescribed by law so as to effect a valid substituted service so the impossibility of a personal service of summons is clearly wanting in this case to Warrant substituted service Shipping Company father complaint for illegal dismissal okay and claimed regularization underpayment of wages Etc okay again Shogun shipping company and other private respondents okay now on the procedural matter the petitioners impute fault on the ca for serving to attorney Venezuela petitioners former Council of the decision and not to the petitioner's Council of record the law firm of villa dress and Associate despite the receipt of the notice of change in the composition of the law office so on this point the Supreme Court found that the ca committed no error when it served to attorney Venezuela it's May 11 2012 decision since it was only on July 17 2012 that the ca received attorney valenzuela's vansuela's motion to withdraw as counsel for petitioner okay now Hands-On okay you can skip Hands-On now okay rule on somebody judgment okay let me pause a bit again and uh let me discuss rules on summary judgment Okay one minute please thank you okay okay just a minute okay okay rule 35. I by the way since rule 33 Okay the murderer allow me to discuss just one point huh just one point on the mirror which is very important simply because it's new okay now okay admired to evidence shall be subject of course to the provisions of uh rule 15 which means it is a litigated motion okay okay if emotion is a litigated motion okay you don't set the case for healing you don't okay notice of healing now the court may or may not okay set the case for hearing it is the court that will set the case for hitting okay now however even if it will not be set for healing because this is a litigated motion because this is a litigated motion you were given by the rules a period of five days from receipt thereof to file your opposition comment to the said litigated motion five days Hindi indispensable and actual Hearing in court rules to reduce in writing your opposition comment after the lapse of that period the court may decide on the resolution on the motion or set the case for hearing and the mo and the hearing the decision to set the case for hitting depends upon the discretion of the court in fact it may set it even before the lapse of the five-year period five day period within which to submit an opposition if the demand to evidence okay is denied what will be its effect the defendant shall have the right to present the evidence and Order denying at the murder to evidence is not appealable because it is interlocutory it is interlocutory now in fact a denial the order denying that the murderer and this is new the order denying the demerit to evidence shall not be subject of appeal or petition for social prohibition or mandamus before judgmentimo you present your evidence already if you're the defendant's council present evidence you may include as one of the as one of your assigned errors the erroneous denial of your most of your the murder to evidence if that's what you like okay now what is the effect of a grant granted and the matter to evidence more the case shall be dismissed and that's dismissal on the marriage now on appeal okay so the remedy is you file a notice of appeal okay one of the remedies unappealed the Appellate Court reversing the order granting that the mother should not Remain the case to the trial court instead it should render judgment based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and that's the case of renewal Finance versus Del Rosario okay now okay so if the demander is granted but on appeal the order of this missile is reversed technically the defendant is deemed to have waived this right to present evidence okay now let me now go on judgment okay judgment on the pleadings okay and then I'll go summary judgment for us to best appreciate what is summary judgment let's discuss it together with judgment on the feelings okay judgment on the pleadings okay will be rule 34. judgment on the pleadings it is a judgment rendered by the court if the answer fails to Tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegation of the adverse parties pleading or there are just too many negative pregnancy so the judgment is based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the annexes they do if without any consideration of any evidence so technically speaking judgment on the pleadings attachments issue there is a total absence of a tribal issue okay so the answer fails to Tender an issue because number one there's a general denial of all the material allegations of the complaint and in one case I decided by the Supreme Court Way Back if it is within the pleader's knowledge and your denial is just general denial example allegations by saying defendant defendant um denies all the allegations of the complaint for lack of information sufficient to foreign belief as to the truth and falsity thereof and then promise so in one case you're really trying to avoid you know you're telling a lie because if it's within in your knowledge you can just say you know make a specific denial and state the reason why or there can be a general denial when the answer admits the material allegations of the particle the particle there's uh uh allegations okay so it can either be admission or a result of negative pregnancy okay now however there are three actions under the rules of Court where judgment on the pleadings is not allowed and this will be actions for Declaration of knowledge of marriage annulment of marriage or legal separation and unliquidated damages now when it appears that not all of the material allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer because some of them were denied or disputed and the defendant has set up special defenses and if proven would have the effect of nullifying creative's main cause of