ASG Law

Tag: Regional Trial Court

  • When Prohibition Fails: Understanding the Limits of Extraordinary Writs in Philippine Courts

    Lost Your Case? Why a Writ of Prohibition Might Not Be Your Second Chance

    TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies that a writ of prohibition cannot be used to stop a court action that has already concluded. It emphasizes that prohibition is a preventive remedy, not a substitute for a lost appeal. If you’re facing a lawsuit, understand your remedies and deadlines – failing to act promptly can close doors to legal relief.

    G.R. No. 156142, March 23, 2011: SPOUSES ALVIN GUERRERO AND MERCURY M. GUERRERO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. LORNA NAVARRO DOMINGO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 201, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY & PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

    Introduction: The Closed Door of Prohibition

    Imagine you’re locked out of your property. You believe the court handling your eviction case has no right to do so, but instead of actively defending yourself, you try to stop the court itself. This scenario, though legally flawed, mirrors the predicament of the Guerreros in this Supreme Court case. Their attempt to use a Petition for Prohibition to halt an unlawful detainer case ultimately failed, highlighting a crucial limitation of this legal remedy and underscoring the importance of timely and appropriate legal action.

    The case of Spouses Guerrero v. Hon. Lorna Navarro Domingo and Pilar Development Corporation delves into the proper use of a Writ of Prohibition. The Guerreros, facing eviction from their property, sought to prevent the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) from proceeding with the case, arguing it lacked jurisdiction. However, their petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after the MeTC had already decided against them. The Supreme Court ultimately sided against the Guerreros, reinforcing the principle that prohibition is a preventive, not corrective, measure. This case serves as a stark reminder for litigants: extraordinary writs like prohibition are not magic wands to undo unfavorable judgments, especially when other, more appropriate remedies exist and are not diligently pursued.

    Legal Context: Prohibition – A Shield, Not a Sword

    In the Philippine legal system, a Writ of Prohibition is a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It’s designed to prevent a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person – exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions – from acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Essentially, it’s a court order telling someone to stop doing something.

    The key text from Rule 65, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clarifies its purpose: “When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court against the latter alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein…”

    Crucially, prohibition is a preventive remedy. It aims to halt an ongoing or impending action, not to reverse something already completed. Think of it as a shield to prevent an illegal act from happening, not a sword to undo the damage after the act has been done. This distinction is vital and was central to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Guerrero case. Furthermore, the Rules explicitly state that prohibition is available only when there is “no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” This means that if a regular remedy, like a motion to dismiss or an appeal, is available, prohibition is generally not the appropriate recourse.

    In the context of unlawful detainer cases, which are summary proceedings designed for quick resolution of possession disputes, the Rules of Procedure themselves provide for specific remedies. Section 13, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, for instance, limits prohibited pleadings in ejectment cases but explicitly allows a Motion to Dismiss based on “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” This highlights that the Rules already anticipate and address jurisdictional challenges within the framework of ejectment proceedings.

    Case Breakdown: The Guerreros’ Missed Opportunity

    The story begins with a Contract to Sell between Pilar Development Corporation (PDC) and the Spouses Guerrero for a property. The Guerreros made a down payment but allegedly stopped subsequent payments after June 1, 2000. PDC, citing this breach, cancelled the contract in November 2001 and demanded the Guerreros vacate the property.

    When the Guerreros refused, PDC filed an Unlawful Detainer case (Civil Case No. 6293) in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Las Piñas City in February 2002. The Guerreros, in their Answer, argued that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction because PDC’s complaint supposedly mixed an ejectment case with a cause of action for “cancellation, extinguishment or rescission of contract,” which they claimed was beyond the MeTC’s pecuniary jurisdiction.

    Instead of actively participating in the MeTC case, the Guerreros filed a Petition for Prohibition (Civil Case No. SCA-02-0007) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in April 2002, seeking to stop the MeTC proceedings. Despite this, the MeTC continued and, in September 2002, ruled in favor of PDC, ordering the Guerreros to vacate. Only then did the Guerreros appeal the MeTC decision to the RTC (Civil Case No. LP-02-0292).

    Meanwhile, the RTC-Branch 201, hearing the Petition for Prohibition, denied it in November 2002, stating prohibition was inappropriate because the contract cancellation had already happened – the act they sought to prevent was a “fait accompli.” The RTC further noted that the proper remedy was a Motion to Dismiss, which the Guerreros could have filed in the MeTC.

    The Guerreros then elevated the Prohibition case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the RTC’s denial of the Prohibition Petition, albeit on slightly different grounds. While the RTC focused on the “fait accompli” of contract cancellation, the Supreme Court emphasized that the act sought to be prohibited was the MeTC’s hearing and disposition of the unlawful detainer case. By the time the RTC ruled on the Prohibition Petition, and certainly by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the MeTC had already rendered its decision. The Supreme Court stated:

    “Since the act sought to be enjoined in the Petition for Prohibition had already been accomplished, the same should be dismissed.”

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted the Guerreros’ failure to diligently pursue other remedies. They could have filed a Motion to Dismiss in the MeTC based on lack of jurisdiction. They could have actively participated in the MeTC proceedings and presented their defense. Even their appeal to the RTC in the unlawful detainer case was dismissed because they failed to file a Memorandum of Appeal. The Court pointedly noted:

    “Just as certiorari cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the latter remedy is available but was lost through the fault or negligence of petitioner, prohibition should not lie when petitioner could have resorted to other remedies that are now lost due to its own neglect.”

    In essence, the Guerreros’ predicament was self-inflicted. Their attempt to use prohibition as a shortcut, while neglecting available remedies within the unlawful detainer case itself, backfired. The Supreme Court refused to condone this procedural misstep.

    Practical Implications: Act Decisively and Use the Right Tools

    This case provides crucial lessons for anyone facing legal disputes, particularly in ejectment cases:

    • Prohibition is not a cure-all: It’s a specific remedy with limitations. It’s meant to prevent ongoing or future actions, not to undo past ones. If a court has already ruled, prohibition is likely not the answer.
    • Exhaust available remedies: The Rules of Court provide mechanisms to challenge jurisdiction and other legal issues within the primary case itself. Motions to Dismiss, Answers with affirmative defenses, and appeals are the standard remedies. Resorting to extraordinary writs prematurely or as a substitute for these ordinary remedies is generally disfavored.
    • Timeliness is paramount: Legal remedies have deadlines. Failing to act promptly, whether it’s filing a motion, submitting an appeal memorandum, or participating in court proceedings, can have dire consequences. The Guerreros’ inaction in both the MeTC and RTC appeal ultimately sealed their fate.
    • Focus on the main case: Instead of trying to sidestep the unlawful detainer case through prohibition, the Guerreros should have focused on defending themselves within that case. Raising jurisdictional issues as an affirmative defense or in a Motion to Dismiss would have been the proper procedural route.

    Key Lessons:

    • Understand the nature of Prohibition: It’s a preventive writ, not a corrective one.
    • Prioritize ordinary remedies: Motions to Dismiss and Appeals are usually the appropriate first steps.
    • Act promptly and diligently: Missed deadlines and procedural missteps can be fatal to your case.
    • Engage with the primary case: Focus on defending your interests within the main legal action, rather than seeking extraordinary detours.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is a Writ of Prohibition in simple terms?

    A: It’s like a court order telling another court or government body to stop doing something, usually because they are acting outside their legal authority.

    Q: When is Prohibition the right legal remedy?

    A: When you need to prevent a court or government body from continuing an action that is beyond their jurisdiction or done with grave abuse of discretion, and there’s no other regular way to stop it immediately.

