Civpro Case Digest For The Group
Civpro Case Digest For The Group
Civpro Case Digest For The Group
Procedural History:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court ed by petitioner against respondent, assailing the Decision dated February 6,
2015 and Resolution dated July 14, 2015, both of the CA Special Twelfth (12th)
Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 133762. The CA reversed and set aside the Orders
dated August 15, 2013 4 and November 25, 2013 5 (denying the corresponding
Motion for Reconsideration) of the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 70, in Civil Case No.
73187. Said RTC Orders dismissed Gina's Motion to Dismiss and Donald's Motion to
Declare Defendant in Default as well as the Motion for Reconsideration against the
denial of the Motion to Dismiss subsequently filed by Gina.
Statement of Issues:
Whether or not the CA committed reversible error when it set aside the RTC's
ruling that the estate or heirs of Anthony, represented by his surviving spouse Gina,
could be named as additional defendant in the present case and dismissed the entire
complaint when dismissal of the same was not raised as an issue nor prayed for in
the petition before it.
Holding:
A deceased person does not have the capacity to be sued and may not be made a
defendant in a case. Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court unequivocally
states that "only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action."
PNB vs Teodoro
Facts of the case:
PNB alleges that while the herein controversy was pending before the lower court,
the GRP, pursuant to the authority granted to it by Administrative Order No. 14,
entered into a Deed of Transfer with PNB as part of the GRP's economic recovery
program. Based on the said Deed of Transfer, PNB maintains that the GRP agreed to
assume certain liabilities of PNB in consideration of the transfer to the GRP of certain
bank assets. According to PNB, those included in the transfer of interest in favor of
the GRP are the claims and obligations which are the subject of the present litigation
particularly that of the loan and loan-related accounts as of June 30, 1986 of D.B.
Teodoro Development Corporation, who are the named respondents in these
consolidated cases. PNB claims that said interests were assigned in favor of the APT,
now called PMO, which was created by the GRP under Proclamation No. 50 dated
December 8, 1986, as amended, and tasked to provisionally manage and dispose of
non-performing assets of government financial institutions. On the basis of the above
premise, PNB argues that there had been an effective transfer pendente lite of the
obligations of respondents from PNB to the GRP through APT (now PMO). Therefore,
a substitution by APT (now PMO) as sole petitioner in this legal proceeding is proper
in accordance with Section 19, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
Procedural History:
Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Attached Motion for Clarification and the
Motion for Clarification (Re: Resolution dated 25 November 2015) led by petitioner
PNB. In said motions, PNB prays that this Court resolve the Motion for Substitution it
led on July 24, 2012 wherein PNB requested for the issuance of an order substituting
it with petitioner APT, now renamed as PMO, and amending the title of the instant
consolidated cases to APT, now PMO v. D.B. TEODORO, ET AL." PNB points out
that the Court did not pass upon its Motion for Substitution in the Resolution dated
July 29, 2015, which disposed of these consolidated cases, and in the Resolution
dated November 25, 2015, which denied the Motions for Reconsideration of the July
29, 2015 Resolution.
Statement of Issues:
Whether or not the substitution of APT (now PMO) for PNB should be granted
Ruling:
The rule allows for discretion, the paramount consideration for the exercise
thereof should be the protection of the parties' interests and their rights to due
process. It is therefore discretionary upon this Court to continue the case in the name
of the original party or direct the substitution of the transferee or to order the
transferee as jointly impleaded in the case. In any which way this Court chooses to
act, the transferee is still bound by the judgment even if not formally impleaded.
Procedural History:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the May 22, 2015 Decision
and January 29, 2016 Resolution of the (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35178. The CA
granted the appeal of respondent regarding the civil aspect of a criminal case for B.P.
22 and reversed and set aside the July 25, 2011 Decision and September 26, 2011
Order of the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna Branch 93, which affirmed the February 2,
2011 Judgments of the MTC of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 2. The MTC acquitted
respondent but nonetheless ordered her to pay P500,000 by way of civil indemnity.