action judgment on the pleadings is not proper okay now to repeat what I discussed earlier I think I discussed earlier young judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment is a matter that can be discussed okay and implemented during the pre-trial proceedings if you look at section 10 of rule 18 trial proceedings should there be no country more controverted facts or no more genuine issue as to any material fact or in the absence of any issue or should the answer fail to Tender an issue the court shall without prejudice to a moving party for judgment on the pleadings and the rule 34 or summary judgment under rule 35 can on its own mutopropion include in the pre-trial order that the case be submitted to summary judgment or judgment on the paintings without need of position papers or memoranda in such cases judgment should be rendered within 90 calendar days from the termination of the pre-trial okay or summary judgment it would include that in the pre-trial order now the inclusion of that in the pre-trial order cannot be subject okay to appeal or surgery but remember this is not a question of lack of jurisdiction this is not jurisdictional at all expressly provided so even if the parties are in the pre-trial stage the court on the base is thereof based on article rule 18 can on its own and motion of the party render judgment on the pedis okay or summary judgment now if that is what the judge wants the remedy will be wait for the decision and if it's adverse to you file your notice of appeal or Avail of the all the post-judgment remedies if you like but if you appeal you can now assign as one of the errors committed by law the fact that that the case was submitted on the basis of Judgment of the pleadings or summary judgment okay now because judgment okay okay summary judgment IBA Naman complain okay complain answer that was a defendant summary judgment like include them affidavits position in support for a motion for summary judgment documentary and on the basis of this additional documentary evidence okay okay the court now says okay there is need no need for us to go to trial we can now do a decision based on somebody judgments okay that's one number two okay and this is the basic difference between judgment on the pre-dece and summary judgment your answer you read them together somebody issue there is an ostensible issue however when the party already submitted depositions affidavits that ostensible issue was what unmasked to its vehicle the issue is fictitious clear indicator that's a judgment on the police issue okay now so in summary judgment remember that parties to an action have the right to a plenary trial of the case to ensure that they were given a right to fully present evidence on their respective claims there are instances however where trial may be dispensed with okay under rule 35 which is summary judgment trial court May dispense with the trial and proceed to decide the case if from the pleadings affidavits depositions and other papers on file there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in such case the Judgment issued is called summary judgment okay so let's just compare before I proceed discussing the case now let us this let us compare judgment on the pleadings versus summary judgment okay judgment on the pleadings judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer filed fails to Tender any issue or otherwise admits the material allegations in the complaint issue summary judgment on the other hand in summary judgment the answer filed tenders issues as specific denials and affirmative defenses were pleaded but the issues raised are sham fictitious or otherwise generally fictitious or otherwise not genuine issue they say the party moving for judgment on the pleading submitted affidavits depositions and admissions okay which will show that the the issues that were generated by your basic readings actually are non-existent okay now so that's it now so okay now let me now discuss uh the case hmm okay okay algems credit investors Corp versus spouses Batista [Music] petitioner alleged that the parts of the land owned by spouses Batista was mortgaged to it as a security for a loan the bautistas failed to pay the loan thus petitioners foreclosed the mortgage okay as the spot is as The spouse's Baptista did not redeem the property within the regulatory period title to the property was Consolidated in petitioner's name when the petitioner was about to take possession of the property Catalina Bautista the wife offered to repurchase a property petitioner accepted the offer but the spouses however failed to comply with the contract to sell resulting to its cancellation the parties entered into another contract to sell Again The spouse's multisa failed to comply even with the new contract to sell so petitioners sent demand letters of the petitioner rather sent demand letters to Catalina to vacate the property the last demand letter to vacate was sent January 18 2016 all demands were to no avail resulting to the petitioners filing the complaint okay The spouse's Bautista alleged that the mortgage contract is void as it did not bear the Conformity of her husband they also contended that contractor cell contains a provision on pactum commission which is illegal and that the contract should be considered as an equitable mortgage they likewise contested the high interest imposed petitioner filed its reply subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that there is no genuine issue of fact because the spouse is admitted that the TCT of the property is now in the petitioner same there was no specific denials of the material allegations of the complaint the defense of the Bautista are legal issues not factual issues and there is no genuine issue of fact opposed the motion contending that a full-blown trial is necessary to determine the following whether