Civ Pro - Feb 23 Part 2.docx

ASG: Sec 3 tells us that we can only file 1 suit per cause of action meaning a party cannot institute more than 1 suit for a single cause of action. For example: Let’s go back to the story of Kimberly (Queen of Sabungan) she files an injunction suit to prevent the municipal body and the mayor from implementing the rules that they come up with, she cannot file a second suit seeking damages because of the implementation of the rules. If she wants to seek compensation or indemnification for the injury that was caused to her. She can only do it in one suit. That injunction suit should already have a prayer for damages. She cannot file an injunction suit and then teka muna parang nkalimutan ko ung ano (damages), what if the injunction is not granted edi tapos n ung kwento nya. What she will do? File again another suit? Mali yan. What she will do instead of thinking of filing another complaint against the mayor and the municipality coming out of the original cause of action is to amend your complaint so that it will just be one for injunction with a prayer for damages. As you will learn later on, not everybody is entitled to injunction. So, if you don’t get your injunction ibig sabihin ba end of the story na yan para sayo? Hindi. Maybe I don’t have the requisite to get an injunctive relief, but because of my injury, I should be entitled to damages. All of that should be in 1 suit. (THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT) You cannot split your cause of action by pursuing first the injunction suit then seeking damages for, in the event you are not granted with the injunction. You cannot split cause of action, 1 suit for 1 cause of action. What you can do however is you can file a case with alternative causes of action kasi nga it is possible that you will not be entitled to the original cause of action that you resorted to but that doesn’t mean that that will be the end of story so you should provide for an alternative so that in the end you will be able to get something. Injunction with prayer for damages. Remember the story from wed: Nico not wanting to comply with his obligation to leave the land where I let him stay rent-free, what did I file, I filed for specific performance, what if despite the complaint he refuses to leave, oh, what did I say diba there was an alternative na Instead of eviction him, I compel him to pay a certain amount so that the property will belong to him. Those are alternative causes of action but arising from 1 incident only. You cannot put that in two cases because that is tantamount to splitting cause of action, having said this there are however rules about joining causes of action. You cannot just join every cause of action. In most instances you can. Sec, 5 tells us that a party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the certain conditions. Because of this rule there will be instances that you will be seeing complaints between two parties where there will be first cause of action, second cause of action, third cause of action but the protagonists are the same. That is why instead of having three cases involving the same parties, isa lang instead alternative na yung causes of action and you just joined them together in one case. That is acceptable except nga where in certain conditions, and there are the conditions: (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties; What does this mean? Make sure when you are going to join causes of action in one case that all parties involve, the court can acquire jurisdiction over them, because if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over them, there is no point in adding them into that particular case. There are instances you will join certain people that you will not be able to acquire jurisdiction over them anyway so what’s the point of overcrowding your case with a cause of action na hindi mo naman na mapresent yung evidence on because the party concern, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the party which is the subject of that particular cause of action. That is one thing to consider.

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules; As a rule, you do not join an ordinary civil action and a special civil action, like for example: You don’t join collection of a sum of money and mandamus. You don’t do that. You either have all the special civil action like petition for prohibition, certiorari and mandamus or you just have one special civil action but not one where: for example, certiorari with declaratory relief. That is a misjoinder of causes of action because for one thing, the rules for both actions if you will look at the rule 65 and the one for declaratory relief are different from one another so how can you have a case where you will end up using different rules for each of your causes of action. (c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and For example: you have a specific with damages in the amount of 50k the 50k will put the case within the jurisdiction of the MTC but because of the specific performance allegation that case will be move up to the RTC so from these you can already tell very likely or not if there is a joinder of causes of action very likely the case will be heard before the RTC. The only exemption to this is where there are claims in all causes of action that are principally for recovery of money because of that case the aggregate amount claim shall be the test of jurisdiction. An example of here probably would be someone who continues to lend money to somebody on a regular basis. For example, Jv and I have this relationship where I lend him money at a certain percentage of interest on a regular basis basta gumawa lang sya ng promissory note sa akin, so there will instaces na tapos na ung utang nya sa promissory note #1, #2 hindi pa, #3,4,5 hindi pa.Finally, one day something happens baka kasi meron syang security na nadeteriorate na o ano and ask him to furnish me with another security, he did not do, What will I do, I will file for collection. Ano mangyayari? How will you determine the jurisdiction of the court there? You will take into consideration each of the amounts that are due and demandable at that time and add that all up and if that amount still allows it to fall in the jurisdiction of the MTC, dyan nyo ipafile ung case because that is the aggregate amount of the indebtedness but if the amount is beyond 500k then you will file it with the RTC. Very clear yan. (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. Section 6 tells us that will happen if there is a misjoinder of causes of action, for example, meron nga tayong certiorari with declaratory relief. It is obviously misjoinder of causes of action so what will the court do? First of all, even if the kalaban will file a motion to dismiss, the rule is under this section 6 that a mere misjoining of a causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of the case. What should happen here is that the court on its own will determine what cause of action will proceed independently of the other one and that one will be the cause of action that will proceed while the other one will be considered as severed or if not severed to be tried separately. Usually, the time that this happens that a severance that the misjoined causes of action is during pre-trial, assuming that they reach that stage kasi minsan the defendant will not, sometimes the defendants are more focus on answering the complaint rather than pointing out the misjoinder of the causes of action. In certain instances, it is the courts duty to be the one to tell the parties, alam mo hindi natin pwede ituloy itong ano this way. Specially when you found out that it is declaratory relief. Declaratory relief kasi is only good if there is no breach of the obligation, unlike here in causes of action kailangan my violation, in declaratiry relief kelangan wala pang violation that is

