Civil Procedure1. Introduction

1.1. Applicability of rules to civil and criminal actions and special proceedingsRule 1Section 2. In what courts applicable. These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (n)Section 4. In what case not applicable. These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. (R143a)- Definition of civil, criminal actions and special proceedings.Section 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings.(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2)A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. (n)(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law. (n)(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2) The rules embodied in the Rules of Court are not penal laws and are not to be given retroactive effect. (Bermejo vs. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764) and are to govern cases brought after they take effect, and also all further proceedings in cases then pending, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former procedure shall apply. (Rule 144, Rules of Court).

As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because no vested rights may attach to nor arise therefrom.

1.2. Procedure and Practice Procedure is the method or means of conducting litigation and judicial proceedings

Practice is the carrying on of actions according to the procedure prescribed by the Rules of Court.

1.3. Courts and Jurisdiction1.3.1. Courts is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the public administration of justice. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition)

1.3.1.1. Supreme Court1.3.1.2. Court of Appeals1.3.1.3. Regional Trial Court1.3.1.4. Sandiganbayan1.3.1.5. Court of Tax Appeals

1.3.2. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case (Cuena vs. PCGG, 535 SCRA 102).

1.3.3. B.P. 129 provides the jurisdiction of the RTC and the Municipal Trial Courts.Section 19.Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and(8) In all other cases in which 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 One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691*)Section 21.Original jurisdiction in other cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.Section 23.Special jurisdiction to try special cases. The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.Section 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:(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.(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 value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.(as amended by R.A. No. 7691)Section 34.Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.(as amended by R.A. No. 7691)Section 35.Special jurisdiction in certain cases. In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ ofhabeas corpusor applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.Section 36.Summary procedures in special cases. In Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate one or more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, those involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations of the rental law, and such other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.

1.4. How is jurisdiction obtained and exercised:1.4.1. Over the persons1.4.1.1. Plaintiff by filing of the complaint in court

1.4.1.2. Defendant by valid service of summons or voluntary appearance in court.

1.4.2. Over the subject matter - conferred by law or the Constitution and determined in the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.

1.4.3. Over the res by actual or constructive seizure placing the property under the orders of the court.

Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, i.e., that it is pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an answer. Voluntary appearance shall be deemed a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of affirmative defenses shall not be constructed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense (La Naval Drug Corp. vs. CA, 236 SCRA 78). Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being legislative in character. Barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, such as hereinbefore exemplified, neither estoppel nor waiver shall apply. (Supra)

A rule that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that jurisdiction is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties... This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The exceptional circumstances involved in Tijam v. Sibonghanoywhich justified the departure from the accepted doctrine of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling [therein] not as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. (Atwel vs. Concepcion Progressive Assoc., G.R. No. 169370, April 14, 2008) The rule remains that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of action or subject matter of the case. (Supra)

1.5. Procedure and Substantive Law1.5.1. Procedure is the process for the enforcement of rights and obligations

1.5.2. Substantive law creates, defines, regulates and extinguishes rights and obligations.

2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions2.1. It must be based on a cause of action What is a cause of action? It is an act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another.

No splitting of a cause of action (Rule 2, Sections 3 and 4)Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. (3a)Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action;effect of. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a) Section 4 of Rule 2, above-quoted, is unmistakably clear as to the effect of the splitting up of a cause of action. It says, "if separate complaints are brought for different parts (reliefs) of a single cause of action, the filing of the first (complaint) may be pleaded in abatement of the others, and a judgment upon the merits in either is available as a bar in the others." In other words, whenever a plaintiff has filed more than one complaint for the same violation of a right, the filing of the first complaint on any of the reliefs born of the said violation constitutes a bar to any action on any of the other possible reliefs arising from the same violation, whether the first action is still pending, in which event, the defense to the subsequent complaint would belitis pendentia, or it has already been finally terminated, in which case, the defense would beres adjudicata. Indeed,litis pendentiaandres adjudicata, on the one hand, and splitting up a cause of action on the other, are not separate and distinct defenses, since either of the former is by law only the result or effect of the latter, or, better said, the sanction for or behind it. (City of Bacolod vs San Miguel, 29 SCRA 819)

