Wednesday, November 24, 2010

November 24 REMLAW REV Notes

    Formal parties
    Pro-forma parties
    Necessary parties -
    Relucio v. Lopez: note however, that the party here is neither a necessary nor an indispensable party
    -take note in this case of the COA
    -WHY not necessary party nor indispensable party?
    -on forfeiture of share:
    Auto Corporation v. Intra
    -Autorcor was contesting the inclusion of intrastrada
    -intrastrada issued guarantees...BUT autocorp failed to perform obligaiton so BOC declared issued the bonds as due
    WON  the BOC was improperly pleaded?
    H: BOC was proper party
    -no complete settlement of subject matter if merely order Autocorp to pay...BOC is a necessary party for the complete settlement of the subject matter of the case
    *note that if you are suing a corporation - particularly a foreign corporation, you should state WON they are:
    • Doing business in RP
    • Have a license or not
    >what is the public policy for disallowing foreign corporation doing business in RP but w/o license: regulation of the corporations...
    ...more of the fact that RP wants to exercise sovereignty over these corporations...not really related to taxation or revenues...
    Van ZuiDen v. GTVL Manufacturing 523 SCRA 233;
    F: Van Zuiden HK corp.
    -unlicensed foreign corp
    -entered several transactions w/ Filipino corp
    -in such transactions, Filipino corp instructed Van Zuiden to deliver lace products to another HIK Company.
    -Filipino corp failed to pay; so Van Zuiden filed collection case
    >>>MTD of foreign corp: Van Zuiden is a Foreign corp + doing biz + no license
    >>>Opposition: NOT DOING BIZ in RP
    If foreign corp
    • Doing biz
      • w/o license: can't sue but CAN BE SUED
      • w/ license: can BOTH SUE AND BE SUED
    • NOT DOING BIZ + w/o license: CAN SUE
    WHY: RP does not have jurisdiction over transactions w/c happen outside RP's jurisdiction
    DOING BIZ defined...regularity...
    Deutsche v CA GR 152318 Apr 16, 2009
    F: GTZ...
    H: GTZ was indeed exercising governmental functions - but cannot claim immunity from suits automatically because just a portion of the German State...
    ...GTZ is akin to a GOCC w/o original charter governed by Corpo Code. It can be sued and can sue.
    -doctrine of processual presumption: applied Corpo Code...GTZ can sue and be sued w/o its consent - so can be sued!
    *capacity to sue different from personality to sue!
    -standing: relevant when questioning some law...but this would come under personality to sue
    -capacity: won a person is allowed to sue...e.g. WON a minor can sue
    Misjoinder/non-joinder of parties
    *WON failure to join parties is a ground for dismissal?
    It is a cause for dismissal only when there does not remain an indispensable parties among the defendants...
    ...if nonjoinder is such that the one that you sued is a real party in interest, you practically have no COA against the person named as defendant - so NO COA! can ask that an indispensable party
     Chua v. Torres GR 151900 Aug 30, 2005;
    F: sister (one sued by company) joined her brother as plaintiff vs. Owner and manager...
    -brother did not file CNFS
    H: Brother is not a necessary party - no rights it was up to the RTC to remove him due to misjoinder... And his failure to submit a CNFS cannot stop the case from proceeding
    Anicia Valdez Tallorin v Heirs of Juanito Tarona GR 177429 Nov 24, 2009;
    Petitioner, in whose favor the new tax dec was issued, questioned the RTC judgment voiding the said tax dec
    H: RTC's decision would affect the rights of the parties in whose favor the RTC decision to annul the new tax dec needs to be impleaded
    -but WON CA erred:
    Littie Sarah Agdeppa v Heirs of Ignacio Bonete GR 164436 Jan 15 2010
    F: there was a piece of land titled in the name of Dorotea Bonete. Procured loan w/ DBP for purchase of farm impleements.
    -DBP collect loan
    -Littie Sarah, Bonete's lawyer, paid for the loan w/ a security (which was later found to be a deed of sale)
    -so action to annul sale
    >>MTD: Dismiss because not real party in interest - not real party in interest because lot always in the name of Dorotea, not IIgnacio
    RTC: granted
    CA: reversed
    H: misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties is not a cause of dismissal. Corut could drop or implead any party to correct the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties
    -Mrs. Bonete : real owner = real party in interest - not their in her capacity as successor
    Supposing case filed by plaintiff v. B; B alleges that he is not an indispensable party, it is C - so dismiss case. How should the court rule?