Statement of Issues:
Whether or not CA grossly erred when it faulted petitioner for not having included
Conpil in the title of the petition for review under Rule 42
Holding:
Yes. The CA closed its eyes to this constitutes not only gross manifest error but grave
abuse of discretion. To be sure, the whole matter was exacerbated when the CA
senselessly ascribed this mistitling to petitioner and punished Conpil by dismissing
the appeal and setting aside the civil liability awarded by both the MTC and the RTC
without carefully reviewing the records. The Petition has merit.
Aniceto G. Saludo Jr. Vs. PNB
Facts of the case:
Saludo Agpalo Fernandez and Aquino Law Office entered into a Contract of
Lease with PNB, whereby the latter agreed to lease 632 square meters of the second
floor of the PNB Financial Center Building in Quezon City for a period of three years
and for a monthly rental fee of P189,600.00. SAFA Law Office then occupied the
leased premises. The Contract of Lease expired. According to PNB, SAFA Law
Office continued to occupy the leased premises until February 2005, but discontinued
paying its monthly rental obligations after December 2002. Consequently, PNB sent a
demand letter for SAFA Law Office to pay its outstanding unpaid rents. SAFA Law
Office expressed its intention to negotiate. In February 2005, SAFA Law Office
vacated the leased premises. PNB sent a demand requiring the firm to pay its rental
arrears in the total amount of P10,951,948.32. In response, SAFA Law Office sent a
letter, proposing a settlement. PNB, however, declined the settlement proposal,
stating that it was not amenable to the settlement's terms. PNB then made a final
demand for SAFA Law Office to pay its outstanding rental obligations in the amount of
P25,587,838.09.Saludo, in his capacity as managing partner of SAFA Law Office,
filed an amended complaint for accounting and/or recomputation of unpaid rentals
and damages against PNB in relation to the Contract of Lease. PNB filed a motion to
include an indispensable party as plaintiff, praying that Saludo be ordered to amend
anew his complaint to include SAFA Law Office as principal plaintiff. PNB argued that
the lessee in the Contract of Lease is not Saludo but SAFA Law Office, and
that Saludo merely signed the Contract of Lease as the managing partner of the law
firm. Thus, SAFA Law Office must be joined as a plaintiff in the complaint because it is
considered an indispensable party under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
Procedural History:
Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari assailing the February 8, 2010
Decision and August 2, 2010 Resolution issued by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 98898.
The CA affirmed with modification the January 11, 2007 Omnibus Order issued by
Branch 58 of the RTC of Makati City in Civil Case No. 06-678, and ruled that
respondent PNB counterclaims against Saludo and the SAFA Law Office should be
reinstated in its answer.
Holding:
No, it is a partnership. It acquired juridical personality by operation of law. SAFA Law
Office is the party that would be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit before
the RTC. Particularly, it is the party interested in the accounting and/or recomputation
of unpaid rentals and damages in relation to the contract of lease.
Procedural History:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to nullify the CA Decision and
Resolution in CA-G.R.SP No. 103809. The CA Decision annulled the Orders of the
RTC of Parañaque City, which joined petitioner as party-defendant in Civil Case No.
01-0207. The CA Resolution denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Holding:
Court grants the petition. The task of the court in these cases is not to determine the
correctness of the ruling of the trial court, but to examine whether the CA correctly
determined the existence of grave abuse of discretion in the Orders of RTC Branch
258 allowing the joinder of petitioner in Civil Case No. 01-0207.
Donald Gaffney vs Gina Butler Sec 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court
unequivocally states that only natural or juridical
G.R No 219408. November 8, 2017
persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action.
Alfredo Pili Jr. Vs Mary Ann Sec 2 Rule 3 of Rules of Court indicates
Resurreccion that "a case is dismissible for lack of
G.R. No 222798 June 19, 2019 personality to sue upon proof that the
plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest,
hence grounded on failure to state a
cause of action.
Aniceto G. Saludo Jr. Vs. PNB Sec 7 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court
discusses Indispensable Parties. On the
G.R. No. 193138 August 20, 2018
question of whether SAFA Law Office is
an indispensable party, the CA
held that it is not. As a partnership, it may
sue or be sued in its name or by its duly
under Section 15
organization.