Planters Development Bank vs.

Chandumal, 680 SCRA 269(2012)

If a defendant has not been properly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over its
person, and a judgment rendered against it is null and void.

Personal service of summons should and always be the first option, and it is only when the
said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to
substituted service.

The requisites for a valid substituted service of summons, summed up as follows: (1)
impossibility of prompt personal servicethe party relying on substituted service or the sheriff
must show that the defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt
service; (2) specific details in the returnthe sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service; (3) a person of suitable age
and discretionthe sheriff must determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or
residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipients relationship with the defendant is, and
whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to
immediately deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons,
which matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons; and (4) a
competent person in charge, who must have sufficient knowledge to understand the obligation of
the defendant in the summons, its importance, and the prejudicial effects arising from inaction on
the summons.

The filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration
of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration is considered
voluntary submission to the trial courts jurisdiction.

Magdiwang Realty Corporation vs. The Manila Banking Corporation, 680 SCRA
251(2012)
Section 1, Rule 45 then categorically states that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise
only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is
doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the
doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same
must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants
or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given
set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the
question posed is one of fact.

The issue of the alleged novation involves a question of fact, as it necessarily requires a
factual determination on the existence of the following requisites of novation: (1) there must be a
previous valid obligation; (2) the parties concerned must agree to a new contract; (3) the old
contract must be extinguished; and (4) there must be a valid new contract.

Findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to
examine real evidence, as well as observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the
case.

Where defendants before a trial court are declared in default, they thereby lose their right to
object to the reception of the plaintiffs evidence establishing his cause of action.

Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of evidence or
greater weight of the credible evidence.

Government Service Insurance System vs. Cancino-Erum, 680 SCRA 44(2012)
Section 2 of Rule 20, as follows: Section 2. Assignment of Cases.The assignment of cases
to the different branches of a court shall be done exclusively by raffle. The assignment shall be
done in open session of which adequate notice shall be given so as to afford interested parties the
opportunity to be present.

The avowed purpose of instituting raffle as the exclusive method of assigning cases among
several branches of a court in the same station is two-fold: one, to equalize the distribution of the
cases among the several branches, and thereby foster the Courts policy of promoting speedy and
efficient disposition of cases; and, two, to ensure the impartial adjudication of cases and thereby
obviate any suspicion regarding assignment of cases to predetermined judges.

The urgent nature of an injunction or Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) case demands
prompt action and immediate attention, thereby compelling the filing of the case in the proper
court without delay.

Palmiano-Salvador vs. Angeles, 679 SCRA 561(2012)

If a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do
so, the complaint is not deemed filed; hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground
that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff.

Lim vs. Kou Co Ping, 679 SCRA 114(2012)

A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two
separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender(1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil
liability arising from the criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and (2)
independent civil liability, that is, civil liability that may be pursued independently of the
criminal proceedings.

If the action for the civil liability ex delicto is instituted prior to or subsequent to the filing of
the criminal action, its proceedings are suspended until the final outcome of the criminal action.

The independent civil liabilities are separate from the criminal action and may be pursued
independently, as provided in Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Code, which state that: ART. 31.
When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of
as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter. (Emphasis supplied.) ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud,
and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Because of the distinct
and independent nature of the two kinds of civil liabilities, jurisprudence holds that the offended
party may pursue the two types of civil liabilities simultaneously or cumulatively, without
offending the rules on forum shopping, litis pendentia, or res judicata.

Del Monte Fresh Product N.A. vs. Dow Chemical Company, 679 SCRA 152(2012)
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the
counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment. Based on the above-quoted
provision, there are two requisites for a court to allow an omitted counterclaim or cross-claim by
amendment: (1) there was oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires;
and (2) the amendment is made before judgment.

Even with the compromise agreements entered into by the Dow/Occidental, Del Monte and
Chiquita defendants with majority of the plaintiffs below, the civil case was not dismissed nor the
amount of damages sought by plaintiffs therein reduced; the remaining defendants can still
proceed with their cross-claims against the compromising defendants, including the
Dow/Occidental defendants, for their respective shares.

University of the Philippines vs. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54(2012)

It is true that a decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and
cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or
by this Court as the highest court of the land. Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes
final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of
victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of
such judgment sets at naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable
controversies with finality. Indeed, all litigations must at some time end, even at the risk of
occasional errors.