    Court should just add the indispensable party, not the dismissal of the case
    Supposing the one that is sued is not even a necessary party? What the court should do?
    Dismiss! No COA. No misjoinder or nonjoinder because there was really no one to join! But dismissal is w/o prejudice. Plaintiff should refile case w/ proper party...
    Successors in interest – Sui Man Hui Chan v. CA, GR 147999, Feb 27, 2004
    *usually in contracts, there is a provision which provides that successors in interest would be bound by contracts entered by their predecessors in interest
    F: contract of lease involved here. Original Lessee and lessor died. Complaint filed for collection of rental vs. Successors in interest.
    -successors in interest questioned the validity of the lease: they were not the signatories to the original contract, so not parties in interest
    ...complaint should have been filed vs. Estate of the original lessee
    H: in the first place, unpaid rentals were during the period after death of original lessee
    Second, successors continued w/ arrangement previously enjoyed by the original lessee
    Lastly, reminded them w/ GR that rights and obligations not personal can be transmitted to the heirs
    Substitute parties
    -happens when somebody dies in a suit
    e.g. A v. B for collection of money. B died. Can the case moved on, w/o tellign the court that the client, B, died? NO! Disciplinary action vs. Lawyer!!! -lawyer should file a notice of death, stating the heirs and their addresses - not in a capacity as a lawyer because atty-client relationship terminated. If heirs want to retain you, enter appearance as lawyer of the heirs...
    -if you cannot get the complete list of heirs, tell the court. Court would probably cause the publication asking for the heirs...
    ...or there could be a settlement of the estate of the deceased, and  an administrator would then be appointed who would represent the deceased in the pending case... (note however in the rules that the adverse party is the one who is given right to cause the initiation of intestate proceedings or testate proceedings)
    *first find out if the action can still be prosecuted after death of deceased...
     Carandang vs. Heirs of De Guzman GR 160347 Nov. 29, 2006;
    F: The petitioner in the case for recover of money died. Respondents said the decision was not valid for failure to substitute heirs
    H: Jurisdiction over the persons of the heirs may be waived...may be implied or express waiver
    -in this case, the heirs of Carandang did not interpose any objection to the jurisdiction of the court; so valid
    -as to the lawyer that did not notify the court of the death: he would probably be subjected to disciplinary action
    Judge Sumaljag v. Literato GR 149787 Jun 18, 2008;
    F: J. Sumaljag seeks to be substituted because he is the transferee of the lot of deceased. Pending case is for declaration of nullity of deed of sale and lease contract
    H: Req'ts in R3.16:
    1. Rule applies when pending action not extinguished by death
    2. Legal reps: executor, administrator, guardian - constituted to take charge of the estate
    3. Duty of counsel is to inform court of fact of death and give names of the heirs
    -here: death cert shows that deceased died. So siblings were the the proper legal reps...
    *stranger things happen in real life. E.g. Plaintiff passed away. About 30 days, his lawyer filed Motion for Substitution wherein instead of naming the wife and children of dead plaintiff, he named the person which was supposedly now the owner of the land . So 2 sections on land: RULE 3, sections 16 and 19 - are involved
    ...counsel should have notified the court of the transfer when the client was still alive ? But the transferree is not really required to be a party in the case. Even if he is not included, he would be bound. But in this case, the court insisted that even if the transferree is now present, the transferor should be represented by his own heirs who would own the property in case the transfer is void...
    -What ma'am did was to OPPOSE THE SUBSTITUTION!
    Domingo v Landicho GR 170015 Aug 29, 2007;
    F: Domingo filed for registration of parcels of land in Tagaytay, opposed by Landicho. Domingo died pending the case. Lawyer failed to inform court.
    RTC: for domingo CA: Reversed
    So heirs of domingo said that they were not bound by reversal of CA H:
    GR: Absent a valid substitution, no jurisdiction over the heirs so not bound by decision of court
    X: IF expressly or impliedly waived the jurisdiction over their persons
    HERE: Heirs actively participated! -warned the lawyer for his failure to inform the court for the death of the client
    *assuming defendant dies in the middle of litigation in case for collection of money under a contract, money claims supposed to be processed in settlement of estate proceedings. Terminate collection of money? NO. Go until judgment made! Judgment would be a notice of claim in the settlement of the estate...