there is an equitable mortgage the propriety of the imposition of the interest rates and the presence of pactum commission or whether for furious signature was watched the RTC denied petitioners motioned for somebody judgment it held that there are genuine issues of facts that should be threshed out in a on a full-blown trial such as whether the contract to sell is an equitable mortgage and the contract to sell is in the nature of a part-time commission or that the imposition of interest rate is proper and that the signature of Porfirio was forged aggrieved the petitioner filed the petition for sociality and prohibition before the ca so the issue is whether the artist's denial for motion for summary judgment was proper okay okay um the court the Supreme Court emphasized that the ca did not rule the natural that the mortgage is devoided it merely stated that the legal basis that the contract is void without the consent of the other party the applicant Court found it necessary to discuss a concept in determining the propriety of the denial of the motion for somebody judgment okay continent interpretation statements in expectation the ca did not touch upon the issues of action publishana decision and contract to self and Equitable marriage this does not mean however that the applicant Court held that the instant case does or does not delve into those matters the ca Deen did not necessarily to discuss in determining the propriety of the denial because again the issue in the solutionary and the incident appeal pertains to the propriety of the denial of the motion for summary judgment even if petitioner did not express the race in its petition the issue of the propriety of the denial of the motion the part sees that this is subsumed in the errors assigned in the petition of now the current rules okay allow the parties to move for a motion for a summary judgment pursue 1 through 35. summary judgment according to the Supreme Court is a procedural device that allows parties to avoid litigation and delays where the pleading showed that there are no genuine issues of act to be tried and what do you mean by genuine issues a genuine issues of fact is such issue of fact which requires the presentation evidence as distinguished from Assam fictitious contrived or false claim as such an issue of fact is genuine if it requires presentation of evidence to be resolved now let me now discuss with you rule 38 which is relief from judgments orders or other proceedings now okay in the case of Commissioner of internal revenue versus Standard Insurance respondent received a final decision on disputed assessment declaring its liability in 2014 The Standard Insurance commenced a civil case in the RTC with the prayer of a temporary restraining order in a writ of preliminary injection for the judicial determination of the constitutionality of sections 108 and 104 184 of the national Internal Revenue code with respect to taxes against the non-life insurance company in its petition the respondent okay contended that the facts of the case must be appreciated in light of Ra 1001 entitled an act reducing taxes on life insurance policies the RTC issued an or a tro in joining the bir from implementing the provisions of the nirc then the IPC rendered its decision holding that the exercises trying to contest was not considered a breach of the provision itself as to deter the action for declinatory Relief and a degree thirsty the ca on the other hand dismissed for the failure of the petitioner to comply with the ca resolution to submit copies of pertinent feelings so the petitioner filed the petition for review on sushirani before The Supreme Court praying for the reversal and setting aside of the RTC decision on the following grounds earned in taking cognizance of the case because a petition for declaratory relief is not applicable to contest tax assessments and the petition is fatally defected for failing to satisfy the basic requirements under route 63. the ITC earned in granting the relief provided in the RTC decision since the resultant remedy Falls outside the purview of an action of declaratory relief okay the Supreme Court in this case granted the petition for social the artistic grossly heard and acted without jurisdiction in giving due course to the petition for the territory relief respondent argues that the court heard in not dismissing the petition outright on the ground that the petitioner committed deliberate and willful Forum Shopping and that the issues raised in the petition are factual in nature and are barred on the rule 45. moreover the respondent alleges that the RTC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the respondent's action for declaratory relief and that the latter has okay fully satisfied the essential requirements of a petition for declaratory relief hence the motion for reconsideration so the issue in this case is whether even assuming agenda that the RTC had jurisdiction over the petition the RTC should have dismissed petitions respondent petitioners repetition for respondents petitioner for declaration for failure to comply with the requisites of said action now according to the Supreme Court a petition for declaratory relief is an action instituted by a person interested in a deed will contract or other written instrument executive order or resolution to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument executive order or regulation or statute and for the Declaration of his rights and duties they're under the said action therefore must comply with the following requisites number one the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed will contract or other written instrument statute executive order or regulation or ordinance to the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are of doubtful and would are doubtful rather and require judicial construction three