why nga you can make that declaration kas inga wala pang violation. But as soon as there is a violation, it becomes an ordinary civil action so in that instance, the example of certiorari and the declaratory relief and mangayayari dyan the court will just convert the declaratory relief action into an ordinary civil action. It will decide also, what is the more important case here? The certiorari case or the ordinary civil action? But in the long run, the problem regarding the misjoinder of causes of action will be resolved. That has to be resolved early because, after all before the pre trial you should determine the evidence that you should be presenting. So, if the cause of action will be severed, at least that give you leeway that you don’t have to present evidence on that particular cause of action. Question: Regarding splitting cause of action, do you consider splitting of invoice as splitting of cause of action? ASG: A splitting of invoice? Yes! If it is a series of transactions and your evidence (because an invoice is an evidence) is each transaction which the subject of an invoice, then that is splitting cause of action if you engage in several transactions. That should only be once case. Different transaction but once case. In fact, I’m going to say the story of Jv with all the ano, yan pa pwede nyo pang idivide yan kasi you can argue na ano eh, na iba namn ang due date ng each and every promissory note so I cannot pursue this yet kasi di pa due ito due na. I am not splitting cause of action, I am just trying to collect what is due, but in this case, if it is a series of transactions that two parties get into in a regular basis talagang splitting yan. The invoice is just an evidence of the transaction.

Let’s move now to parties, Lets go back to the queen of the sabungera, let say Kimberly, the queen of sabungera is still looking for property to put her, the condos of the fighting cocks... She goes to Mr. Macabuhay. Mr Macabuhay is a business associate or somebody she knows from business and she knows that he owns this big tract of land in Sta Cruz. So, he goes to him and tell Justin. “Di ba sayo yan? Yung malking flat land there? Gusto ko sana ilagay yung mga condo ng mga fighting cocks ko” and she recalls that Justin has utang to her. “Ganito nalang diba may utang ka sakin na 200k, wag mo nang bayaran, pabayaan mo nalang akong bilihin yung lupa mo” then suddenly Justin said, “that is not all mine kasi eh, that belong to me and my brothers” “huh, may kapatid ka pala?” “oo. Si Jv, si Niko at si Noel, pero really, I cannot pay you yung utang ko sayo, ganito nlang, kapag napartion na yung lupa naming, 4 yan, ibibigay ko sayo yung lupa ko wag mo nalang akong icharge sa utang ko sayong 200k. “Huh, I need morethan your fourth, I need the whole lot” Ikaw na makipa-usap sa aking mga kapatid because natatakot ako, marami rin akong utang sa kanial eh” so he executed a deed of conditional sale over his share in the property in favor of Kimberly. The time came that the brothers decided to partition the property, so, the partition begin. Unfortunately, siguro sa dami ng utanh ni Justin, nawala sya. When Kimberly goes to the brothers and show them the deed of conditional sale hindi pumayag ung brothers. They were saying na ”teka muna, di mo pwedeng kunin yan” ang sbi ni Justin ito ang sa kanya eh sabi ni Jv di naman pwedendg sabihin ni Justn na sa kanya yan. “We did not discuss that yet, we only partition pero magbubunutan pa kami” “eh, nasaan yung kapatid mo?” What will you do? The person cannot be found, but you know where he lives, around that area also. Yun nga lang he is not there anymore kasi ano (ngtatago) but he is not dead. Probably hiding from his brothers because of utang. What will you do? You are carrying a deed of conditional sale in which the share of Justin has been given to you in consideration of the 200k that you gave him.