    Napere v. Barbarona GR 160426 Jan 31, 2008
    F: Neighbors fought. While case pending in court, petitioner died. Counsel ifnormed the court but court faiiled to furnish order for substitution of heirs. Court ruled against the deceased
    GR: For a ruling to be binding, the substituted parties must be included
    X: When parties were aptly represented during the proceedings, pwede...same. Participated in the proceedings...
    *What if the lawyer dies? The party has  option to tell the court about it to get a new counsel...
    If gusto mo matagal case: eh di don't inform the court
    Indigent parties
     IF the party has not sufficient funds...he can ask that he be allowed to pursue case
    Cf: R141.19: Indigent litigants
    Court said that you can still be an indigent if you meet the salary and property requirements under R141!
    -entitled to hearing to prove to the court that you are an indigent
    *what if your salary is more than the minimum wage, how could you still be an indigent? Show that you have many dependents!
    – Sps Algura v. LGU GR 150135 Oct 30, 2006
    F: Combo: one was earning beyond minimum wage, the other was below minimum wage (admitted that they were less to show the injury they sustained)
    H: CANNOT SUE As indigent parties
    ---but the court could still consider the parties as indigent parties if they look indigent
    Rule 4 Venue of Actions
    Personal action – Uniwide v. Cruz GR 171456 Aug 9, 2007
    F: Cruz had a franchise agreement w/ UNIWIDE. There was a venue stipulation that actions brought exclusively in QC RTC. But the two other contracts did not have venue stipulation
    MTD: Improper remedy
    H: Venue stipulation should be construed strictly. In this case, only the contract between Cruz and Uniwide which has venue stipulation. The case involves other cases and parties, not limited to the franchise contract
    *so should put ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY as descriptive words for venue. If not, the venue is just a choice of venue!
    Real Action
     Infante v. Aran Builders, GR 156594 Aug 24, 2007;
    F: Aran Bldrs filed complaint for specific performance for Infante to issue deed of sale in lot in Ayala Alabang; RTC Makati  (no courts yet in Muntinlupa) ifo of Aran Builders. Judgment not executed w/n 5 year period, so petition for revival, this time w/ RTC Muntinlupa. Infante filed MTD for venue improperly laid.
    H:  RTC Muntinlupa has jurisdiction - proper venue. Property located in Muntinlupa. So Action to Revive judgment would now depend on the nature of the action. Initially a personal action but was transformed into a real action as the execution involved real property.
    *what if the property involved is located on the boundary. Where would you file? Either is proper. Allowed under the rules.
    HiYield v. CA GR 168863 Jun 23, 2009
    Principal party ; when to object –
    *what if many plaintiffs. Where should principal party file case?
    Irene Marcos-Araneta v. CA GR 154096 Aug 22, 2008
    F: Irene filed before RTC Laoag v. Benedicto. MTD on the ground of improper venue
    RTC: dismissed complaint: indeed venue improperly laid. Irene was residing in Makati,
    Residence in R4: HABITUAL RESIDENCE
    -Irene named supposed new trustees who were residents of Ilocos Norte in an amended complaint. MTD again. Not granted now, ordered to answer
    H: Since Irene is principal plaintiff, it is her residence which would determine the venue of the case. So MAKATI dapat!
    *So if there are many plaintiffs, determine who is the principal party
    Stipulated venue not exclusive -
    Philbanking v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413;
    -parties submit RTC Valenzuela. Action brought before RTC MAKATI
    H: Not exclusive stipulation of venue
    *if corporation: Residence is PRINCIPAL OFFICE
    ...but is it now allowed where physical presence of corporation located?  Pwede
  1. Note that in stipulating the venue, do not stipulate the specific court, i.e. RTC, MTC...
  2. Spouses Lantin v. Judge Lantion, GR No. 160053, Aug 28, 2006
    Stipulation: All actions under contract exclusively in proper court of Makati or any other venue which mortgagee may choose and the mortgagor waives all other venues
    Rule 5 Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts
    Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
    -practically all proceedings before MTC governed by summary procedure
    -shorter than regular rules! So always take note when these rules apply!
    Summary procedure
     Estate of Macadangdang v Gaviola GR 156809 Mar 4, 2009;
    F: Unlawful detainer case vs. Occupants of land by mere tolerance
    H: MFR not a prohibited pleading. Summary procedure rules apply only to MTC. If appealed to RTC, summary proceeding rules not anymore applicable
    Angelina Soriente v Estate pf Arsenio Concepcion GR 160239 Nov 25 2009;
    F: heirs of Arsenio filed ejectment case v. Soriente et al. During pretrial conf, soriente failed to appear but signed answer submitted by fellow defendants. MTC ruled ifo heirs, stating that failure to appear is a ground to rule ifo plaintiff - already submitted for decision. Soriente opposed, saying that since she signed same answer, though had a different case, so proceed still...