there must have been no breach of the documents in question there must be an actual justiceable controversy or the ripening of seeds of one of one between persons whose interests are adverse the issue must be right for judicial determination and adequate relief is not available through other means or forms of action or proceeding after a review of the case the Supreme Court said there is no reason to disturb the finding that the RTC should have this misrespondence petition for relief for failure to comply with certain requirements okay with respect to the third requirement and what is the third requirement there must have been no breach of the documents in question okay according to the Supreme Court in one case Okay ruled that the trial court should have dismissed okay the case for lack of jurisdiction in view of city of Lapu-Lapu and province of matan's demand for payment of real property prior to the filing of the petition for declaratory leave the Supreme Court explained in that rule that was applied in this case we ruled that the PESA earned in availing itself of a petition for declaratory relief against the city the city had already issued demand letters and real property tax assessment against PESA in violation of the pesos alleged tax exempt status under its Charter the special economic zone of 1995 the subject matter of pesos petition for declaratory relief had already been breached the trial court therefore had no jurisdiction over the petition for declaratory relief in this case it is Undisputed that responded that already received tax assessments formed the bir for the deficiency of Doc stamps for years 2011 2012 and 2013 and efficiency vat for the year 2012 which were imposed pursuant to sections 184 and 108. when it filed its petition for declaratory relief assailing the constitutionality of the Zen Provisions in view thereof the IPC should have already dismissed respondents petition for declaratory delivery for lack of jurisdiction now annent the fourth and fifth requisites a justiceable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate and right for judicial determination not one that is conjectural or mere anticipatory question is ripe for adjudication when the ACT being challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it in the instant case respondents petition for declaratory relief does not present a just visible contribution right for judicial determination respondents petition failed to demonstrate the parties that respect its legal rights are subject of an imminent or threatened violation that should be prevented by the declaratory relief thought the apprehension that its business may be rendered technically insolvent in view of the continued enforcement of the taxes okay appeared to be conjectural and anticipatory moreover the dsts had moreover respondents remedy upon receipt of the sdsl of the fdaa for the DST deficiency for taxable 2011 was to file an appeal due to in due course with the CPA instead of resorting to a petition for declaratory relief okay now now let's proceed to rule 39. okay okay it's just a just three minutes this time at three minutes three minutes only three minutes let's take a break of three minutes only okay [Music] foreign [Music] [Music] thank you [Music] [Music] foreign foreign [Music] foreign [Applause] we would just like to announce that we are open for questions to be asked later towards after the lecture so please send in your questions whether via Facebook or via YouTube the comment section or via private chat so we can accommodate the questions later let us now proceed with our lecture Dean we'll discuss one case under rule 39. because of lack of material time I will discuss one things in rule 39 and then go back to rule 8 because of the many amendments introduced in rule 8. that will give me about 15 minutes no and then from 11 45 okay 11 45 to 12 o'clock then I can I can what you may call these entertain questions no to the best of my abilities okay questions anyway so let's continue with rule 39 okay based on my experience I notice there's always a question on rule 39 so please Focus also your studies on Rule 13 and also on jurisdiction okay so let me now discuss rule 39. now I there the complaint for damage is the RTC of passive found the respondent liable for cost of demolition of its concrete retaining wall which encroach on the petitioner's property line and the petitioner is Linden Suites in the case between Linden Suites versus Meridian Far East properties so unappeal the ca affirmed the artist's decision okay the Essie affirmed the decision of the ca thus an entry of judgment was subsequently issued considering that the artistic decision had already attained finality a writ of execution was issued service of the rate of execution to the office address of the respondent failed due to the information that it was Meridian Development Group Inc not the respondent which owned the office so a GIS was shown as proof that the occupant of the Senate address was indeed mdgi the petitioner observed that the 2006 GIS of the respondent in the 2009 GIS of mdgi stated the same officers thus the petitioner filed an urgent motion to examine the Judgment obligor praying that the respondents officers be directed to appear for an examination of the income and properties owned by the respondent for the satisfaction of the RTC decision the response the court rather the RTC denied the motion and ruled that the respondents officers cannot be subjected to an examination as they do not reside in its territorial jurisdiction further to call upon the officers to ascertain the properties and income of the respondent for purposes of satisfying the execution of a final judgment would be violative of the doctrine of separate juridical entities the ca dismissed the petition for sociality it held that under section 36 rule 39 of the rules of