Plain English / Plain Language Version of "Ad Cautelam"

1.
Plain English / Plain

Language version of “ad
Ad cautelam: filing of pleadings and appearing in court
cautelam”
to question its jurisdiction or as a precautionary
measure
Instead of “ad cautelam” or “ex
The Latin term “ad cautelam” can be translated into abundanti ad cautelam,” lawyers
English as “for security,” “as a precaution,” or “to be on should simply use the phrase
the safe side.” The phrase“ex abundanti ad cautela” “with express reservation on
means “with extreme caution.” jurisdiction.” (By the speaker on
Civil Procedure, from Romulo
The Revised Rules of Court do not have a specific Mabanta, in an MCLE seminar
provision on ad cautelam. But lawyers have used it in at sponsored by the Quezon City
IBP)
least two ways:
2. “Taguig vs. Makati” June
1. To question a court’s jurisdiction and at the same time be 15, 2016, G.R. No.
able to file pleadings, lawyers can caption their pleadings as 20839 (Supreme Court ruling
“ad cautelam.”In court hearings, lawyers must inform the on forum shopping, splitting a
judge that they are questioning the court’s jurisdiction; single cause of action, and ad
cautelam pleadings):
2. To preserve a party’s remedies, lawyers can file an “ad
This case centers on the issue of
cautelam” pleading as a precautionary measure .
whether respondent City of
Makati engaged in forum
Using ad cautelam to file pleadings or ask for reliefs shopping in simultaneously
while questioning a court’s jurisdiction pursuing:
1. GMA’s electoral sabotage case before the Pasay City (1) Petition for Annulment
RTC under Rule 47 with the Court of
Appeals of the July 8, 2011
Regional Trial Court Decision;
Lawyers for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and
(GMA) have been filing pleadings captioned “ad cautelam”
with the Pasay City Regional Trial Court. They are (2) Motion for Reconsideration
questioning before the Supreme Court the RTC’s Ad Cautelam (later Appeal) of
jurisdiction over the electoral sabotage case filed by the the same July 8, 2011 RTC
COMELEC against the former president. But at the same Decision.
time, they have been asking the RTC for certain reliefs for
Makati emphasized that its
GMA like hospital arrest, the use of a cellphone and laptop,
Motion for Reconsideration and
etc. By captioning their pleadings with ad cautelam, these Appeal were mere precautionary
lawyers are reminding the RTC that they are not accepting measures. Appending the phrase
its jurisdiction over the case. “ad cautelam” to an application
for relief does not alter the
2. Does a rehabilitation court have jurisdiction over a nature of the remedy being
partially executed NLRC decision? pursued. Had it been granted by
the trial court, the Motion for
Reconsideration — ad cautelam
or otherwise - would have
ultimately resulted in the setting
aside of the assailed decision.
Many years ago, I represented a former hotel chef. He had won his NLRC case for back wages
against the hotel, and the decision had been partially executed. But the hotel filed for corporate
rehabilitation with the Regional Trial Court in Manila, and the judge ordered all parties with
money claims against the hotel to file their Answer. Parties who failed to file their Answer could
no longer pursue their claims.
If I had filed an Answer for my client, it would have meant that I was accepting the court’s
jurisdiction. My theory was that the NLRC had jurisdiction because it was a labor case and its
decision had been partially executed. But as a precaution, I filed with the Manila RTC a pleading
captioned “Manifestation/Motion ex abundanti ad cautelam”. In the pleading, I stated that while
my client was complying with the court’s order, he was questioning its jurisdiction. In layman’s
terms, it was better safe than sorry.
Using ad cautelam as a precautionary measure
1. Aguedo F. Agbayani, petitioner, vs. The Commission On Elections And Rafael M. Colet,
respondents. G.R. No. 87440-42 June 13, 1990
Agbayani, a Pangasinan gubernatorial candidate, filed pre-proclamation protest cases against his
political rival Colet. When Colet was proclaimed as governor, Agbayani filed an election protest.
Because of his pending pre-proclamation cases, he captioned his election protest ex abundante
ad cautelam. The Comelec, acting on the election protest, required Colet to file a responsive
answer. Agbayani then filed a reply, which he also captioned ad cautelam.