Classmate: The condition is that the land being partitioned? ASG: Yes, and it is being partitioned na. Classmate: It is not yet decided? ASG: No, it is decided na, the problem is that they don’t want to honor it because they are claiming na you cannot claim a specific share that this is his kasi partition eh parang everybody shares and shares a land. If this is a high land and this is low, usually ang nangyayari, nagbubunutan nalang yung members ng family. Dito walang bunutan kas inga Nawala si Justin. Classmate: File in the court ma’am for the execution? ASG: File in the court, what? You will go to court? Or you will not? Pababayan mo nalang at hintaying bumalik si Justin, ganyan nlang? Classmate: could it be converted again to put the property in the custody of the court? (WRONG) ASG: No. Classmate: I will file for the execution of the contract or specific performance. ASG: So, you will file for specific performance? Against who? Classmate: Against the brothers. ASG: against the brothers? Why? Ano ang basis mo to go against the brothers? Are the brothers bound by the provisions of your deed of conditional sale? Classmate: I think yes ma’am because they are all the owners of the land subject of the deed of conditional sale. (WRONG) ASG: are you sure that the brothers knew about (the sale)? Kasi nga they can tell nga na di nila alam kas inga sinasabi nila na, no we don’t want to give you this land instead they are saying that we cannot give you this one because that particular portion does not necessarily belong to him kasi magbubunutan pa kami. Technically they are not saying that we are not going to give you that or we are not honoring that obligation of our brother we are just saying that you are not going to be, very likely that you might not get this kasi paguusapan pa naming kung who’s going to get that. Classmate: I will go to the court and ask to appoint a representative to make the bunutan? ASG: Masyadong ano na yan, to make the long story short, no you can’t do that. What shall we do? Let’s help the queen of the sabungera. Certainly, specific performance remedy is available to you, but who is the one that should be the subject of the specific performance obligation. Classmate: Justin. ASG: Justin! Not because he is lost you are not going to charge him. ….. discussion is just a reiteration ASG: First of all, what is standing between you and getting the a parcel of land here, not Justin diba actually there is no one standing, the brothers are just saying na hindi ano (wag yan).. why we are making this a

long-winded story? Kasi I am trying to impress upon you who are the indispensable parties and who are the necessary parties. Classmate: Indispensable parties: Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. ASG: would you agree with me? Even if he is lost kailangan talaga si Justin will participate in the proceeding kahit na he will participate in his absence meaning considered as having waived his right as waived. But don’t you think that he should be the one impleaded as principal defendant after all he was the one who executed the deed of conditional sale in your favor, he is the one that assured you that you’re going to get this portion of the land. So now, he is guilty of not only not complying his obligation under the deed of conditional sale he also made misrepresentations as to the matter what he intends to sell to you. Correct? So, he is the principal defendant here, without you impleading him, you cannot proceed. You cannot go after Nico, Jv and Noel because they can easily say “We don’t know anything about that deed of conditional sale”. Justin is the indispensable party. Is that it? Is that you case? Specific performance Kimberly vs Justin. Is that it? Classmate: I will include Jv, Nico and Noel. ASG: are they indispensable parties? Classmate: they are necessary parties. ASG: Why they are necessary parties? Or what is a necessary party? Classmate: A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. ASG: You tell me why they are necessary parties? Classmate: because they are co-owners of the land, their right will also be affected during the proceedings of the trial. They are necessary but not indispensable. (NOT THE EXACT ANSWER) ASG: They are necessary, why? What if you did not include them because mabait nman sila they are not opposing it I won’t implead them anymore. Here you go you file against Justin. Summons by publication, in other words di pa nakikita si Justin and the court grants you want you want, give you this (the part of the land you want). Are Jv, Nico and Justin bound by the decision? No because you did not implead them. Can’t you argue that isn’t that an in-rem proceeding so that they considered as being made aware of it? Well in the first place, remember they did not really object to you. They only objected to was giving this to you (specific part of the land). You can not say that they are fully up rise of the situation in this case, in other words, you really have to implead them as necessary party if you want to have a complete settlement. Malay mo during the pre-trial the parties may agree that ditto na tayo magbunutan, what if they turn out that they have no objection in giving you the portion due to Justin and they just want to have bunutan and the court say o sige magbunutan tayo ngayon ikaw Kimberly ang bubunut para kay Justin. Edi tapos ang problem ninyo kasi andyan namn kayong lahat, in the meantime, another reason why? If you don’t implead the brothers here what will prevent them in selling their own shares or all of them together selling the property to somebody else. In the meantime, you are here fighting to get your share as a result of your arrangement with Justin. Ang di moa lam dahil di mo inimplead sila, the brothers

have already sold their shares. Ang maganda lang ditto, because you are so concerned kung ano ang mangyayari sa lupa. As soon as you have decided to file a case here. You can go to the office of registry of deeds and file a notice of lis pendens over the property so nobody would try to buy that property anymore because they will know that there is a pending litigation over. In the meatime, naresolve mo yung problems mo even in the absence of Justin.