Court a judgment obligor cannot be compelled to appear before a court or commissioner outside the province or city in which he or she resides or is found since the respondent's principal address is in Makati City it is clearly not within the trial Court's territorial jurisdiction hence the RTC of pasig City cannot compel its officers to appear before the Central Court for an examination or before an appointed commissioner hence the petitioner filed the petition for review on SRI before the SC petitioner argued that the ca are in interpreting the prohibition under section 36 which grant us to any Court except the court which rendered the judgment so whether the ITC earned okay as the Judgment court has supervisory control over the execution of the Judgment whether the judgment obligee is entitled as a matter of right to an order of the Court which rendered judgment if the writ of execution issued against a judgment obligor was returned return returned unsatisfied in whole ordering part the issue in this case particularly focuses on um on um and an execution remedy which is if the the what you call this the writ of execution is returned unsatisfied okay the Judgment obligee okay can ask the court to allow it to examine the Judgment debtor okay okay now according to the Supreme Court it is settled at the court which rendered the Judgment as supervisory control over the execution of its judgment it does not give however the court the power to alter or amend the final and executory decision in the absence of the recognized exceptions namely if there is a need to correct clerical errors which cause no Prejudice to any party void judgments and if circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution and just an inequitable the co the court expounded on the supervisory control of the Judgment of the court in one case where the court said a case in which an execution has been issued and is regarded and still pending so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit there is no question that the court which granted the Judgment has General supervisory control over its process of execution and this power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution now reiterating the rule in the case of Javier versus court of appeals that said branch has a general supervisory control over its process in the execution of its judgment with a right to determine every question of fat and law which may be involved in the execution the court supervisory control does not however extend as to authorize the alteration or amendment of a final and executory decision save for certain recognized exemption tells the the court will violate the principle of finality of judgment and its immutability okay now the Judgment the Judgment Court's supervisory control over the case ensures the enforcement of a party's rights or the claims that it has duly recognized indeed Accords Monday to resolve disputes ends upon its adjudication of the litigation it is only when the party that has secured favorable judgment finally relishes the fruits of its legal Calvary the Justice may be said to have been served now consequently rule 39 of the rules of Court lays down available remedies and guidelines for the satisfaction of a judgment including enforcement of a writ of execution which the winning party May Avail of before the Judgment Court among them the remedies available to such party to fully enforce the writ of execution is the examination of a judgment obligor okay now is is the plaintiff in this case entitled no the answer is yes Section 5 of rule 135 of the rules of Court provides that every court has the inherent power to amend control its process and orders so to make them conformable to law Injustice the court in carrying out its jurisdiction can thus issue auxiliary rates processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect and to adopt any suitable process or mode of proceeding which appears conformable to the spirit of the said law or Roots okay now okay so the inherent power of the Court carries with it its right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution and the court may stay or suspend the execution if warranted by the higher interest of Justice it has the authority to cause a modification of the decision when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of Justice or when to preventing events one and eight the court is also vested with inherent power to stay the enforcement of its decision based on antecedented facts which show fraud in its rendition or one of jurisdiction now in the case at bench the rate of execution was returned and unserved as shown in the sheriff's return date in June 18 2010. it was therefore imperative for the Judgment or to issue an order for examination of the respondent after the writ of execution was returned and unsatisfied such order would have ensured the satisfaction of its judgment or the more so if it has already attained finality in other words the RTC pursuant to its residual Authority should have issued auxiliary rich and employed processes and other means necessary to execute its decision moreover the RTC disregarded the general prayer for other reliefs just and Equitable by the petitioner in its motion the general prayer appearing on the motion enables the court to award relief supported by the same or other pleadings by the facts submitted at the trial and by the evidence addressed by the parties even if these reliefs are not specifically prayed for in the same so the trial court should have proceeded to conduct a permissible examination of the respondent through its officers so as to disclose the properties which can be subject to execution the trial court in denying petitioner's motion exclusively confined itself with the one and only limitation stated in the provision thereby ultimately defend defeating the purpose of the rule