    H: Although petitioner's contention says that sec. 7 of rules on summary procedure does not apply to her, court held that mere fact of failure to appear for her own case still rendered case submitted for submission
    ...MTD not allowed: there is still a need to specifically deny the capacity to sue of the heirs...failure to do so warranted a valid judgment ifo respondents
    *note that CTA disallows MTD. So incorporate grounds for MTD in the answer as affirmative defenses
    *in MTC proceeding, what if LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER, can you ask MTC to proceed first on the issue of lack of jurisdiction? NO. Can't. Just keep raising the issue in your submissions and the court would be compelled to rule on that together with other issues.
    *If MTC does not have jurisdiction, ruled that it had, RTC ruled that MTC does have jurisdiction: RTC would no longer have to remand it. Proceed
    Sps Edillo v Sps Dulpina GR 188360 Jan 21 2010
    Rule 6 Kinds of Pleadings
    * You usually put the other claims in the answer, if the defendant
    *What about a TPC? A separate claim that the defendant would have another person not yet a party...ask for summons to be served to the new party so that he would be brought in
    *sometimes its very difficult to make an asnwer because the complaint is badly written
     Rosete v. Lim, GR No. 136051, Jun 8, 2006
    F: action for specific performance and damages vs. ROSETE et al. MTD filed for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter. Denied. So filed counterclaim, manifested that they filed P4C and prohinbition assailing denial of MTD. Filed answer ...cautelam. Filed notice to take depositions...
    WON the answer filed here a real answer?
    Ex abudante cautelam - filed w/ caution
    Usually used:
    • MTD denied. But you truly believed you have a ground for MTD. In the meantime, you period to file an answer is running. So while you are filing a MFR, file this kind of answer so that you would not be in default
    *in such a petition, you still need to put in the anwer your ground for MTD
    *reqts for an answer:
    1. Denial -specific denials, not general
    *lack of knowledge is a denial
    Compulsory counterclaim –
    Financial Builders. V. FPA 338 SCRA 346;
    F: Russian embassy decided to build embassy in Forbes Park. Russian embassy contracted Financial builders to build property, several structures. Forbes park association refused the entry of the trucks because what's going to be constructed is prohibited. Contractor filed suit vs. Forbes park saying they should not be prevented. FPA filed MTD, saying that the contractor is not real party in interest - Russian Embassy should be the party. FPA won. So building not finished. FPA probably incurred lots of damages for the incident. SO FPA filed complaint also vs. Financial builders. - here compulsory counterclaim because it was in connection of the first case.
    H: Cannot file the new case because already barred!
    -even if FPA filed MTD, it is their fault for not asking compulsory counterclaim. Should have filed instead an answer with compulsory counterclaim!
    *Usually, MTD just filed to buy time, especially if filed MTD for lack of jurisdiction
    *what about R11.10? Pwede pag answer filed. But here, MTD filed!
    *where would the dismissal of the case be with prejudice:
    • Prescription
    • Forum shopping
    • Litis pendencia, res judicata
    *if refile, indicate in CNFS the reason for the initial dismissal of the case!
    Reillo v. San Jose GR 166393 Jun 18, 2009
    F: Relatives disputes over a parcel of land. Extrajudicial partition. In answer, there was a compulsory counterclaim for accounting and partition for the other parcel of land. Failure to pay docket fees.
    H: There are 2 types of counterclaim.
    -needs to pay docket fees only when there's a permissive counterclaim
    Permissive counterclaim – Banco de Oro v. CA GR 160354 Aug 25, 2005; Dec 19, 2007
    F: Firs action extrajudicial foreclosure. Second was to stop the foreclosure. Deny TRO. Proceeded w/ extrajudicial foreclosure. Amount of foreclosure not enough, demanded payment of deficiency. Filed supplemental complaint, alleging that BDO proceeded w/ extrajudicial foreclosure even if contrary to law. BDO filed answer to supplemental complaint, saying that it was not contrary to law. Another case for the balance...MTD: BDO's claim should have been included in the answer to the supplemental complaint
    H: Mandaluyong RTC should not dismiss the case because claims of BDO is not a compulsory counterclaim. Claim for deficiency not yet present at time counterclaim filed.
