VENUE

Effects of Stipulations on Venue

Briones vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 204444
January 14, 2015

Facts:

Briones is the owner of a property covered by TCT No. 160689 (subject property). Later,
his sister informed him that his property had been foreclosed and a writ of possession had already
been issued in favor of Cash Asia. Upon investigation, Briones discovered that he purportedly
executed a promissory note, loan agreement, and deed of real estate mortgage covering the subject
property in favor of Cash Asia in order to obtain a loan in the amount of P3,500,000.00 from the
latter. In this relation, Briones initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that the subject
documents be declared null and void.

Cash Asia filed a Motion to Dismiss praying for the outright dismissal of Briones’
complaint on the ground of improper venue on the basis of a stipulation in both documents
designating Makati City as the exclusive venue in the event of litigation between the parties arising
out of the loan and mortgage.

Issue:

Whether or not the motion to dismiss of Cash Asia should be granted

Ruling:

No. A complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not
be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance
with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it would be inherently consistent for a complaint of
this nature to recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact, precisely assails the
validity of the instrument in which such stipulation is contained.

In this case, the venue stipulation found in the subject contracts is indeed restrictive in
nature, considering that it effectively limits the venue of the actions arising therefrom to the courts
of Makati City. However, it must be emphasized that Briones’ complaint directly assails the
validity of the subject contracts, claiming forgery in their execution. Given this circumstance,
Briones cannot be expected to comply with the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his compliance
therewith would mean an implicit recognition of their validity. Hence, pursuant to the general rules
on venue, Briones properly filed his complaint before a court in the City of Manila where the
subject property is located.
Rules on Pleadings

Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago

G.R. No. 170354
June 30, 2006

Facts:

The Heirs of Santiago (Santiagos) filed an injunction against Pinga alleging that Pinga had
been unlawfully entering the coco lands of Santiagos cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting
the fruits of the coconut trees. As a counterclaim, Pinga contests the ownership of the lands to
which Pinga was harvesting the fruits and prays that owing to Santiagos’ forcible re-entry in the
properties and the irresponsible and reckless filing of the case, they be awarded various types of
damages.
However, due to failures of Heirs of Santiago to attend the hearings, the court ordered the
dismissal of said case and allowed Pinga “to present their evidence ex parte.” Santiagos thus filed
a Motion for Reconsideration not to reinstate the case but to ask for the entire action to be dismissed
and not to allow petitioner to present evidence ex parte. They contend that since the case was
already dismissed, counterclaim could not remain pending for independent adjudication.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of the complaint necessarily carries the dismissal of the compulsory
counterclaim.

Ruling:

No. under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of the
complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the
counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In fact, the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice
to the right of defendants to prosecute the counterclaim.
 Amante vs. Suñga
G.R. No. L-40491
May 28, 1975

Facts:

Amante, as defendant in the case Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation vs.

Segundo Amante, filed a written motion with the trial court requesting for an extension of fifteen
(15) days from December 9, 1974, within which to file his answer. The trial court granted the
motion. Vigaan Agricultural Development Corporation, as plaintiff in said case, filed a motion to
set aside the trial court’s Order alleging that the notice in Amante’s motion was defective for non-
compliance with Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, and praying that the defendant
be declared in default.

The trial court set aside the said order and declared Amante in default.

Issue:

Whether or not Amante was validly declared in default

Ruling:

No. The motion for extension of time within which a party may plead is not a litigated
motion where notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter an opportunity to resist
the application,1 but an ex parte motion “made to the court in behalf of one or the other of the
parties to the action, in the absence and usually without the knowledge of the other party or
parties.”

Moreover, Section 1 of Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes the trial court to
permit the submission of an answer even after the time fixed in the rules for its presentation. The
granting of extension to plead is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court. In some
cases, the court allowed the defendant to file his answer “even after the time fixed for their
presentation.”
 Aurelio vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 90742
May 6, 1991

Facts:

Ma. Esperanza Ledonio-Aurelio and Ma. Victoria A. Ledonio-Yao (plaintiffs), without

joining their respective husbands, filed in the RTC a complaint against the spouses Sabio for
annulment and rescission of contract, recovery of possession, reconveyance and damages. Spouses
Sabio filed an Answer with Compulsory Counter-Complaint demanding payment of P150 million
in moral, nominal, and exemplary damages for the plaintiffs’ defamatory and libelous allegations
in their complaint, and impleading as “counter-defendants,” Leonardo A. Aurelio (Aurelio),
husband of plaintiff Ma. Esperanza Ledonio-Aurelio, and Yao Bun Shiong (Shiong), husband of
plaintiff Ma. Victoria A. Ledonio Yao, because they allegedly have not only been advisers and
consultants of their wives, but conspired and confederated with them and also actively participated
in the acts and events leading to the case.