that is to assert in the properties or earnings of the Judgment obligor that are to be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment the RTC should have employed other allowable means such as but not limited to the submission of documents consisting of a list of properties and income of respondent and the affidavits of concerned officers in relation there too worse the artist is denial to examine respondent curtailed the execution of its very own final judgment respondents liability against a petitioner having been duly recognized by the park okay so as I mentioned earlier okay as I mentioned earlier all this this um cases which I prepared okay in relation to Castle discourso will all be posted okay and you and it will be made available to you now let me just go back to rule 8 because I would like to discuss with you certain or to highlight rather certain important points in particular I would like to discuss rule 8 section 8 I no roll eight section 12 rather okay rule 8 section 12. we just uh just a minute please sir just a minute okay okay affirmative defenses okay this will be my last topic for today and then it after my discussion I will I will try to answer okay I will try to answer the questions you will raise section 12 affirmative defenses okay the following are the procedural consequences of the repeal of the entire rule 16. remember rule 16 was revealed in its entirety defendant and what are the consequences of the repeal number one defendant must file an answer and raise us affirmative defenses the grounds mentioned in rule 16 the former rule 16. and these grounds okay are those stated in rule six section 5B as amended which are fraud statute of limitations release payment illegality statute of frauds estoppel former recovery okay discharge in bankruptcy and in any other matter by way of confession number two okay affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of the complaint which can be found in rule 9 Section 1 and in rule 15 okay it's my motion to dismiss section 12. affirmative defense at the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter there is no other pending action between the same parties the action is barred by prior judgment and prescription of claims okay now there is another ground which can be found in another rule which is rule 8 section 12. the cortisone jurisdiction over the person of the defending party when you improper relate plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue depleting asserting the claim States no cause of action and a conditioned precedent for the filing of the claim has not been complied with now under rule 15 section 12 okay remember that the filing of the motion to dismiss may only be filed on the following grounds the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint it is and prescription now affirmative defense which is part of your answer okay now the Court's action will depend on the affirmative defense you will raise as a Defender if the affirmative defense was is any of the grounds mentioned under rule 8 section 12. example lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party the court shall on its own resolve the affirmative defense raised in the answer within 30 calendar days from the filings the court need that set your affirmative defense for hitting now if the affirmative defense is one of the grounds raised or discussed under rule 6 section 5B 1. very example okay payment no the court May conduct a summary hearing within 15 calendar days from the filing of the answer and the court shall resolve the affirmative defense raising the answer within 30 calendar days from the termination of the summary hitting so unlike affirmative defenses found in rule 8 section 12 of the amended rules those mentioned in rule six section 5b-1 okay requires which would require presentation of supporting evidence except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter you know it must be noted with that when you talk about lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint so you need not introduce evidence anymore if you just have to baste it you have to basic plan on the allegations of the complaint okay now since a motion to hear affirmative defense is a prohibited pleading under rule 15 section 12 B okay if it's a little if it's a little juice motion okay and the formative defense also if you want to to uh to revert it okay plentify submissions comment or opposition to the affirmative defenses race but the amended rules do not specify with the comment opposition may be filed so can you file it within five days now the court May set somebody Hearing in the in accordance with rule 8 section 12d of the affirmative defense after amended those in the event affirmative defense is denied the order of denial shall not be subject of motion for Recon or a petition for social prohibition or mandapos the proper remedy is you go to trial and in the event of an adverse judgment appeal the same and raise the order of denial as one of the assigned errors affirmative defense mode the Court's order granting affirmative defense race cannot be subject to a motion for Recon since any action of the Court according to rule 15 Section 12C okay any Court action on the affirmative defense cannot be subject to a motion for reconsideration okay now okay Young um affirmative defense appealed by is the proper remedy it really depends it depends upon what is the kind of uh dismissed what is the dismissal if it's a dismissal without prejudice Section 1 rule 41 provides that you cannot appeal it your proper remedy if you can make out the case will be route 65. but if it's a case if it is dismissal with prejudice okay then the proper remedy would be appealed and that will be section one of rule 41. Okay the reason why I had to highlight this you cannot just read and appreciate the rules without you know without um