day 1 compilation - pril, salo

7/24/2019 Day 1 Compilation - PRIL, Salo

1/15

02 Chester De Hoya v. Judge Placido Reyes (RTCManila), Peole o! the Philiines, and D"J#ecretary (200$)

(1)Chester De Hoya is an alleged co-conspirator in asyndicated estafa case led against several directorsand ocers of State Resources Developmentanagement Corp! "y complainant anuel Dy

#$iten!(%)State &rosecutor found pro"a"le cause to le an

information and the respondent 'udge lie$ise foundpro"a"le cause to issue an arrest $arrant for DeHoya!

()De Hoya has evaded arrest and refuses to su"mit tothe 'urisdiction of the trial court!

(*)%CT&"'+ De Hoya led &etition for Certiorari and&rohi"ition to declare null and void the arrest $arrantfor lac of pro"a"le cause!

##*(1),. there $as pro"a"le cause to issue arrest

$arrant (/0S)(%)SYLLABUS+ ,. De Hoya could avail of remedies

from the court $ithout su"mitting to its 'urisdiction(.)!

#C*RE Arrest Warrant+ here $as sucient evidence to

sho$ pro"a"le cause pro"a"le cause+(1)Complainant $as enticed to invest a large sum of

money!(%)Checs $ere issued to him as return on capital $hich

$ere dishonored!()#ccused De Hoya is an incorporation and director

and that he had no$ledge of its activities andtransactions!

RE type of Jurisdiction (citing Regalado):

(1)ver the lainti++ his is ac2uired "y the ling ofthe complaint3 petition3 or initiatory pleading "eforethe court "y the plainti4 or petitioner!

(%)ver the de!endant+ his is ac2uired "y voluntaryappearance or su"mission "y the defendant orrespondent to the court or "y coercive process issued"y the court to him3 generally "y the service ofsummons!

()ver the su-ect atter* his is conferred "y la$and3 unlie 'urisdiction over the parties3 cannot "econferred on the court "y voluntary act or agreement

of the parties!(*)ver the issues o! the case* his is determined

and conferred "y the pleadings led in the case "ythe parties3 or "y their agreement in a pre-trial orderor stipulation3 or3 at times "y their implied consent as"y the failure of a party to o"'ect to evidence on anissue not covered "y the pleadings3 as provided inRC 15!6!

(6)ver the res+ his is ac2uired "y the actual orconstructive sei7ure "y the court of the thing in

2uestion3 thus placing it in custodial egis3 as inattachment or garnishment8 or "y provision of la$$hich recogni7es in the court the po$er to deal $iththe property or su"'ect matter $ithin its territorial

'urisdiction3 as in land registration proceedings orsuits involving civil status or real property in the&hilippines of a non-resident defendant!

RE right of accused to see relief:here is no reason in this case to allo$ the petitioner to

o"tain relief from the courts $ithout su"mitting to its'urisdiction! His continued refusal to su"mit to 'urisdictionshould give the Court more reason to uphold the $arrant ofarrest so as to place him in the custody of the la$ and ontrial for charges against him! 9t should "e remem"eredthat he $ho invoes the 'urisdiction of the court should rstsu"mit to its 'urisdiction!


2/15

0/ &D"'%H #%D PR1&'#,petitioner3

vs!

M%MRT" R"%#, T %.,respondents!

3.R. 'o. 45675 June 25, 7847

%R,J!*

0ugene &erins led a complaint in C:9 anila against

;enguet mining to recover money and shares of stoc!

;enguet stated that his right to the shares $as su"'ect to

demands made "y his $ife 9donah &erins and a certain


3/15

04 M&&" R9# v. %P""'&" D&%:R#.3J..ov! %3 1B*1

opic+ ?urisdiction over su"'ect matter

;%CT#*he case $as appealed to the SC from the C# on the

ground that the 'urisdiction of the trial court is in issue (nofacts $ere e@plicitly indicated in the case itself)

DC##&"' "' JRD&CT&"' "


4/15

# 2*this is also not a 2uestion of 'urisdiction "ut of

relevancy of evidence#n erroneous ruling on the matter may encroach

upon issues completely foreign to those dened in

the pleadings3 "ut in such case3 it is a 2uestion of

'urisdiction on the issue and not on the su"'ect

matter

DP"#&T&


5/15

06 P%'T%"' v %#'C&"'

ay %%3 1B6B

Concepcion

opic+ ?urisdiction over the person

;acts*

n ?une 1%3 1B63 Gicenta &antaleon instituted in the

C:9 of .ueva 0ci'a an action to recover from #suncion the

sum of &%3 555! he summons $as returned "y the sheri4

unserved3 $ith the statement that #suncion is residing in

;-%* ala 0state3 Caloocan3 Ri7al! Ho$ever3 the alias

summons $as also returned unserved3 $ith information

that he had left the ala estate and diligent e4orts to locate

him proved to no avail!

n arch 1B663 the court ordered that #suncion "e

summoned "y pu"lication3 and the summons $aspu"lished in the 0@aminerI3 a ne$spaper of general

circulation in .ueva 0ci'a! #sucion failed to appear or give

an ans$er3 so he $as later declared in default!