    Q: Can I use Prohibition if I already lost my case in a lower court?

    A: Generally, no. Prohibition is for preventing ongoing or future actions, not for reversing completed actions. Once a court has already decided, you typically need to pursue an appeal, not prohibition.

    Q: What’s the difference between Prohibition and Certiorari?

    A: Both are extraordinary writs, but Certiorari is used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion that have already occurred, resulting in a judgment or order. Prohibition is to prevent such errors from continuing or happening in the future. Certiorari reviews what was done; Prohibition prevents something from being done.

    Q: If I think a court doesn’t have jurisdiction over my case, should I file a Petition for Prohibition right away?

    A: Not necessarily. First, you should usually raise the issue of jurisdiction within the case itself, such as through a Motion to Dismiss or in your Answer. Prohibition is generally a remedy of last resort when other remedies are inadequate or have failed.

    Q: What happens if I file a Petition for Prohibition when I should have appealed?

    A: Your Petition for Prohibition is likely to be dismissed. Courts generally require you to use the correct and available remedies, like appeals, before resorting to extraordinary writs.

    Q: Are there exceptions to the rule that Prohibition cannot be used for past actions?

    A: While the general rule is as stated, legal nuances exist. However, it’s crucial to consult with a lawyer to assess your specific situation rather than assuming an exception applies.

    ASG Law specializes in litigation and property disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Overcoming Jurisdictional Hurdles: Understanding Property Disputes in the Philippines

    When the Wrong Court Can Void Your Judgment: Understanding Philippine Jurisdiction

    n

    G.R. No. 165423, January 19, 2011

    n

    Imagine investing years in a property dispute, only to discover the court lacked the authority to hear your case. In the Philippines, jurisdiction—the power of a court to hear and decide a case—is paramount. If a court oversteps its jurisdictional bounds, its decisions are void, meaning they have no legal effect. This principle is vividly illustrated in the case of Nilo Padre v. Fructosa Badillo, highlighting the critical importance of filing your case in the correct court.

    n

    This case revolves around a decades-long property dispute. The central legal question is whether the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) had the jurisdiction to hear a case related to property already subject to a prior Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision.

    nn

    Understanding Philippine Court Jurisdiction

    n

    Jurisdiction is the cornerstone of any legal proceeding. In the Philippines, the power of different courts to hear specific cases is defined by law, primarily through the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. Understanding the distinction between real and personal actions, as well as the assessed value of the property involved, is key to determining the correct venue.

    n

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that “what determines the nature of the action and which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.” This means the court looks at the core issues presented by the plaintiff to determine if it has the authority to resolve the dispute.

    nn

    Key Legal Provisions

    n

    Several legal provisions are central to understanding jurisdiction in property disputes:

    n

      n

    • Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 19(2): Grants Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 (or P50,000 in Metro Manila).

      • n

    • Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 33(3): Grants Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs) exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, where the assessed value of the property does not exceed P20,000 (or P50,000 in Metro Manila).

      • n

    • Rules of Court, Rule 70: Governs ejectment cases (forcible entry and unlawful detainer), which fall under the jurisdiction of the MTC, provided the action is filed within one year from the date of unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.

      • n

    n

    In the Philippines, actions concerning real property are categorized as either accion interdictal (ejectment suits) or accion publiciana. Accion interdictal involves the summary actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, aimed at recovering possession within one year. Accion publiciana, on the other hand, is a plenary action to recover the right of possession, independent of title, and must be brought within ten years.

    nn

    The Padre v. Badillo Case: A Story of Re-entry and Jurisdictional Error

    n

    The Badillo family had previously won a property dispute in Civil Case No. A-514, decided by the RTC. However, after the execution of the judgment, the losing parties, including the predecessor of Nilo Padre, re-entered the property. This led the Badillos to file a new complaint, Civil Case No. 104, with the MTC, seeking to regain possession.

    n

    The MTC, interpreting the suit as an action to revive the dormant judgment in Civil Case No. A-514, ruled in favor of the Badillos. Nilo Padre, one of the defendants, challenged the MTC’s jurisdiction, arguing that the case was essentially a real action (concerning real property) and should have been filed with the RTC.

    n

    The case journeyed through the courts:

    n

      n

    1. MTC Ruling: The MTC ruled it had jurisdiction, interpreting the case as a revival of judgment.

      2. n

    2. RTC Ruling: The RTC affirmed the MTC’s decision, stating it was a personal action and thus properly filed.

      3. n

    3. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding that the MTC lacked jurisdiction.

      4. n

    n

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the Badillo family’s complaint, despite being styled as one for

  • Corporate Officer vs. Employee: Defining Jurisdiction in Illegal Dismissal Cases

    The Supreme Court held that when a dispute arises from the removal of a corporate officer, the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), not the Labor Arbiter. This is because the removal of a corporate officer is considered an intra-corporate controversy, involving the corporation’s internal affairs. The determination hinges on whether the individual was elected by the board of directors as a corporate officer under the corporation’s by-laws, irrespective of their perceived ’employee’ status based on the four-fold test traditionally used for employment disputes. This ruling clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between labor tribunals and civil courts in cases involving corporate officers.

    From Executive to Plaintiff: Who Decides When a Corporate Officer is ‘Dismissed’?

    Arsenio Z. Locsin, formerly the Executive Vice President/Treasurer (EVP/Treasurer) and later Chairman of Nissan Lease Phils. Inc. (NCLPI), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against NCLPI and its president, Luis Banson, after he was not re-elected as Chairman nor reinstated as EVP/Treasurer. The core legal question revolves around whether Locsin’s removal constituted an illegal dismissal within the purview of labor laws or an intra-corporate dispute to be resolved by civil courts. The Labor Arbiter initially sided with Locsin, asserting jurisdiction based on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. However, NCLPI challenged this decision, arguing that Locsin’s position as EVP/Treasurer was that of a corporate officer, making the dispute intra-corporate and therefore outside the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting Locsin to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court faced two critical issues: a procedural question regarding the CA’s jurisdiction to review the Labor Arbiter’s decision and a substantive question regarding Locsin’s status as a corporate officer or regular employee. The procedural issue arose because NCLPI directly appealed the Labor Arbiter’s denial of their Motion to Dismiss to the CA, which is generally not permissible under the rules. Ordinarily, the proper recourse would have been to proceed with the arbitration, present defenses, and then appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) after a final decision. However, the Supreme Court recognized that strict adherence to procedural rules could lead to injustice, especially if the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction from the outset.

    Addressing the procedural misstep, the Supreme Court acknowledged the general rule against appealing interlocutory orders, such as the denial of a motion to dismiss. Quoting Metro Drug v. Metro Drug Employees, the Court reiterated that “the denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is an interlocutory order and hence, cannot be appealed, until a final judgment on the merits of the case is rendered.” The Court also referenced Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, emphasizing that a special civil action for certiorari is available only when “there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” In the labor context, Article 223 of the Labor Code provides such a remedy through appeal to the NLRC, even on grounds of abuse of discretion by the Labor Arbiter. Despite acknowledging this procedural lapse, the Court decided to delve into the merits of the case.

    The Court’s decision to overlook the procedural defect was grounded in the exceptional circumstances of the case. Applying the guidelines established in Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, the Court considered factors such as the existence of compelling circumstances, the merits of the case, the lack of fault or negligence by the party favored by the suspension of the rules, the absence of frivolous or dilatory motives, and the absence of unjust prejudice to the other party. Central to the decision was the determination that Locsin was indeed a corporate officer, not an employee, thereby stripping the Labor Arbiter of jurisdiction. This conclusion was based on several factors. Locsin was elected by the Nissan board as Chairman and President, positions explicitly outlined in the company’s By-laws. Moreover, even in his role as Executive Vice-President/Treasurer, a position also defined in the By-laws, Locsin’s functions and responsibilities aligned with those of a corporate officer.