relating it with the other provisions of law so just be very very Discerning when to relate the other provisions of law with the other Provisions stated in the rules of Court okay so we have it is now 12 46 by my watch I think we now can um we can now discuss some of the questions raised if any one do we have questions here we have one that's the filing for this massage the same definition with the motion to wash okay motion to crush is different from emotion to this this was but inherently they are the same so as not to confuse to confuse okay the concept of motion to quash motion to question you associate it with criminal cases motion to dismiss you associate it with civil cases so you follow the rules on criminal rules on criminal procedure when you talk about motion to pass wash motion to dismiss with civil case system okay thank you for that me and do we still have more questions as for the video um and the lecture it will be uploaded later on the Facebook page um yes you will be able to get a copy of the PowerPoint that will be posted on the Facebook page of um the Philippine Association of Los Angeles my questions thank you very much um if we don't have any more questions I think we are done for today okay thank you thank you so much Dean so before I leave may I just say something to our examiners always want to say this attempts and respondent appeared in court should an alias someone be requested by the practitioner or the original summons can be received and returned okay this is I how if the summons was returned and served after three attempts and the defendant appeared in court for example if he appeared by filing a motion for extension of time to file an answer or whatever no so that's why number two when will Ilya someone's be issued Ilyas summons will be issued okay if the sermons has been lost this one cannot be found okay or the original Thomas was really returned to the court but technically the summons will not be issued because it is do we still have more questions if we don't have any more questions left I will give or there's another question mean is it the more to evidence under rule 33 needed these are the more evidence under rule 33 need to be filed with the leave of Court okay the answer is no okay basic difference filed in civil cases and the murder to evidence found in criminal cases so civil cases you don't ask court for leave of court for you to be able to file that the mirror just file the demorer however if it's a demeritive evidence you want to fight in a criminal case you have to first file a motion for leave to file the murder to evidence then you are allowed to present your evidence for the accused now if in the criminal case you did not find a motion for leave to file the murder evidence you immediately filed at the murder evidence and it was denied but I you can no longer file you know you can no longer present evidence because that will be tantamount to a waiver in the presentation of evidence because you filed at the murder evidence without first asking the court for leave of word to file the murder to evidence or there's another question Dean how do we serve in compliance with International agreement okay the international okay I think you're referring to service of someone's not well in the first place okay okay it's either we do it from the point of view let's say of of a a party who filed a case okay in in I filed a case in a foreign court and now someone's has to be served here now someone's can be served there the rule is basically summons can be served on the basis of the rule of procedure in the in the Forum okay now now now with respect to International agreements all you have to do is follow the provisions of the international agreement on the other hand okay well you can follow the rule in uh section 16 if I'm not mistaken or 17 extra territorial service of summons and that's how we follow it okay I think we don't have any more questions left um Dean will I'll give you back the floor for your closing remarks ah okay no I just I always say this because before I when I whenever I end a lecture and because this one really helped helped me a lot so I will share with you what was shared to me by my professor okay Professor balani made yesterday he said the only formula in passing the bar is study as if you've never studied before and pray as if everything depended on God you know prayers sometimes quiets your spirit and when it's quiet you see the light no and so even if you believe our God or not we pause for a moment and ask for guidance okay guidance perseverance and you know and get that and hope for the best and um and your your prayers will all be answered so I hope to see you uh I I think I'm not sure where the oath taking will be but I heard it's going to be in in SMX but I'm not sure okay I hope to see you in uh during your oath taking and after that I'll get to call you now Panero and Panera okay thank you very much and thank you very much for uh our response thank you for our sponsors especially Rex and of course Central bookstore thank you very much thank you so much Ian um again we would like to thank our sponsors um Rex bookstore and Central books we would also like to thank our collaborators and partners Philippine Association of Lost Philippines Association of law students of the Philippines in the Polytechnic University College of Law also we would like to thank of course the Philippine Association of law schools for this wonderful event don't forget that we have upcoming more upcoming schedules for the class of this course so we have property persons and succession on July 21 criminal law on July 26 Land Titles and beats on July 28th commercial law on August 4 taxation on August 7 political law on August 9 labor law on August 11 legal ethics on August 14th once again thank you for attending Casa de Corso [Music] thank you [Music]