Su"se2uently3 the court rendered 'udgment against

#suncion for the sum of & %3 55 $ith interest!

* days later3 #suncion led a petition for relief from

the order of default and 'udgment on the ground of mistae

and e@cusa"le negligence! His adavit and veried ans$er$ere anne@ed to his petition!

He stated that+

- He received in his residence in Jue7on City anotice of a registered letter at the &ost oce in.ueva 0ci'a!

- He $ent to claim the letter3 $hich contained acopy of the order of default and the 'udgmentagainst him!

- Had the copy of the summons and order for itspu"lication "een sent "y mail3 he $ould havereceived such!

- he copy of the summons and the order for thepu"lication thereof $ere not deposited in thepost oce3 postage prepaid3 directed to thedefendant "y ordinary mail to his last no$naddressI3 in violation of RC Rule sec! %1!

&antaleon argues that the provision applica"le is Sec!

1 $hich provides that $hen the defendant is an unno$n

o$ner or the lie3 or $henever the address of a defendant

is unno$n3 service may3 "y leave of court "e e4ected "y

pu"lication! She also argues that the re2uirement in Sec!

%1 refers to e@traterritorial service of summons!

#suncionKs petition for relief $as denied3 and he

appealed!

&ssue*

,. the C:9 had 'urisdiction over the person of the

defendant L .

Ratio*

Section %1 re2uires proof of service "y pu"lication

$hether the defendant is a resident or not! Sec 1 and Sec!

%1 should "e read in relation to each other!

Strict compliance $ith the terms of the statute is

necessary to confer 'urisdiction through service "y

pu"lication3 thus3 the court had no authority to issue the

default order or render 'udgment! ;oth are null and void!

#lso3 since the suit is an action strictly in

ersona, ersonal service o! suons >ithin the

!oru is essential to ac?uire -urisdiction over the

erson o! the de!endant, >ho does not voluntarily

suit hisel! to the authority o! the court.


6/15

#uons y ulication cannot con!er uon the

court -urisdiction over such de!endant.

he defendantKs veried ans$er contains allegations3

if true3 constitute a good defense3 from the vie$point of

su"stantial 'ustice!

he order declaring defendant in default and the

su"se2uent decision against him are set aside and

annulled!


7/15

5 3MPR

Held*/es! he lo$er court ac2uired 'urisdiction over &aul3through service of the summons addressed to him upon

Helen!

Ratio*he SchenersK ans$er states that Helen is the

representative and attorney-in-fact of &aul in Civil Case.o! J-%B3 $hich $as led at her "ehest3 in her capacityas &aulKs representative!

Hence3 Helen had authority to sue3 and had actually sued

on "ehalf of &aul3 so that she $as also empo$ered torepresent him in suits led against him3 particularly insuch a case as the present one3 $hich is conse2uence ofthe action "rought "y her on his "ehalf!


8/15

05 =%=&'" #@&T"


9/15

5M! ?aranilla v! 9>9 S9S. ?#R#.9>>#3 $ith her hus"and #..9

?#R#.9>>#3 >9# S9S. P#>#,3 $ith her hus"and #=#,3 N0.#9D# S9S.3 ;.9:#C9 S9S.3 ?R!3 and R=:S9S.3 represented "y their guardian ad litem >9>9 S9S.

?#R#.9>>#3 plainti4s and appellees3 vs!C.S>#C9. 0S3 G9C0.# &=N.3 $ith herhus"and D9.S &=N.3 ;0>0. &=N.3

$ith her hus"and #R=R D0 # &=N.3S#>=D &=N.3 #.# &=N. and ?S0:# #C#S90;S9S.3 defendants and appellants!-%6Bcto"er 113 1B6*

:acts+1) Defendants-appellants Consolacion ourdes 9chon Gda!de Sison $as the original defendant!

a! he propert o"'ect of the litigation $asoriginally the con'ugal property of >ourdes andher late hus"and3 ;onifacio Sison! Consolacionand her children claimed to have ac2uired theproperty3 through Rafael3 from ?osefa acasie"Sison!