The doctrine of immutability of a final judgment has not been absolute, and has admitted
several exceptions, among them: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) the so-called nunc pro
tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void judgments; and (d) whenever
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision that render its execution unjust and
inequitable. Moreover, the Court is not precluded from brushing aside procedural norms if only
to serve the higher interests of justice and equity. In Gumaru v. Quirino State College, 525
SCRA 412 (2007), the Court nullified the proceedings and the writ of execution issued by the
RTC for the reason that respondent state college had not been represented in the litigation by the
Office of the Solicitor General.

Where a party has appeared by counsel, service must be made upon such counsel.

The retroactive application of the fresh-period rule, a procedural law that aims to regiment
or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for
new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution, is
impervious to any serious challenge. This is because there are no vested rights in rules of
procedure. A law or regulation is procedural when it prescribes rules and forms of procedure in
order that courts may be able to administer justice. It does not come within the legal conception of
a retroactive law, or is not subject of the general rule prohibiting the retroactive operation of
statues, but is given retroactive effect in actions pending and undetermined at the time of its
passage without violating any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected.

Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 678 SCRA
622(2012)

There is no dispute that as dictated by the Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13, Section 10
thereof, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or five (5)
days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier. The
purpose of the afore-quoted rule on service is to make sure that the party being served with the
pleading, order or judgment is duly informed of the same so that such party can take steps to
protect the interests, i.e., enable to file an appeal or apply for other appropriate reliefs before the
decision becomes final.

Losing a case on account of a counsels negligence is a bitter pill to swallow for the litigant.
But then, the Court is duty-bound to observe its rules and procedures. And, in the observance
thereof, for the orderly administration of justice, it cannot countenance the negligence and
ineptitude of lawyers who wantonly jeopardize the interests of their clients. On his part, a lawyer
shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

As a matter of law, once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter
of right to a Writ of Execution as mandated by Section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which states that: Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders.Execution
shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or
proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly
perfected. (Emphasis supplied) The rule is clear that it becomes mandatory or ministerial duty of
the court to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment which has become executory.

Ang vs. Ang, 678 SCRA 699(2012)
It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed for the
convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the principle that
choosing the venue of an action is not left to a plaintiffs caprice; the matter is regulated by the
Rules of Court. The petitioners complaint for collection of sum of money against the respondents
is a personal action as it primarily seeks the enforcement of a contract. The Rules give the plaintiff
the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He can file it in the place (1) where he himself
or any of them resides, or (2) where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be
found. The plaintiff or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action has been
instituted at the time the action is commenced.

If the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only be filed
in the court of the place where the defendant resides. There can be no election as to the venue of
the filing of a complaint when the plaintiff has no residence in the Philippines. In such case, the
complaint may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides.

A real party in interest is the party who, by the substantive law, has the right sought to be
enforced.
The rules on venue, like the other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly
administration of justice or the impartial and even-handed determination of every action and
proceeding. Obviously, this objective will not be attained if the plaintiff is given unrestricted
freedom to choose the court where he may file his complaint or petition. The choice of venue
should not be left to the plaintiff's whim or caprice. He may be impelled by some ulterior
motivation in choosing to file a case in a particular court even if not allowed by the rules on
venue.

Otero vs. Tan, 678 SCRA 583(2012)
A defendant who fails to file an answer may, upon motion, be declared by the court in default.
Loss of standing in court, the forfeiture of ones right as a party litigant, contestant or legal
adversary, is the consequence of an order of default. A party in default loses his right to present
his defense, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses. He has no right to
expect that his pleadings would be acted upon by the court nor may be object to or refute evidence
or motions filed against him.

The fact that a defendant has lost his standing in court for having been declared in default
does not mean that he is left sans any recourse whatsoever. The following are the remedies
available to party who has been declared in default, to wit: a) The defendant in default may, at
any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside the
order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable neglect, and that he has meritorious defenses; (Sec. 3, Rule 18) b) If the judgment has
already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before the same has become
final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37; c) If the
defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he may file a
petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and d) He may also appeal from the judgment
rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the
order of default has been presented by him.

A defendant who has been declared in default is precluded from raising any other ground in
his appeal from the judgment by default since, otherwise, he would then be allowed to adduce
evidence in his defense, which right he had lost after he was declared in default.

Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the authenticity and due execution of
a private document, before it is received in evidence by the court, must be established. Thus: Sec.
20. Proof of private document.Before any private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: a) By anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
claimed to be.

A private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition
or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public
document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the
manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The
requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances,
specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have
not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and
authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered
as genuine.

In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving
them by a preponderance of evidence. The parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence
and not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. This rule holds true especially
when the latter has had no opportunity to present evidence because of a default order. Needless to
say, the extent of the relief that may be granted can only be so much as has been alleged and
proved with preponderant evidence required under Section 1 of Rule 133.

Ada vs. Baylon, 678 SCRA 293(2012)

By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of action is meant the uniting of
two or more demands or rights of action in one action, the statement of more than one cause of
action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of action, each of which could be
made the basis of a separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may
under certain circumstances join several distinct demands, controversies or rights of action in
one declaration, complaint or petition.

Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal. Indeed, the courts have the
power, acting upon the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the severance of the
misjoined cause of action to be proceeded with separately. However, if there is no objection to the
improper joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there exists no bar in
the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes of action.

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are
just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or
events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The
adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the
supplemental pleading. In Young v. Spouses Sy, 503 SCRA 151 (2006), this Court had the
opportunity to elucidate on the purpose of a supplemental pleading. Thus: As its very name
denotes, a supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or add something to the primary pleading.
A supplement exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it supplements.
Moreover, a supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the
issues joined with the original pleading remained an issue to be tried in the action. It is but a
continuation of the complaint. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or
change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in
the original complaint. The purpose of the supplemental pleading is to bring into the records new
facts which will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled; hence, any
supplemental facts which further develop the original right of action, or extend to vary the relief,
are available by way of supplemental complaint even though they themselves constitute a right of
action.

Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Lee, 678 SCRA 171(2012)
Section 5, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court requires that persons interested in
sustaining the proceedings in court must be impleaded as private respondents. Upon the merger
of Citytrust and BPI, with the latter as the surviving corporation, and with all the liabilities and
obligations of Citytrust transferred to BPI as if it had incurred the same, BPI undoubtedly
became a party interested in sustaining the proceedings, as it stands to be prejudiced by the
outcome of the case.

Upon service of the writ of garnishment, the garnishee becomes a virtual party or forced
intervenor to the case and the trial court thereby acquires jurisdiction to bind the garnishee to
comply with its orders and processes. In Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Ramolete, 203
SCRA 487 (1991), the Court ruled: In order that the trial court may validly acquire jurisdiction
to bind the person of the garnishee, it is not necessary that summons be served upon him. The
garnishee need not be impleaded as a party to the case. All that is necessary for the trial court
lawfully to bind the person of the garnishee or any person who has in his possession credits
belonging to the judgment debtor is service upon him of the writ of garnishment. The Rules of
Court themselves do not require that the garnishee be served with summons or impleaded in the
case in order to make him liable. xxxx Through the service of the writ of garnishment, the
garnishee becomes a virtual party to, or a forced intervenor in, the case and the trial court
thereby acquires jurisdiction to bind him to compliance with all orders and processes of the trial
court with a view to the complete satisfaction of the judgment of the court.

Garnishment has been defined as a specie of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the
judgment debtor and owing to him from a stranger to the litigation. A writ of attachment is
substantially a writ of execution except that it emanates at the beginning, instead of at the
termination, of a suit. It places the attached properties in custodia legis, obtaining pendente lite a
lien until the judgment of the proper tribunal on the plaintiffs claim is established, when the lien
becomes effective as of the date of the levy.

The RTC is not permitted to dissolve or discharge a preliminary attachment or garnishment
except on grounds specifically provided in the Revised Rules of Court, namely, (a) the debtor has
posted a counter-bond or has made the requisite cash deposit; (b) the attachment was improperly
or irregularly issued as where there is no ground for attachment, or the affidavit and/or bond filed
therefor are defective or insufficient; (c) the attachment is excessive, but the discharge shall be
limited to the excess; (d) the property attachment is exempt from preliminary attachment; or (e)
the judgment is rendered against the attaching creditor.

Dela Cruz, Sr. vs. Fankhauser, 677 SCRA 744(2012)

1.