The Comelec dismissed Agbayani’s pre-proclamation cases and his motion for reconsideration.
It said that the pre-proclamation controversy became moot and academic when Agbayani filed
the election protest and his reply, even if they were both captioned ad cautelam.
Agbayani appealed to the Supreme Court. Ruling in his favor, the Court noted that Agbayani
filed the election protest ad cautelam (or “for safety’s sake) just in case the Comelec dismissed
his pre-proclamation cases. For the upcoming barangay elections, a Comelec resolution provided
that all ballot boxes would be used for the barangay elections, unless they were not involved in
any pre-proclamation-controversy, election protest, or official investigation. Agbayani thus
wanted to preserve all the ballot boxes and their contents so that he could file an election protest
later on. The Court said:
As the above-mentioned cases involved only nine precincts, it was only prudent for the petitioner
to file his protest ad cautelam in case the pre-proclamation controversy was ultimately dismissed
and it became necessary for him to activate his protest. The protest would involve all the
precincts in the province. If he had not taken this precaution, an the other ballot boxes would
have been emptied and their contents would have been burned and forever lost.
As to Agbayani’s filing of a reply, the Court said:
It was not the fault of the petitioner if the COMELEC decided to give due course to the protest
right away even if it was ad cautelam. The protest was at that time only tentative, awaiting the
disposition of the pre-proclamation controversy. The petitioner did file a reply to the private
respondent’s answer with counter-protest, but it was only to prevent any declaration that he had
by his inaction waived, the right to file responsive pleadings. Such a reply did not make the pre-
proclamation controversy moot and academic.
Most indicative of the petitioner’s intention is the express reservation he made in the protest ad
cautelam itself, where he clearly stated:
As additional precautionary measure, the protestant herein is filing this protest and cautela(m),
without withdrawing his petitions in said pre-proclamation controversy, in order to exempt from
the provisions of Section 1 of Resolution No. 2035 the precincts hereinafter specified. (Emphasis
supplied)
2. Francisco I. Chavez, Petitioner, versus Commission On Elections, Respondent. G. R. No.
105323, July 3, 1992. G. R. No. 105323, July 3, 1992
Former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez, a senatorial candidate in the 1992 elections,
alleged that he lost at least 1.7 million votes because of a nuisance candidate with the same
surname as his. On May 23, 1992, he filed an urgent petition before the Comelec asking it to [1]
implement its May 12, 1992 resolution with costs de oficio; [2] to re-open the ballot boxes in 13
provinces including the National Capital Region involving some 80,348 precincts and to scan for
the “Chavez” votes for purposes of crediting the same in his favor; [3] make the appropriate
entries in the election returns/certificates of canvass; and [4] to suspend the proclamation of the
24 winning candidates.
Dissatisfied with the failure of the Comelec to act on his petition, Chavez filed with the
Supreme Court an urgent Petition Ad Cautelam for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Comelec from proclaiming the
24th highest senatorial candidate, without first implementing respondent Comelec’s resolution of
May 12, 1992 and acting upon petitioner’s letter/complaint dated May 14, 1992 and urgent
petition dated May 22, 1992.
On June 4, 1992, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the
Comelec from proclaiming the 24th winning senatorial candidate and setting the case for hearing
on June 9, 1992. On the same day, Chavez filed a manifestation stating that on May 30, 1992, his
urgent petition dated May 22, 1992 was dismissed by the Comelec. He also prayed that the
Petition Ad Cautelam be considered a regular petition.

Plain English / Plain Language Version of "Ad Cautelam"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plain English / Plain Language Version of "Ad Cautelam"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plain English / Plain Language Version of "Ad Cautelam"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

Plain English / Plain

Using ad cautelam as a precautionary measure

You might also like