    Article IV, Section 4 of NCLPI’s By-Laws details the responsibilities of the Executive Vice-President/Treasurer, including managing funds, securities, receipts, and disbursements, and reporting on the financial condition of the corporation. This contrasts with the typical functions of an employee who is usually hired by a managing officer rather than elected by the board. Citing Okol v. Slimmers World International, the Court emphasized that “an ‘office’ is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors or stockholders,” while an ’employee’ usually occupies no office and is employed by the managing officer. The Supreme Court underscored that Locsin’s election by the NCLPI Board, in accordance with the Amended By-Laws, solidified his status as a corporate officer. The Court quoted the CA’s factual determination, which highlighted Locsin’s failure to demonstrate any circumstances suggesting that the corporation engaged his services in a manner that would make him an employee, rather than an elected corporate officer.

    Given Locsin’s status as a corporate officer, the Supreme Court affirmed that the RTC, not the Labor Arbiter or NLRC, had jurisdiction over the dispute regarding the legality of his termination. Citing previous cases, the Court reiterated that a corporate officer’s dismissal is always considered a corporate act or an intra-corporate controversy. Before amendments to the law, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had jurisdiction over such disputes, but Republic Act No. 8799 transferred this jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Courts. The Court acknowledged that dismissing the petition on procedural grounds would lead to remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter, despite clear evidence that the latter lacked jurisdiction. This would cause unnecessary delays and expenses, ultimately leading to an unjust outcome. Therefore, the Court prioritized the substantive merits of the case and the fundamental element of jurisdiction.

    Jurisdiction is the bedrock upon which any judicial or quasi-judicial body exercises its power to hear and decide a case. The Supreme Court found that allowing the Labor Arbiter to continue presiding over a case where jurisdiction was manifestly absent would be a disservice to justice. The ruling does not delve into the merits of the termination itself, leaving Locsin the option to pursue an intra-corporate dispute in the appropriate RTC. By prioritizing the jurisdictional issue over procedural technicalities, the Supreme Court aimed to prevent unnecessary delays and ensure that the dispute is resolved in the correct forum. This decision underscores the principle that procedural rules should not be applied rigidly when they would lead to a miscarriage of justice, particularly when the lack of jurisdiction is evident.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Arsenio Z. Locsin, a former corporate officer, should be heard by the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The resolution hinged on whether Locsin was an employee or a corporate officer.
    Why did the Supreme Court rule that the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction? The Supreme Court ruled that because Locsin was a corporate officer, the dispute was intra-corporate, and jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes lies with the RTC, not the Labor Arbiter. This is based on the Corporation Code and jurisprudence defining corporate officers.
    What defines a ‘corporate officer’ according to this case? A corporate officer is defined as someone elected by the board of directors and whose position is created by the corporation’s charter or by-laws. In this case, Locsin’s positions (EVP/Treasurer and Chairman) were stipulated in NCLPI’s by-laws.
    What is an ‘intra-corporate dispute’? An intra-corporate dispute involves the internal affairs of a corporation, including controversies regarding the election, appointment, or removal of directors, trustees, or officers. These disputes are typically resolved within the civil court system.
    What was the procedural issue in this case? The procedural issue was that NCLPI directly filed a petition for certiorari with the CA after the Labor Arbiter denied their Motion to Dismiss. This is generally not allowed, as the proper recourse is to appeal to the NLRC after a final decision.
    Why did the Supreme Court address the merits despite the procedural issue? The Supreme Court addressed the merits because adhering strictly to procedural rules would have perpetuated the jurisdictional error and caused undue delay and expense. The Court prioritized ensuring the case was heard in the correct forum.
    What does this ruling mean for other corporate officers who are terminated? This ruling means that corporate officers who are terminated and believe they were illegally dismissed must file their complaints with the RTC, not the Labor Arbiter or NLRC. The case emphasizes the importance of determining the correct jurisdiction from the outset.
    Can Locsin still pursue legal action after this decision? Yes, the Supreme Court’s decision was without prejudice to Locsin’s right to seek relief through the appropriate remedy in the proper forum, which is the RTC. He can file an intra-corporate dispute regarding his termination.
    What is the significance of the four-fold test in this case? The four-fold test, typically used to determine employer-employee relationship, was deemed inapplicable in this case because Locsin was determined to be a corporate officer, not merely an employee. His election and role were governed by corporate law, not labor law.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Locsin v. Nissan Lease Phils. Inc. clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries in disputes involving corporate officers. While generally adhering to procedural rules, the Court recognized the importance of addressing jurisdictional issues upfront to prevent injustice and ensure efficient resolution. This case serves as a reminder that the nature of one’s role within a corporation—whether as an employee or a corporate officer—dictates the appropriate legal venue for resolving disputes related to their termination.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Arsenio Z. Locsin v. Nissan Lease Phils. Inc., G.R. No. 185567, October 20, 2010

  • Corporate Officer vs. Employee: Defining Jurisdiction in Illegal Dismissal Cases

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between Labor Arbiters (LAs) and Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in illegal dismissal cases. The Court ruled that the LA has jurisdiction over cases involving regular employees, while the RTC presides over disputes concerning corporate officers. This distinction hinges on whether the dismissed individual holds a position explicitly designated as a corporate office in the corporation’s by-laws, irrespective of their rank or responsibilities.

    Dismissal Dilemma: Corporate Power Play or Labor Dispute?

    Ricardo Coros, formerly the Vice President for Finance and Administration at Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after being terminated. Matling argued that, as a corporate officer and member of the Board of Directors, Coros’s case fell under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), now the RTC, due to its intra-corporate nature. Coros countered that his position was not a corporate office as defined by Matling’s by-laws, and therefore, the LA had jurisdiction. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Coros’s position qualified as a corporate office, thus determining the appropriate venue for his illegal dismissal claim.

    The Supreme Court began by establishing the general rule that LAs have original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes involving all workers, as outlined in Article 217(a)2 of the Labor Code. However, an exception exists for corporate officers, whose dismissal cases fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC, as per Republic Act No. 8799, which transferred such cases from the SEC. This distinction is crucial because intra-corporate disputes involve relationships between stockholders, members, or officers of a corporation, and the corporation itself.

    The Court then delved into the critical issue of defining a “corporate officer.” According to Section 25 of the Corporation Code, corporate officers are the president, secretary, treasurer, and “such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws.”

    Section 25. Corporate officers, quorum.–Immediately after their election, the directors of a corporation must formally organize by the election of a president, who shall be a director, a treasurer who may or may not be a director, a secretary who shall be a resident and citizen of the Philippines, and such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws.

    The Court emphasized that a position must be expressly mentioned in the by-laws to be considered a corporate office. The power of the President to create new offices, as granted by Matling’s By-Law No. V, does not automatically elevate those positions to the level of corporate offices. This interpretation prevents corporations from circumventing the security of tenure afforded to regular employees by simply creating new “corporate officer” positions.

    The Court also addressed Matling’s argument that Coros’s status as a Director and stockholder automatically classified his dismissal as an intra-corporate dispute. It refuted this claim, asserting that the mere fact of being a stockholder or director does not automatically place a dispute within the RTC’s jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the importance of considering both the status or relationship of the parties and the nature of the controversy.

    The better policy in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case would be to consider not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.

    In Coros’s case, the Court found that his appointment as Vice President for Finance and Administration was based on his long and dedicated service to Matling, not his status as a stockholder or Director. His subsequent acquisition of those roles did not alter the fundamental nature of his employment relationship. This decision underscores the principle that the manner of creation of an office, rather than the nature of services performed, determines whether it is a corporate office or simply a regular employment position.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous rulings that seemed to suggest a broader interpretation of intra-corporate disputes. It clarified that those earlier pronouncements should not be considered controlling, particularly when they conflict with the principles of reason, justice, and fair play. The Court emphasized that the primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the employee’s activities and the employer’s usual business, as well as the length of service.

    The decision in Matling serves as a crucial reminder that not all high-ranking positions within a corporation qualify as corporate offices. Only those positions explicitly designated in the corporation’s by-laws are considered corporate offices for jurisdictional purposes. This distinction is vital for determining the proper venue for illegal dismissal claims and ensuring that employees are afforded the appropriate legal protections.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court, by requiring explicit designation in the by-laws, narrowed the scope of what constitutes a corporate officer, ensuring greater protection for employees. Moreover, the emphasis on the nature of the controversy over the mere status of the parties as stockholders or directors is a significant refinement of jurisprudence on intra-corporate disputes. This case thus provides a clearer framework for resolving jurisdictional questions in dismissal cases involving corporate personnel.

    Finally, the practical implication of this ruling is that employees holding positions not explicitly designated as corporate offices in the by-laws can seek recourse for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. This offers a more accessible and expeditious avenue for resolving labor disputes, aligning with the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Ricardo Coros’s position as Vice President for Finance and Administration was a corporate office, determining whether the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over his illegal dismissal case.
    What is the difference between a regular employee and a corporate officer? A regular employee’s position is not specified in the corporation’s by-laws and is typically hired by a managing officer. A corporate officer, on the other hand, holds a position explicitly mentioned in the by-laws and is elected by the Board of Directors or stockholders.
    How does the Corporation Code define corporate officers? Section 25 of the Corporation Code defines corporate officers as the president, secretary, treasurer, and such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws.
    Why is it important to distinguish between a corporate officer and a regular employee in dismissal cases? The distinction is critical because it determines which court has jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case. Labor Arbiters handle cases involving regular employees, while Regional Trial Courts handle cases involving corporate officers.
    Does being a stockholder or director automatically make one a corporate officer? No, being a stockholder or director does not automatically make one a corporate officer. The position must be explicitly designated in the corporation’s by-laws.
    Can a corporation circumvent employee rights by creating new corporate officer positions? No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the power to create new offices does not automatically make those positions corporate offices. The position must still be explicitly designated in the by-laws.
    What is the significance of By-Law No. V in this case? By-Law No. V granted the President of Matling the power to create new offices, but the Court ruled that this power did not extend to creating corporate offices without amending the by-laws.
    What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide in this case? The Supreme Court ruled that Ricardo Coros’s position was not a corporate office, and therefore, the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over his illegal dismissal case.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros provides clear guidelines for determining jurisdiction in illegal dismissal cases involving corporate personnel. The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Corporation Code and the corporation’s by-laws in defining corporate offices, thereby protecting the rights of employees and ensuring fair labor practices.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros, G.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010

  • Jurisdictional Thresholds: Resolving Property Disputes in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, determining which court has jurisdiction over property disputes hinges on the assessed value of the property. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property in Metro Manila, provided that the assessed value does not exceed P50,000.00. This ruling ensures that less valuable property disputes are resolved at a lower court level, promoting accessibility and efficiency in the justice system.

    Crossing Boundaries: When a Neighbor’s Encroachment Tests Jurisdictional Limits

    The case of BF Citiland Corporation v. Marilyn B. Otake arose from a property dispute in Parañaque City. BF Citiland Corporation, the registered owner of a lot, filed an action for accion publiciana against Marilyn Otake, who owned an adjoining lot. The core of the conflict was that Otake had encroached upon Citiland’s property. The initial complaint was lodged in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque City, with Citiland seeking to compel Otake to vacate the premises and pay compensation for the use of the land. The MeTC ruled in favor of Citiland, but Otake contested the decision, arguing that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over the case.

    Otake’s primary contention was that accion publiciana cases fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTC), regardless of the property’s assessed value. The RTC sided with Otake, dismissing the MeTC’s decision and asserting its own jurisdiction. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the MeTC correctly exercised jurisdiction over the accion publiciana case, considering the property’s assessed value was below the jurisdictional threshold set by law. This issue involved interpreting the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129), as amended by Republic Act 7691, which delineates the jurisdiction of various courts based on the assessed value of the property in question.

    The Supreme Court addressed the procedural misstep of BF Citiland Corporation, which initially appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. According to Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court:

    (a) Ordinary appeal. – The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. x x x

    (b) Petition for review. – The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42. (Emphasis supplied)

    x x x x

    The Supreme Court acknowledged the procedural error but emphasized that strict adherence to technical rules should not prevail over the pursuit of substantial justice. Dismissing the appeal on a technicality would only prolong the litigation and potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the Court chose to relax the rules and address the substantive issue of jurisdiction. This decision reflects the Court’s commitment to resolving disputes on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities.

    Delving into the substantive issue, the Supreme Court clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between the MeTC and the RTC in cases involving real property. Prior to the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7691, the plenary action of accion publiciana was generally brought before the Regional Trial Courts (RTC). However, with the enactment of R.A. 7691, the jurisdiction of first-level courts, such as the MeTC, was expanded to include cases involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed certain thresholds. BP 129, as amended, now provides:

    Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

    x x x x

    (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (Emphasis supplied)

    The Court underscored that jurisdiction, even in accion publiciana cases, is now primarily determined by the assessed value of the property, as highlighted in Spouses Alcantara v. Nido, where the Court defined the assessed value as the worth or value of the property as fixed by the taxing authorities for the purpose of determining the applicable tax rate, which does not necessarily represent the true or market value of the property. In this particular case, the complaint clearly stated that the assessed value of the lot, as per the tax declaration filed in the Office of the Assessor, was P48,000.00. Since the assessed value fell below the P50,000.00 threshold for Metro Manila, the Supreme Court concluded that the MeTC had exclusive original jurisdiction over the case.

    Therefore, the RTC erred in ruling that the MeTC lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the assessed value of the property, as indicated in the tax declaration, that determines which court has jurisdiction. This ruling provides clarity and guidance for future property disputes, ensuring that cases are filed in the appropriate court based on the assessed value of the property in question. The decision underscores the importance of examining the tax declarations and understanding the jurisdictional limits set by law when initiating legal action related to real property.

    FAQs

    What is an “accion publiciana”? Accion publiciana is a plenary action for the recovery of the right to possess, filed when dispossession has lasted longer than one year. It is a real action, meaning it concerns real property rights.
    What is the assessed value of a property? The assessed value is the value assigned to a property by the local government for taxation purposes. This value is used to calculate property taxes and may not reflect the property’s market value.
    What is the jurisdictional amount for MTCs in Metro Manila for real property cases? As of this case, Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs) in Metro Manila have jurisdiction over real property cases where the assessed value of the property does not exceed P50,000.00.
    What happens if the assessed value is higher than the MTC’s jurisdictional limit? If the assessed value exceeds P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the real property case.
    Why did the Supreme Court allow the appeal despite a procedural error? The Supreme Court prioritized substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural rules. Dismissing the appeal would have prolonged the litigation without resolving the core issue.
    Is it possible to question a court’s jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings? Yes, lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings because jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived by the parties.
    What law governs the jurisdiction of courts in the Philippines? Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, also known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act 7691, governs the jurisdiction of various courts in the Philippines.
    Does the value of improvements on the land affect the jurisdictional amount? No, the jurisdictional amount is based on the assessed value of the land itself, not including any improvements made on the property.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in BF Citiland Corporation v. Marilyn B. Otake provides essential clarification on jurisdictional thresholds for property disputes in the Philippines. By emphasizing the assessed value of the property as the primary determinant of jurisdiction, the Court has streamlined the process for determining which court should hear a case. This ruling promotes efficiency and accessibility within the judicial system, ensuring that property disputes are resolved in the appropriate forum.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: BF Citiland Corporation v. Marilyn B. Otake, G.R. No. 173351, July 29, 2010

  • Appeals from the NWRB: Clarifying Jurisdiction Between the RTC and Court of Appeals

    The Supreme Court clarified that the Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial Court, has both certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over decisions from the National Water Resources Board (NWRB). This ruling effectively overturns previous interpretations suggesting that RTCs had jurisdiction over NWRB decisions, ensuring a uniform procedure for reviewing adjudications of quasi-judicial entities. For individuals or entities contesting NWRB decisions, this means appeals must now be directed to the Court of Appeals.

    Navigating Water Rights: Who Decides – RTC or Court of Appeals?

    The central issue in National Water Resources Board v. A. L. Ang Network, Inc. revolves around determining the proper court to handle appeals from the decisions of the National Water Resources Board (NWRB). A.L. Ang Network, Inc. applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate a water service system, which was initially granted by the NWRB but later reconsidered due to opposition from the Bacolod City Water District (BACIWA). This led A.L. Ang Network to file a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City. The NWRB moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the proper venue for appeal was the Court of Appeals, setting the stage for a jurisdictional dispute that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

    The RTC dismissed A.L. Ang Network’s petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The RTC held that Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129), as amended, had removed the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction over decisions from quasi-judicial agencies like the NWRB, vesting it instead with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, reversed the RTC’s decision, asserting that the RTC had jurisdiction over appeals from NWRB decisions. This assertion was based on an interpretation of Article 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 (PD 1067), also known as the Water Code of the Philippines, and prior jurisprudence.

    The Supreme Court began its analysis by examining the relevant legal framework. Section 9(1) of BP 129 grants the Court of Appeals original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. Further, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court gives the appellate court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies. The Court emphasized that petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against quasi-judicial agencies like the NWRB should be filed with the Court of Appeals, ensuring procedural uniformity unless otherwise specified by law or the Rules.

    The appellate court’s reliance on Article 89 of PD 1067 as an exception to the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction was deemed erroneous by the Supreme Court. Article 89 of PD 1067 states:

    ART. 89. The decisions of the [NWRB] on water rights controversies may be appealed to the [RTC] of the province where the subject matter of the controversy is situated within fifteen (15) days from the date the party appealing receives a copy of the decision, on any of the following grounds: (1) grave abuse of discretion; (2) question of law; and (3) questions of fact and law

    The Supreme Court clarified that Article 89 of PD 1067 had been rendered inoperative by the passage of BP 129. Section 47 of BP 129 repealed or modified all statutes, letters of instructions, and general orders inconsistent with its provisions. This general repealing clause indicates that any conflicting provisions in prior acts would be superseded.

    In enacting BP 129, the Batasang Pambansa was presumed to be aware of Article 89 of PD 1067 and intended to change it. The legislative intent to repeal Article 89 is clear, considering the scope and purpose of BP 129, which sought to establish a uniform procedure for reviewing adjudications of quasi-judicial entities through the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court noted that while Article 89 of PD 1067 conferred the power of review on appeal to the RTC, BP 129 shifted this power to the Court of Appeals, clarifying the appellate and certiorari jurisdictions over adjudications of quasi-judicial bodies.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that the NWRB was not explicitly listed among the quasi-judicial agencies in Section 9(3) of BP 129 and Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. It clarified that the list of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 is not exhaustive, emphasizing the use of the word “among” as an indication that the list is illustrative rather than restrictive. Therefore, the absence of the NWRB from the list does not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising appellate jurisdiction over its judgments, orders, resolutions, or awards.

    The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from BF Northwest Homeowners Association v. Intermediate Appellate Court, a 1987 case cited by the appellate court. The Court explained that this earlier ruling was no longer controlling due to the definitive instructions of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court. Similarly, the case of Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton was deemed not applicable, as it dealt with the jurisdictional conflict between the RTC and the then National Water Resources Council regarding disputes over water appropriation, utilization, and control.

    To summarize, the Supreme Court firmly established that both certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of the NWRB properly belong to the Court of Appeals. This decision provides clarity and uniformity in the review process for decisions made by the NWRB, ensuring that appeals are consistently directed to the appropriate appellate court.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was determining whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the National Water Resources Board (NWRB).
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeals, not the RTC, has both certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over decisions from the NWRB.
    What is the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision? The decision is based on the interpretation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129) and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which grant the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies.
    Did the Supreme Court find that Article 89 of PD 1067 still applies? No, the Supreme Court found that Article 89 of PD 1067, which granted appellate jurisdiction to the RTC, had been rendered inoperative by the passage of BP 129.
    Is the list of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 exhaustive? No, the Supreme Court clarified that the list of quasi-judicial agencies in Rule 43 is not meant to be exclusive.
    What does this decision mean for those appealing NWRB decisions? This decision means that appeals from NWRB decisions must now be directed to the Court of Appeals, ensuring uniformity in the review process.
    What is certiorari jurisdiction? Certiorari jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to review the decisions or actions of a lower court or tribunal to determine if it acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
    Why is this decision important? This decision is important because it clarifies the proper venue for appeals from the NWRB, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal process.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in National Water Resources Board v. A. L. Ang Network, Inc. definitively establishes the Court of Appeals as the proper venue for both certiorari and appellate jurisdiction over adjudications of the NWRB. This ruling streamlines the review process and provides clear guidance for parties seeking to appeal NWRB decisions, promoting efficiency and consistency in the administration of water rights disputes.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: National Water Resources Board v. A. L. Ang Network, Inc., G.R. No. 186450, April 08, 2010

  • Upholding Judicial Stability: The Principle Against Interfering with Co-Equal Courts’ Judgments

    The Supreme Court, in this consolidated case, reiterated the principle of judicial stability. It ruled that a Regional Trial Court (RTC) cannot interfere with the judgment of a co-equal RTC. This means that once a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final decision, other courts with concurrent jurisdiction cannot modify or vacate that judgment. This ensures an orderly and efficient administration of justice by preventing conflicting rulings from different courts regarding the same matter, thus preserving the integrity and finality of judicial decisions.

    Challenging Finality: When Can Courts Revisit Concluded Cases?

    These consolidated cases arose from a dispute between Jose Cabaral Tiu (petitioner) and First Plywood Corporation (FPC) concerning a settlement agreement. As a settlement of FPC’s debt to Tiu, FPC allowed Tiu to cut and haul logs from its timber concession areas. When FPC allegedly prevented Tiu from accessing these areas, Tiu filed a case with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City. The Pagadian RTC rendered a judgment based on a Compromise Agreement forged between Tiu and FPC. Subsequently, an execution sale of FPC’s properties took place to satisfy the judgment. However, FPC later filed separate cases in the Manila RTC and the Antipolo RTC, seeking to annul the execution sale. This prompted the Supreme Court to address the critical issue of whether one RTC can annul the decision and execution sale ordered by another RTC of equal jurisdiction.

    The Manila RTC ruled in favor of FPC, nullifying the execution sale. The court reasoned that the sale was conducted without proper notice. On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed Tiu’s petition for annulment of judgment, leading to G.R. No. 176123 before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, TEI and Angel Domingo filed a similar case in the Antipolo RTC, also seeking to annul the execution sale. The Antipolo RTC initially dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to G.R. No. 185265. The Supreme Court consolidated these cases to resolve the common issue of the validity of the Pagadian case execution sale and the propriety of the subsequent actions filed in the Manila and Antipolo RTCs.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the validity of the Pagadian case execution sale was central to resolving both petitions. It reiterated the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, which means that the sheriff is presumed to have properly performed his duty of providing notice of the sale unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The Court noted that FPC failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption, and the Manila RTC erred by placing the burden of proof on the sheriff. According to the Supreme Court, “[a]part from its bare allegations, it has not come forward with any evidence, let alone a clear and convincing one, of non-compliance with the requirement of a minimum of five days prior notice of sale of property on execution.”

    The Court then addressed the issue of jurisdiction. It found that the Manila RTC lacked jurisdiction over the nature of the action filed by FPC. The Court explained that the Pagadian RTC, which rendered the original decision and ordered the execution sale, was the proper venue to settle the controversy. The Supreme Court underscored the principle of judicial stability, stating: “[p]ursuant to the principle of judicial stability, the judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, Pagadian RTC in this case, may not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction (i.e., another RTC), for the simple reason that the power to open, modify or vacate the said judgment or order is not only possessed by but is restricted to the court in which the judgment or order is rendered or issued.”

    This principle is crucial for maintaining order and preventing chaos in the judicial system. Permitting courts of equal jurisdiction to interfere with each other’s judgments would lead to endless litigation and undermine the finality of judicial decisions. As the Court noted, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked at any time. The Court has consistently held that the choice of the proper forum is crucial, and a decision from a court without jurisdiction is a total nullity.

    The Supreme Court also addressed FPC’s attempt to use Timber Exports, Inc. (TEI), a sister company, to challenge the execution sale in the Antipolo RTC. The Court saw through this attempt, recognizing it as a ruse to circumvent the final and executory judgment of the Pagadian RTC. The Court declared, “[t]his Court would be the last to sanction such a brazen abuse of remedies and disrespect of judicial stability. What is clear is that FPC is feebly attempting to disturb the effects of a judgment that, by its failure to appeal, had long become final and been the subject of execution. This cannot be allowed without running afoul of the settled doctrine of finality of judgment.”

    The principle of finality of judgment is a cornerstone of the judicial system. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is immutable and unalterable, regardless of whether the modification is intended to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. This principle ensures that litigation must eventually end, and once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The Court emphasized that utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication, and any act that violates it must be struck down.

    The Supreme Court explicitly cited the rule pertaining to notice of sale of property on execution: “Sec. 18. Notice of sale of property on execution. – Before the sale of property on execution, notice thereof must be given as follows: (b) In case of other personal property, by posting a similar notice in three public places in the municipality or city where the sale is to take place, for not less than five (5) nor more than ten (10) days…”

    The Supreme Court granted both petitions, setting aside the Court of Appeals’ resolutions and decisions in both cases. In G.R. No. 176123, the Court declared the Manila RTC Decision of July 16, 2001, null and void. In G.R. No. 185265, the Court reinstated the Antipolo RTC’s decision dismissing the complaint, but on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, rather than the reasons originally cited by the Antipolo RTC. The Supreme Court decision reaffirms the importance of respecting the jurisdiction of courts and upholding the principle of finality of judgments.

    FAQs

    What was the central issue in this case? The key issue was whether one Regional Trial Court (RTC) could annul the decision and execution sale ordered by another RTC of equal jurisdiction. This question hinged on the principle of judicial stability and the finality of judgments.
    What is the principle of judicial stability? The principle of judicial stability holds that a court of competent jurisdiction’s judgment or order cannot be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. This means that once a court has decided a matter, other courts of equal standing cannot modify or vacate that decision.
    Why is the principle of finality of judgment important? The principle of finality of judgment ensures that litigation must eventually come to an end. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is immutable and unalterable, even if there are perceived errors of fact or law.
    What happens if a court renders a judgment without jurisdiction? A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and can be attacked at any time. Such a judgment creates no rights and produces no legal effect.
    What was the basis for the Manila RTC’s decision to annul the execution sale? The Manila RTC annulled the execution sale, arguing that the sale was conducted without proper notice, as required by the Rules of Court. However, the Supreme Court found that FPC failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Manila RTC’s decision? The Supreme Court declared the Manila RTC’s decision null and void for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the Pagadian RTC, which rendered the original decision and ordered the execution sale, was the proper venue to settle any disputes arising from that decision.
    What was the role of Timber Exports, Inc. (TEI) in this case? TEI, a sister company of FPC, filed a separate case in the Antipolo RTC seeking to annul the same execution sale. The Supreme Court viewed this as a ruse by FPC to circumvent the final judgment of the Pagadian RTC.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in these consolidated cases? The Supreme Court granted both petitions, setting aside the Court of Appeals’ resolutions and decisions in both cases. It declared the Manila RTC’s decision null and void and reinstated the Antipolo RTC’s decision dismissing the complaint, but on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

    This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of respecting judicial processes and the principle of finality in judgments. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the idea that courts must act within their jurisdiction and that attempts to circumvent final judgments will not be tolerated. The case underscores the need for parties to diligently pursue their legal remedies within the proper forums and timeframes.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: JOSE CABARAL TIU vs. FIRST PLYWOOD CORPORATION, G.R. No. 176123, March 10, 2010

  • Jurisdiction by Estoppel: When Active Participation Prevents Challenging a Court’s Authority

    In a case involving a property dispute, the Supreme Court ruled that a party actively participating in a trial at a Regional Trial Court (RTC) is estopped from later questioning that court’s jurisdiction. This decision emphasizes that if a court initially has jurisdiction, a party cannot later claim the court lacked authority after actively participating in the proceedings. This principle ensures fairness and prevents parties from strategically challenging jurisdiction only after receiving an unfavorable judgment.

    Mortgaged Without Consent: Can a Bank Claim Jurisdiction After Years of Litigation?

    The case of Atty. Restituto G. Cudiamat, Erlinda P. Cudiamat and Corazon D. Cudiamat vs. Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., revolves around a property in Balayan, Batangas, co-owned by Atty. Restituto Cudiamat and his brother Perfecto. Perfecto, without Restituto’s knowledge or consent, mortgaged the property to Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. (the bank) using a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly signed by Restituto. When Restituto learned of the foreclosure, he informed the bank that he never authorized the mortgage. Subsequently, after Perfecto’s death, Restituto and Corazon Cudiamat filed a case for quieting of title against the bank, arguing the mortgage was invalid. The bank countered that the Balayan RTC lacked jurisdiction because it was under receivership and liquidation by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), with liquidation proceedings pending before the Nasugbu RTC. The pivotal legal question was whether the bank, after actively participating in the Balayan RTC trial, could later challenge its jurisdiction.

    The Balayan RTC initially ruled in favor of the Cudiamats, but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating the Balayan RTC should have deferred to the Nasugbu RTC acting as a liquidation court. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of **jurisdiction by estoppel**. This legal concept prevents a party from challenging a court’s jurisdiction after actively participating in proceedings and benefiting from the opportunity to present their case. The court referenced Lozon v. NLRC, which clarifies that if a lower court had jurisdiction, a party who induced the court to adopt a particular theory cannot later argue the court lacked jurisdiction.

    The operation of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends on whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same “must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel.” However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position – that the lower court had jurisdiction.

    In this case, the Balayan RTC possessed original jurisdiction over the action for quieting of title when the case was filed. The Nasugbu RTC only assumed jurisdiction later, upon PDIC’s petition for assistance in liquidation. The Supreme Court further reasoned that requiring the petitioners to refile their claims in the Nasugbu RTC would be futile, considering the Balayan RTC had already conducted a full trial and rendered a decision. This echoes the sentiment in Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, where the Court declined to apply the general rule requiring all claims against an insolvent bank to be filed in liquidation proceedings, particularly when it would be an exercise in futility, considering the specific circumstances of the case.

    The Supreme Court considered the advanced age of petitioner Restituto Cudiamat and the death of his wife Erlinda during the case’s pendency. Forcing Restituto, residing in Ozamis City, to relitigate the case in Nasugbu RTC would impose an undue burden. Therefore, the Court found sufficient grounds to apply the exception articulated in Valenzuela. It’s important to note that while lack of subject matter jurisdiction can generally be raised at any stage, even on appeal, this principle is not absolute. The application of **estoppel by laches** can prevent a party from raising the issue of jurisdiction if they have actively participated in the proceedings and only raise the issue after an unfavorable judgment.

    The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely challenging jurisdiction and the consequences of actively participating in a trial. The bank’s active involvement in the Balayan RTC proceedings, without initially questioning its jurisdiction, ultimately prevented it from later challenging the court’s authority. This ruling serves as a reminder that while jurisdictional challenges are generally allowed at any stage, the principle of estoppel can operate as an exception, especially when a party has availed itself of the court’s processes and only raises the issue after an adverse decision. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the need for fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings, preventing parties from strategically manipulating jurisdictional issues to their advantage.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a party (the bank) could challenge the jurisdiction of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) after actively participating in the trial proceedings. The bank argued that because it was under liquidation, only the liquidation court had jurisdiction.
    What is jurisdiction by estoppel? Jurisdiction by estoppel prevents a party from challenging a court’s jurisdiction if they have actively participated in the proceedings, presented their case, and only raise the jurisdictional issue after receiving an unfavorable outcome. It is based on the principle that a party should not benefit from their own inconsistent conduct.
    When does the principle of estoppel apply to jurisdictional questions? Estoppel applies when the lower court originally had jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the court lacked jurisdiction from the beginning, estoppel generally does not apply, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel.
    What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision? The Supreme Court based its decision on the principle of jurisdiction by estoppel. Because the bank actively participated in the Balayan RTC trial, it was estopped from later claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction, especially after an unfavorable decision.
    What is the significance of the Lozon v. NLRC case in this ruling? The Lozon v. NLRC case provides the legal framework for understanding when estoppel applies to jurisdictional questions. It clarifies that if a court had jurisdiction, a party cannot induce the court to adopt a theory and then later challenge its jurisdiction.
    Why did the Supreme Court reinstate the Balayan RTC’s decision? The Supreme Court reinstated the Balayan RTC’s decision because the bank was estopped from challenging its jurisdiction, and requiring the petitioners to refile the case in the liquidation court would be an exercise in futility. The Balayan RTC had already conducted a full trial and rendered a judgment.
    What were the considerations regarding the petitioners’ circumstances? The Supreme Court considered the advanced age and health of the petitioners, particularly Restituto Cudiamat, and the death of his wife during the case’s pendency. Requiring him to relitigate the case in a different court would impose an undue burden.
    What is the practical implication of this case for litigants? The practical implication is that litigants must promptly raise any jurisdictional objections they have. Actively participating in a trial without challenging jurisdiction can prevent them from raising the issue later, especially after an unfavorable decision.

    This case illustrates the importance of understanding jurisdictional rules and the potential consequences of actively participating in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that fairness and efficiency are paramount in the administration of justice. Parties cannot strategically challenge jurisdiction after availing themselves of the court’s processes and only upon receiving an adverse outcome.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Cudiamat v. Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 182403, March 09, 2010

  • Jurisdictional Thresholds: Determining Court Competence in Damage Claims

    The Supreme Court clarified in this case that when a lawsuit primarily seeks damages, the total amount of damages claimed—including moral, exemplary, and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses—determines which court has jurisdiction. This ruling confirms that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) correctly assumed jurisdiction because the total claim exceeded the Municipal Trial Court’s (MTCC) jurisdictional limit at the time the complaint was filed. This decision emphasizes the importance of accurately calculating total claims to ensure cases are filed in the appropriate court.

    Defamation or Jurisdictional Dilemma? Resolving a Dispute Over Damage Claims

    This case, Irene Sante and Reynaldo Sante v. Hon. Edilberto T. Claravall and Vita N. Kalashian, arose from a complaint for damages filed by Vita Kalashian against Irene and Reynaldo Sante. Kalashian alleged that Irene Sante made defamatory remarks against her at a police station, leading to claims for moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. The central legal question revolved around whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had jurisdiction over the case, given the initial amount of moral damages claimed and the inclusion of other damages in the computation. Petitioners argued that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) had jurisdiction because the initial claim for moral damages was below the RTC’s jurisdictional threshold, and that exemplary damages should be excluded from the calculation.

    The petitioners, Irene and Reynaldo Sante, challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City over a complaint filed against them by Vita Kalashian. Kalashian sought damages for alleged defamatory remarks made by Irene Sante in public. The Santes contended that since the original claim for moral damages was P300,000.00, the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), not the RTC. They further argued that exemplary damages, being discretionary, should not be included in determining the jurisdictional amount.

    The respondent, Vita Kalashian, maintained that the nature of her complaint was for the recovery of damages. She asserted that the totality of the claim, including moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses, should be considered when determining jurisdiction. Given that the total claim amounted to P420,000.00, she argued that the RTC correctly assumed jurisdiction over the complaint. The differing interpretations of how to calculate the jurisdictional amount formed the crux of the legal dispute.

    The Supreme Court anchored its analysis on Section 19(8) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, which delineates the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in civil cases. This law specifies that RTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction in cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or the value of the property in controversy, exceeds a certain amount. At the time the complaint was filed, this jurisdictional amount was P300,000.00 for MTCCs outside Metro Manila.

    The Court also referenced Administrative Circular No. 09-94, which provides guidelines for implementing Republic Act No. 7691. This circular clarifies that the exclusion of “damages of whatever kind” in determining the jurisdictional amount applies only when damages are incidental to the main cause of action.

    However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

    This distinction is crucial for understanding the Court’s reasoning in this case.

    Applying these principles, the Supreme Court determined that Kalashian’s complaint principally sought an award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, for the alleged shame and injury she suffered. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint, which constitutes a concise statement of the plaintiff’s causes of action. Because Kalashian’s primary objective was to recover damages, the Court concluded that the other forms of damages claimed were not merely incidental but constituted the primary relief sought.

    The Supreme Court cited Mendoza v. Soriano, where it was held that when a claim for damages is the main cause of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the court’s jurisdiction.

    In the said case, the respondent’s claim of P929,000.06 in damages and P25,000 attorney’s fees plus P500 per court appearance was held to represent the monetary equivalent for compensation of the alleged injury. The Court therein held that the total amount of monetary claims including the claims for damages was the basis to determine the jurisdictional amount.