    *but since permissive, it is the option of the claimant what to file
    Third party complaint –
    -cannot just drag in a Third party to a suit when they have no connection to the suit
    Asian Construction v. CA 458 SCRA 750;
    F: Asian leased machineries from Monarch. ...a 3p involved. Monarch filed action for sum of money vs. Asian. Asian wanted to bring in 3p through TPC.
    H: No causal connection to 3P with Monarch. So cannot file TPC. Court cannot be collection agency
    Sy Tiong Shion v Sy Chin GR 174168/179438 Mar 30, 2009
    F: 2 sets of families which hold title to company -Prejudicial question of determination of misappropriation of funds?  TPC is prohibited pleading in rules of intracorporate controversies?
    H: Civil case for accounting of damages not prejudicial question
    -as to 2nd petition: Interim Rules of intracorporate Controversies: TPC is actually allowed...but the claim should be related also to the main claim
    -in determining the sufficiency of TPC - look at complaint and TPC?
    Cross-claim – Torres v. CA 49 SCRA 67 - illustrates...
    A sued B and C; B and C were friends, now enemies. B files cross claims v. C but subject matter is not related to the initial suit filed by A. Could that be filed?
    H: If you have already dismissed the main complaint, the cross claim cannot continue. Cross claim only arises from the main complaint. Intertwined ; unless carries prayer for affirmative relief. 
    Rule 7 Parts of a Pleading
    Sufficient in form/substance – Sps Munsalado v. NHA GR 167181 Dec 23, 2008
    *note that the law is required only to be stated in the ANSWER as a matter of defense. NOT in the complaint!
    *The designation does not determine WON the complaint is sufficient in substance
    -why required that the client also sign: because he is the one who knows WON the facts stated are true and correct
    *now requires MCLE + fax and phone number
    Signature of counsel – Republic v. Kenrich Dev. Do., GR No. 149576, August 8, 2006
    -unsigned pleading has no legal effect - here another person signed the pleading
    Verification/Certification – Madara v. Porillo GR 172449 Aug 20, 2008;
    -verification is merely a statement that the facts prepared by lawyer is true
    CNFS: big change - no such thing before
    -initially, they were strict
    IF CORP: OFFICER + Board Res authorizing such officer to sign
    ...but over the years, there are exceptions: latest, it is assumed that if you are a corporate officer of highest level, or section involved, you are assumed to have authority to bind the corporation...but should submit bylaws to show such authorization...or determine WON you are supposed to know the details in the CNFS
    *always try to have the client sign it himself. If corporation, have board res, which comes in the form of a secretary's certificate
    *if you have several plaintiffs, all sign. If all have uniform interest, there is a case which says that if they have same interest, signature of all not really required.
    Kaunlaran v. Uy GR 154974, Feb 4, 2008;
    Sps Valmonte v. Alcala GR 168667 Jul 23, 2008
    -you can actually email the draft pleading wherever he is, print signature page, sign it, fax it to you, present it to court, manifest that you are going to present the original...the client would have it notarized in Philippine Consulate...then send it through courier
    Who can sign w/o sec cert – Mid-Pasig Land v Mario Tablante GR 162924 Feb 4, 2010
     -you don't need it in certain level of officers
    Rule 8 Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
    Ultimate facts – Far East Marble v. CA GR 94093 Aug 10, 1993
    What you allege in the complaint: UF: essential and substantial facts - elements of COA, or which makes up...
    Evidentiary facts: tend to prove the UF
    Specific denial under oath – Filipinas Textile v. CA 415 SCRA 635
    *if there is an actionable document alleged in the complaint, specific denial under oath required or else invalid
    No knowledge – Warner Barnes v. Reyes 103 Phil 602
    -cannot be used indiscriminately, or else, may become a general denial
    F: Here, no knowledge as to the truth of almost all the allegations, including the documents attached in the complaint
    H: General denial of knowledge and belief as to the truth of the allegations...can't say no knowledge
    *only reserved to allegations, specifically to
    • allegations as to the hiring of lawyer because of suit
    • In tort action,  sleepless nights, anxiety...blah...