%) 9n her amended ans$er3 >ourdes stated that it $ould

"e necessary to include in the complaint all herchildren $ith her late hus"and3 ;onifacio3 insu"stitution of the deceased!

a! >ourdesK legitimate children $ith ;onifacio$ere plainti4s-appellants >ili3 $ho $as of legalage and married to #ntonio ?aranilla3 and >ita3Nenaida3 ;onifacio3 ?r!3 and Rufo3 $ho $ere allminors!

"! >ourdes claimed that a guardian ad litem must"e appointed for the * minor children3 and

suggested that she herself "e appointed assuch!

) Consolacion and her children led a second amendedcomplaint naming ;onifacioKs children as co-defendants3 and re2uested that >ourdes "eappointed as guardian ad litem for the * minorchildren!

a! Ho$ever3 >iliKs hus"and #ntonio $as notincluded as a party defendant!

*) he C:9 issued an order admitting the second

amended complaint! 9t also ordered the Cler ofCourt to issue the corresponding summons againstthe ne$ defendantsAin the case of the * minorchildren3 through their guardian ad litem >ourdes!

6) he C:9 issued summons addressed to >ili Sison3=rdaneta3 &angasinan3 and the minors >ita #meliaSison3 Nenaida Sison3 ;onifacio3 Sison3 ?r!3 and RufoSison3 represented "y their guardian ad litem3>ourdes 9chon3 =rdaneta3 &angasinan!I

a! Ho$ever3 the summons $as served on >ili and

>ourdes only! .o summons $as ever personallyserved to any of the * minor children!

) #ttys! &ere73


10/15

15) he C:9 issued an order dismissing thecomplaint!

11) n appeal "y Consolacion and her children3 theC# reversed and ruled in their favour!

1%) >ourdes and her children led a petition forcertiorari in the SC3 "ut this $as dismissed for lac ofmerit!

1) Copies of the motion for e@ecution of the

'udgment in Civil Case .o! MB and the $rit ofe@ecution issued pursuant thereto $ere served uponthe attorney of record of Consolacion and herchildren3 "ut $ere not served personally upon >ili andher * minor si"lings!

1*) 9n accordance $ith the $rit of e@ecution3 the&rovincial Sheri4 of &angasinan placed Consolacionand her children in possession of the land involved inCivil Case .o! MB!

16) >ili and her * minor si"lings led a separate

civil case in the C:9 of &angasinan (Civil Case .o!11%5)3 claiming that the 'udgment rendered in theearlier case (Civil Case .o! MB) $as not "indingupon them!

a! 9n the C:93 C#3 and SC3 #ttys! &ere73 et al! madeit appear in all their pleadings andappearances that they $ere appearing for>ourdes3 >ili3 and the * minor children3 "ut >iliand her si"lings deny that they had authori7edsaid attorneys to represent them in any $ay in

the case!"! >ili claimed the 'udgment $as not "inding on

her "ecause her hus"and #ntonio ($hom shemarried on Decem"er 13 1B*M) $as notnamed as a party defendant in the amendedcomplaint! #ntonio claimed he had nono$ledge of Civil Case .o! MB until hismother-in-la$ >ourdes informed him of the SCKsdenial of the petition for certiorari.

c! he * minor children claimed the 'udgment $as

null and void $ith respect to them "ecause oflac of 'urisdiction over their persons! heyclaimed they had no no$ledge of Civil Case

.o! MB until their mother >ourdes informedthem of the SCKS denial of the petition forcertiorari.

1) he C:9 declared that the 'udgment in CivilCase .o! MB $as "inding upon >ili3 "ut $as nulland void $ith respect to her * minor si"lings for lacof 'urisdiction over their persons!

a! hus3 the C:9 declared that after the 'udgment

in Civil Case .o! MB "ecomes nal3 the *minor children $ould "e allo$ed to presentevidence!

1) >ili and her si"lings appealed to the SC!

9ssues+1) 9s >ili Sison ?aranilla "ound "y the 'udgment in the

civil caseO /0S!%) ,ere the * minor children summoned in the actionO

/0S!

Held+he 'udgment appealed from3 in so far as it annuls the'udgment rendered in civil case .o! MB and the'udgement of the Court of #ppeals in C#-ili Sison ?aranilla is "ound "y the 'udgment in the

civil case!a! >ili is "ound "y the 'udgment rendered in the

civil case3 "ecause her hus"and #ntonio $asnot a necessary party therein! he controversyin the said case involved >iliKs paraphernalproperty (her share in the parcels of land $hichshe had inherited from her deceased father3;onifacio)!

%) he * minor children $ere summoned in the action!a! he denial "y the * minor children of having

authori7ed #ttys! &ere73 et al! to representthem may "e conceded3 "ut such denial doesnot destroy the presumption that the la$yersK


11/15

services had "een engaged "y their mother>ourdes3 as guardian ad litem, to represent notonly her3 "ut also the * minor children!