    This precedent reinforces the principle that all claimed damages must be aggregated to determine jurisdiction when damages form the primary basis of the lawsuit.

    The Court also referred to Iniego v. Purganan, further solidifying its position.

    The amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for damages arise from the same or from different causes of action.

    These cases consistently demonstrate that the total amount of damages claimed dictates the jurisdictional competence of the court.

    The petitioners also argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing Kalashian to amend her complaint to increase the claim for moral damages from P300,000.00 to P1,000,000.00. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the RTC had jurisdiction over the original complaint, making the amendment a matter of right. The Court cited Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which allows a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served. The Supreme Court found no reason to reverse the appellate court’s ruling on this issue.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had jurisdiction over a complaint for damages, considering the initial amount of moral damages claimed and the inclusion of other damages in the calculation.
    What did the petitioners argue? The petitioners argued that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) had jurisdiction because the initial claim for moral damages was below the RTC’s jurisdictional threshold, and that exemplary damages should be excluded from the calculation.
    What did the respondent argue? The respondent argued that the totality of the claim, including moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses, should be considered when determining jurisdiction, placing the case under the RTC’s jurisdiction.
    What is the significance of Administrative Circular No. 09-94? This circular clarifies that the exclusion of “damages of whatever kind” in determining the jurisdictional amount applies only when damages are incidental to the main cause of action, which was not the case here.
    What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide? The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case because the main cause of action was for damages, and the total amount of damages claimed exceeded the MTCC’s jurisdictional limit.
    Can a complaint be amended to confer jurisdiction? Generally, an amendment cannot be allowed when the court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, and the purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction. However, in this case, the RTC already had jurisdiction.
    What happens when the court has jurisdiction on the original complaint? In such cases, the Court determined that the RTC had jurisdiction over the original complaint, making the amendment a matter of right and the court can amend the complaint.
    What rule of court applies to amending a complaint? The Court cited Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which allows a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Sante v. Claravall provides clear guidance on determining jurisdictional thresholds in cases where damages are the primary cause of action. By affirming the lower court’s decisions, the Court reinforced the principle that all forms of damages claimed must be aggregated to determine the appropriate court. This ruling ensures that cases are filed in the correct venue, promoting judicial efficiency and fairness in the Philippine legal system.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Irene Sante and Reynaldo Sante, vs. Hon. Edilberto T. Claravall, G.R. No. 173915, February 22, 2010

  • Custody Rights: Voiding Agreements Contrary to Child’s Best Interests

    This case underscores the principle that agreements between parents regarding child custody, especially those involving children under seven years of age, must align with Philippine law and prioritize the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court held that a post-divorce agreement for joint custody of a child under seven is void if it contravenes the law granting sole custody to the mother. While the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear custody suits, it cannot enforce agreements that violate these protective legal standards.

    Navigating Child Custody: When Parental Agreements Collide with Legal Safeguards

    Herald Black Dacasin, an American, and Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, a Filipino, married in the Philippines and had a daughter, Stephanie. After their divorce in Illinois, which initially granted sole custody to Sharon, they entered into an agreement in the Philippines for joint custody, designating Philippine courts as the exclusive forum for disputes. Herald later sued Sharon in the Philippines, alleging she violated this agreement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case, citing the Illinois court’s retained jurisdiction and the agreement’s conflict with Philippine law. The Supreme Court (SC) was then tasked to resolve whether the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s suit and enforce the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties’ child.

    The Supreme Court addressed whether the RTC had jurisdiction over Herald’s suit to enforce the joint custody agreement. The Court clarified that Regional Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, including specific performance actions like the one Herald filed. The Illinois court’s retention of jurisdiction pertained to enforcing its divorce decree’s provisions, not subsequent agreements between the parties. Therefore, the RTC had jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Building on this point, the Court examined the validity of the custody agreement itself. Philippine law allows parties to stipulate contract terms, but these terms must not contravene law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Central to the court’s analysis was Article 213 of the Family Code, which states that “no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.” This provision reflects the Philippines’ commitment to protecting young children by presuming that maternal custody best serves their interests. Given that Stephanie was under seven when the agreement was made, the Court found that the agreement to establish joint custody was void ab initio, as it conflicted with Article 213.

    The Court cited Van Dorn v. Romillo, elucidating that foreign divorce decrees are binding on alien spouses in the Philippines. In Van Dorn v. Romillo, the Court stated:

    There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.

    This principle prevents foreigners from circumventing Philippine laws on family rights and obligations. Moreover, the Court reasoned that even if the divorce decree’s validity were contested, it would not validate an agreement that directly contravenes Philippine law regarding child custody.

    Rather than dismissing the case entirely, the Supreme Court took a pragmatic approach, recognizing Stephanie’s age and the evolving circumstances. Considering Stephanie was nearly 15 years old at the time of the decision, the Court acknowledged that the mandatory maternal custody rule no longer applied. Instead, the guiding principle became the “best interest of the child,” a standard that requires a comprehensive assessment of the child’s needs, preferences, and overall well-being. The Court then ordered the remand of the case to the trial court to settle the question of Stephanie’s custody.

    Furthermore, the SC highlighted the role of equity in custody disputes. The court said that it is in the interest of swift and efficient rendition of justice to allow the parties to take advantage of the court’s jurisdiction, submit evidence on the custodial arrangement best serving Stephanie’s interest, and let the trial court render judgment. This means that while the original agreement was unenforceable, the parents could present evidence and arguments to determine the most suitable custody arrangement for Stephanie. The Court emphasized that in child custody proceedings, equity may be invoked to serve the child’s best interest.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The primary issue was whether a post-divorce agreement for joint custody of a child under seven years old is enforceable in the Philippines, considering the law mandates maternal custody for children of that age.
    Why did the Supreme Court find the custody agreement void? The agreement was deemed void because it contravened Article 213 of the Family Code, which states that no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.
    Did the foreign divorce decree affect the Supreme Court’s decision? While the divorce decree was a backdrop to the case, the Supreme Court’s decision focused on the enforceability of the custody agreement under Philippine law, irrespective of the divorce’s specifics.
    What does “best interest of the child” mean in this context? “Best interest of the child” refers to a standard used in custody disputes, requiring courts to consider all factors affecting the child’s welfare, including emotional, educational, and financial stability, to determine the most beneficial custody arrangement.
    Why was the case remanded to the trial court? The case was remanded because, by the time it reached the Supreme Court, the child was older than seven years, making the mandatory maternal custody rule inapplicable. The trial court needed to assess the child’s custody based on her best interests.
    Can parents ever agree on joint custody for children under seven? While the law favors maternal custody, the court recognized the right of parents to present evidence of new situations and how such arrangement has become unfavorable or detrimental to the child under the circumstances.
    What happens if parents disagree on custody arrangements? If parents disagree, the court will intervene to determine the custody arrangement that best serves the child’s interests, considering factors like the child’s preference (if of sufficient age), the parents’ capabilities, and the child’s overall well-being.
    How does this case affect foreigners in the Philippines? This case reaffirms that foreigners in the Philippines are subject to Philippine laws regarding child custody, and agreements they enter into must comply with these laws to be enforceable.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dacasin v. Dacasin clarifies the interplay between parental agreements, foreign divorce decrees, and Philippine law concerning child custody. It underscores the paramount importance of adhering to legal safeguards designed to protect young children and ensuring that custody arrangements align with their best interests. This ruling serves as a crucial guide for families navigating custody disputes and highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding children’s welfare.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Herald Black Dacasin v. Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 05, 2010