Aurelio and Shiong filed a Motion to Dismiss and Expunge from the Records the counter-
complaint, asserting that the filing fee has not been paid.

Issue:

Whether or not separate filing fee may be required for Sabio’s counter-complaint

Ruling:

No. Spouses Sabio’s “Counter-Complaint” is a compulsory counterclaim, not a third-party

complaint, hence, no separate filing fee may be required for asserting it.

The crucial characteristics of a third-party complaint under Section 12, Rule 6 of the Rules
of Court, is that the original defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant, the
liability asserted against him by the original plaintiff.” There is no attempt here on the part of
Spouses Sabio to transfer to Aurelio and Shiong the liability asserted by the plaintiffs against them.
By joining the plaintiffs’ husbands as co-defendants of their wives under the “counter-complaint,”
the private respondents merely complied with the general rule that married women may not sue or
be sued alone without joining their husbands (Sec. 4, Rule 3, Rules of Court).
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping

Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation vs. Acuña

G.R. No. 140189
February 28, 2005

Facts:
Respondents Jennifer Anne B. Acuña, et. al filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation (GSMSC), a manning agency organized and
existing under Philippine laws. Respondents claimed that they were deployed by GSMSC to work
as croupiers (card dealers) under a six-month contract. However, before the expiration of the
contract, they were informed that their services were no longer needed.

GSMSC prayed for its outright dismissal for filing a certification on non-forum shopping
signed only by their counsel.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed

Ruling:

The Rules require the pleader to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping to be executed
by the plaintiff or principal party. Obviously, it is the plaintiff or principal party, and not the
counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the best
position to know whether he or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case

This procedural lapse could have warranted its outright dismissal. However, it must be
remembered that the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely designed to promote and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of
procedure—that is, to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.

Thus, in Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals, we held that the procedural lapse of a party’s counsel
in signing the certificate of non-forum shopping may be overlooked if the interests of substantial
justice would thereby be served.
 Benedicto vs. Lacson
G.R. No. 141508
May 5, 2010

Facts:

The case stems from a Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-9137 (Bacolod Case),
filed by respondents, individual sugar planters and agricultural corporations Manuel Lacson et al.
in the RTC of Bacolod City. Respondents’ complaint was premised on a claim for unpaid shares
based on Sugar Order No. 2, series of 1979-19808 and Sugar Order No. 1, series of 1980-
1981 issued by PHILSUCOM.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing therein that respondents had violated the rule
on forum shopping. Petitioner contends that respondents are guilty of forum shopping because
they failed to disclose, at the time of the filing of the Bacolod Case, the fact that some of the
respondents had earlier commenced a similar action in Pasig. Petitioner claims that respondents
should have informed the RTC of Bacolod of the commencement and subsequent withdrawal of
the Pasig Case in the certificate of non-forum shopping. Petitioner insists that even if the Pasig
Case was subsequently withdrawn, the same still constituted a “commenced action,” which is
required to be disclosed under the rules of forum shopping.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents are guilty of forum shopping

Ruling:

No. The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse
judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in
another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari; the act of filing of multiple
suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively
for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Forum shopping exists where the elements
of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
the action under consideration.

There is no dispute that the dismissal of the complaint in the Pasig case, upon notice of the
plaintiffs therein, was sanctioned by Section 1, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court.33 Quite
clearly, the Order declared that the dismissal of the complaint was without prejudice to the re-
filing thereof. Moreover, even if the same were tested under the rules on litis pendentia and res
judicata, the danger of conflicting decisions cannot be present, since the Pasig case was dismissed
even before a responsive pleading was filed by petitioner. Since a party resorts to forum shopping
in order to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action, it has been held that a
party cannot be said to have sought to improve his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or
action where no unfavorable decision has even been rendered against him in any of the cases he
has brought before the courts.
Relief from Order of Default

Balangcad vs. Justice of the Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 84888
February 12, 1992

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling: