Remedial Law Flashcards
2018 Ia
Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property, which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public.
(a) Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case?
No. Since Danielle is not an actual resident of Barangay Daliao, or a barangay adjacent thereto, this case is not subject to the Katarungang Pambarangay Law; hence, prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa is not a pre-condition to the filing of the case in court.
Pascual vs. Pascual, GR 157830, November 7, 2005
2018 Ib
Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property, which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public.
(b) Was the action properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City?
No. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 vests the Municipal Trial Court with the exclusive jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases, regardless of the assessed value of the property; hence, the action was wrongfully instituted with the RTC.
2018 Ic
Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property, which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public.
(c) Should the complaint be verified or is the certification sufficient?
Yes. Considering that the action is for unlawful detainer, the Rules on Summary Procedure will apply. Rule II, Section 3(B) of the Rules on Summary Procedure requires that all pleadings submitted to the court be verified; hence, a mere certification on non-forum shopping, the complaint being an initiatory pleading, is insufficient.
2018 II
Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an action before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold the annual stockholders’ meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by Darwinkle Inc. ‘s By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to use as record date April 30, 2017. The complaint alleged, among others, that the refusal to call the ASM on June 21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of the BOD to allow Databank Inc. (which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July 15, 2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute the complainants’ shareholdings and ease them out of the BOD. Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of PhP 7 ,565 as filing fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have been based on the actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc. and David, which were collectively worth PhP 450 million.
If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss?
No. While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case. The court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Here, Dendenees, Inc. and David merely relied on the assessment made by the clerk of court. If incorrect, the clerk of court has the responsibility of reassessing ho much they must pay within the prescriptive period.
Proton Pilipinas vs. Banque Nationale de Paris, GR 151242, June 15, 2005
2018 II
Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an action before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold the annual stockholders’ meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by Darwinkle Inc. ‘s By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to use as record date April 30, 2017. The complaint alleged, among others, that the refusal to call the ASM on June 21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of the BOD to allow Databank Inc. (which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July 15, 2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute the complainants’ shareholdings and ease them out of the BOD. Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of PhP 7 ,565 as filing fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have been based on the actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc. and David, which were collectively worth PhP 450 million.
If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss?
Alternative Answer
No. Since the case is an intra-corporate suit, BOD’s motion to dismiss on the ground of deficient filing fees must be denied for being a prohibited pleading. Under Rule 1, Section 8 of the Interim Rules on Intra-Corporate Controversies (AM No. 01-2-04-SC), a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading.
2018 IIIa
On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucia, Sheriff of the RTC of Makati, served the Order granting the ex-parte application for preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order, together with the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1, 2018, the Sheriff served upon Dodong the complaint and summons in connection with the same case. The counsel of Dodong filed a motion to dissolve the writ.
(a) Can the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in favor of Dinggoy be dissolved? What ground/s can Dodong’s counsel invoke?
Yes, the preliminary attachment issued by the court in favor of Dinggoy can be dissolved, because the enforcement thereof was improper.
In Torres, et al., vs. Satsatin (GR 166759, November 25, 2009), the Supreme Court ruled that once the implementation of a writ of preliminary attachment commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Consequently, any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant. It is, thus, indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the grounds therefore that prior or contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment, the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order must be served upon him.
In this case, since copies of the complaint and summons were served after the writ of preliminary attachment was served upon Dodong, the writ, therefore, was improvidently issued; the writ of preliminary attachment may be dissolved.
2018 IIIa
On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucia, Sheriff of the RTC of Makati, served the Order granting the ex-parte application for preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order, together with the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1, 2018, the Sheriff served upon Dodong the complaint and summons in connection with the same case. The counsel of Dodong filed a motion to dissolve the writ.
(a) Can the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in favor of Dinggoy be dissolved? What ground/s can Dodong’s counsel invoke?
Alternative Answer
Yes, the party whose property has been ordered attached may file a motion to quash the order by filing a motion in court in which the action is pending before or after the levy (Rule 57, Section 13).
Other grounds:
a) Writ was improvidently issued.
b) A counter-bond had been posted by the defendant.
c) The attachment bond was insufficient.