    Modes of specific denial – Gaza et al v. Lim GR 126863 Jan 16, 2003;
    Actionable document – Casent Realty v. Philbanking GR 150731 Sep 14, 2007;
    *supposing actionable document is in support of a counterclaim...reply normally required from the plaintiff. But the rule of reply states that if did not file a reply, deemed controverted any new allegations. So would that work, is it deemed contraverted? R8.8 controls, not the rule on reply! This is a specific rule that requires specific requirement for denial of actionable document!
    1. Not a party to the actionable document
    2. Noncompliance with the order for inspection of document
    *admission only as to
    Genuineness: signature is authentic
    Due execution: proper authority to sign the document
    ...not as to intrinsic validity
    *deny under oath only if you are sure it is not your signature
    Malayan v. Regis Brokerage GR 172156 Nov 23, 2007
    Rule 9 Effect of Failure to Plead
    *in bar: almost always asked about default
    No default motu proprio – Santos v PNOC GR 170943 Sep 23, 2008
    Failure to appear – Monzon v. Sps Relova GR 171827 Sep 17, 2008
    Remedies of party declared in default –
    ..depends on the date when the default judgment was found out
    Supposing you receive it today right after order made: MR/MNT - should state why not able to file answer
    Supposing judgment not sent to you but to lawyer who went missing...petition for relief
    You got the default judgment, you don't have ground for MNT/MR: appeal to default judgment
    Cf. CEREZO v. TUAZON, citing LINA v. CA:
    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 negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3, Rule 18 [now Sec. 3(b), Rule 9]);
    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 [now Section 1] 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 41).
    Gomez v. Montalban GR 174414 Mar 14, 2008
    Default judgment – Gajudo v. Traders Royal GR 151098, Mar 21, 2006
    *just read the cases because if you are a practicing lawyer, you should not be minded by default!
    *most filed pleading:
    1. Motion for extension of time to file answer
    2. MFR
    3. Motion for resetting of trial date
    Rule 10 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
    Substantial amendment - PPA v. Gothong and Aboitiz GR 158401 Jan 28, 2008
    NOW: can now amend even if change competely the theory of the case
    ...before answer filed
    ...if only MTD filed
    *formal amendments may be filed at any time
    *the amended complaint supersedes the original pleading
    ...BUT the judicial admissions made in the amended pleadings may still be used.
    ....PLUS deemed to have waived claims and defenses if not mentioned again in the amended pleading. UNDERLINE THE AMENDMENTS!
    *Supplemental pleadings: add supervening events
    When amendments allowed - Quirao v. Quirao 414 SCRA 430;
    Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, GR 148361, Nov 29, 2005;
    Marcos-Araneta et al v. CA GR 154096 Aug 22, 2008
    -when she impleaded new plaintiffs, there was no responsive pleading yet. So court allowed it
    Conform to evidence – Cagungun v. Planters Dev Bank GR 158674 Oct 17, 2005
    If evidence objected to on the trial on the ground that it is not alleged in the pleadings, court may allow the pleading to be amended...
    2 instances
    1. Evidence not objected to - deemed to have been expressly consented to by the party
    >so here, the court could allow the amendment of the pleading to conform to the evidence presented. The other party cannot complain here!
    1. Where you are now presenting evidence outside the issues of the case, the other party objects
    >it is where the court could deny or not...but the court can allow the amendment of the pleading + party should explain why it is material to the whole case
    >>>should not be allowed if the other party would be prejudiced!
    Rule 11 When to File Responsive Pleading
    e.g. You have a pleading due on Sunday, Nov. 28. But Nov. 29 declared a holiday. So now file pleading on the 30th, Tuesday
    ...but what if you are not yet ready to file the pleading? File MOTION FOR EXTENSION of time on the FRIDAY, Nov. courtesy to the court. But yes, you can still file on the 30th, on the day due.
    ...note however that there are some cases where a period is provided so no extension
    Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday - Alarilla v. Ocampo 417 SCRA 601
    Rule 12 Bill of Particulars
    -why not really used: you might not be prepared to defend the client
    When a complaint is vague – Bantillo v. IAC, GR No 75311, Oct. 18, 1988;
    Here: missing part of the complaint was the allegations of Mrs. Bantillo on her authority to sue on behalf of other heirs of the father.
    H: it must be particularly averred! So motion for bill of particulars proper
    *also should state who are being represented! Enumerate the heirs
    * In this case, ma'am said that it was better that Mrs. Bantillo be required to show her authority or else the complaint be dismissed w/o prejudice, and Mrs. Bantillo could refile it again.tatagal.
    For next week: R13-29

No comments:

Post a Comment