"! he failure of >ourdes3 as guardian ad litem,and of her attorneys to raise the point of lacof service of summons upon the * minorchildren personally is a $aiver on the part ofthe said minors (represented "y >ourdes3 as

guardian ad litem) to 2uestion the lac of suchservice upon them personally!i! 9f >ourdes3 the duly appointed guardian

ad litem $ho is also the mother of the *minor children3 did not consider thesummons served on her alone assummons also on her minor children3 or ifshe did not authori7e her la$yers torepresent her minor children3 she shouldhave raised the 2uestion3 either

"eforeduring trial3 or thereafter "ut"efore 'udgment $as rendered!

c! he voluntary appearance of the attorneys3 notonly for >ourdes "ur also for the * minorchildren3 is e2uivalent to service! (Sec! %3 Rule3 old Rules of Court)


12/15

08 PHC &'


13/15

estate situated in Houston3 e@as3 =!S!#!from the date of the transaction in 1BM upto the present and verily3 ! ! ! (emphasis "ytrial court)!

!C also held itsel" without jurisdiction over

#$%%, &nc. and Daic 'ecause they were nonresidents and the action was not an actionin rem or uasi in rem, so that

e*traterritorial service o" summons wasine+ective. he trial court su"se2uentlylifted the $rit of attachment it had earlierissued against the shares of stocs of 1*MM39nc! and Daic!!

C# armed RC!

.0+ ,hile the case "efore the C# $as pending3 the

=nited States District Court for the Southern District ofe@as rendered 'udgment in the case "efore it! :urther3on #pril %%3 1BB%3 1*MM3 9nc! and Daic led a petition for

the enforcement of 'udgment in the Regional rial Courtof aati (he enforcement case $as suspended"ecause of this case)

&ssue*

7. G"' the C;& is arred y the -udgent o! the.#. court. '"! :oreign 'udgment cannot "e giventhe e4ect of res 'udicata $ithout giving them anopportunity to impeach it on grounds stated in RuleB3 T65 of the Rules of Court3 to $it+ E$ant of

'urisdiction3 $ant of notice to the party3 collusion3fraud3 or clear mistae of la$ or fact!E

2. G"' the !oru o! non conveniens is a roerasis !or disissal! .! 9t may "e more properlyconsidered as a defense!

/. G"' RTC has -urisdiction! /0S! 0@tra-territorialservice is e4ective!

D9S&S99G0+ ,H0R0:R03 the decision of the Court of

#ppeals is R0G0RS0D and Civil Case .o! 16 is

R0#.D0D to the Regional rial Court of aati for

consolidation $ith Civil Case .o! B%-155 and for further

proceedings in accordance $ith this decision! he

temporary restraining order issued on ?une %B3 1BB* is

here"y >9:0D!

Ratio*

1! Ghile this Court has given the e+ect o! res-udicata to !oreign -udgents in several cases,

it >as a!ter the arties oosed to the-udgent had een given ale oortunity toreel the on grounds allo>ed under the la>.

a. 9t is not necessary to initiate a separate actionor proceeding for enforcement of the foreign

'udgment! ,hat is essential is that there isopportunity to challenge the foreign 'udgment3in order for the court to properly determine itsecacy! This is ecause in this -urisdiction,>ith resect to actions in ersona, as

distinguished !ro actions in re, a!oreign -udgent erely constitutesria !acie evidence o! the -ustness o!the clai o! a arty and, as such, issu-ect to roo! to the contrary.

&n this case there >as no oortunity to

challenge! he proceedings in the trial court $ere

summary! .either the trial court nor the appellate

court $as even furnished copies of the pleadings inthe =!S! court or apprised of the evidence presented

thereat3 to assure a proper determination of $hether

the issues then "eing litigated in the =!S! court $ere

e@actly the issues raised in this case such that the

'udgment that might "e rendered $ould constitute

res 'udicata!

;urther, there is a ending en!orceent case.

To sustain the aellate courtAs ruling, $ould

e4ectively preclude petitioners from repelling the

'udgment in the case for enforcement! U#V foreign


14/15

'udgment may not "e enforced if it is not recogni7ed

in the 'urisdiction $here armative relief is "eing

sought! Hence3 in the interest of 'ustice3 the

complaint should "e considered as a petition for the

recognition of the foreing 'udgment! hus3 ;H

SH=>D ;0 C.S>9D#0D!

%! &rinciple of forum non convenience does not 'ustify

dismissal of C#!a!


15/15

day 1 compilation - pril, salo

Documents