As to the value of the plaintiff's share in the products of the land during the time that the former action was pending (which are the damages claimed under the second cause of action), their recovery is now barred by the previous judgment. These damages are but the result of the original cause of action, viz., the continuing refusal by defendants in 1941 to recognize the plaintiffs' right to an interest in the property. In the same way that plaintiffs claimed for their share of the produce from 1941 to 1947, these later damages could have been claimed in the first action, either in the original complaint (for their existence could be anticipated when the first complaint was filed) or else by supplemental plaeding. To allow them to be recovered by subsequent suit would be a violation of the rule against multiplicity of suits, and specifically of sections 3 and 4 of Rules 2 of the Rules of Court, against the splitting of causes of action, since these damages spring from the same cause of action that was pleading in the former case No. 573 between the same parties. (Jalandoni vs Martir-Guanzon, 102 SCRA 859)

Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action (Rule 2, Sections 5 and 6)

Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. 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 following conditions:

(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;

(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

(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)

Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)

Test of single cause of actionA cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.It is true that a single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person.The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the- delict or wrong violating the rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises.In the case at bar, there is no question that the petitioner sustained a single injury on his person. That vested in him a single cause of action, albeit with the correlative rights of action against the different respondents through the appropriate remedies allowed by law. (Joseph vs. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540)

2.2. Parties to a civil action

Who are parties in interest? RULE 3Parties to Civil Actions

Section 1. Who may be parties;plaintiff and defendant. Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant. (1a)

Section 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a)

Section 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. (3a)

Section 4. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)

Competency of Parties

Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardianad litem. (5a)

Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardianad litem. (19a)

Indispensable and Necessary parties

Indispensable PartiesNecessary Parties

Those without whom no final determination can be had of an action.Those who are not indispensable parties but ought to be joined as parties 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.

If not impleaded, any judgment would have no effectivenessEven if not included in the suit, the case may be finally determined in court, but the judgment therein will not resolve the whole controversy.

Those with such an interest that a final decree would necessarily affect either right so that the court cannot proceed without their presence.Those whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy but whose interest are so far separable that a final decree can be made in their absence without affecting them.

Failure to comply with the order of the court to implead an indispensable party warrants dismissal of the complaint.Failure to comply with the order of the court to include a necessary party, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed waiver of the claim against such party.

Joinder and Misjoinder of Parties

Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (7)

Section 8. Necessary party. 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. (8a)

Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.

The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. (8a, 9a)

Death of a Party

Consequence of death of partySection 20. Action and contractual money claims. When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)

Strictly speaking, the rule on substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. The rule on substitution was crafted to protect every party's right to due process. It was designed to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly represented in the suit through his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. Moreover, non-compliance with the Rules results in the denial of the right to due process for the heirs who, though not duly notified of the proceedings, would be substantially affected by the decision rendered therein. Thus, it is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not represented by any legal representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the resulting judgment therein. (Sarsaba vs. Vda de Te, 594 SCRA 410) The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. If the causes of action which survive the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive the injury complained of is to the person the property and rights of property affected being incidental.(Supra) the proper remedy here is the Substitution of Heirs and not the dismissal of this case which would work injustice to the plaintiff. (Supra) In claiming standing to bring the instant suit, Gonzales necessarily asserted "apersonaland substantial interest in the case" such that he "has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged." A reading of the allegations in the petition readily shows that Gonzales alleged interest does not involve any claim to money or property which he could have assigned to another or transmitted to his heirs. Rather, he claimed to be vindicating his rights as a citizen, taxpayer and member of the bar. Being personal and non-transferable in nature, any interest that he might have had in the outcome of this case cannot be deemed to have survived his death. (Gonzales vs. PAGCOR, 429 SCRA 533) As such, the more proper procedure would have been for them to file a Motion for Intervention as expressly provided for in Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, and not a Motion for Substitution under Section 17 of the same rule. Ideally, such a Motion for Intervention should be filed before the possibility of abatement is raised by the death of the named/representative party (or parties) to the class suit; or where such is not possible, within a reasonable time from the death of the named or representative party. (Supra)

What counsel should do on death of partySection 16. Death of party;duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardianad litemfor the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)

2.3. Venue of Actions Real and Personal actions Real actions one which affects title to or possession of real property or an interest therein. All other actions are personal actions (Riano, Vol. 1, p. 181) Real action is local, its venue depends upon the location of the property (Supra). Where the subject matter of the action involves various parcels of land situated in different provinces, the venue is determined by the singularity or plurality of the transactions involving the said parcels of land. Thus: Where the parcels of land are the objects of one and the same transaction, the venue is in the court of any of the provinces wherein the parcel of land is situated; OR If subjects of separate and distinct transactions, there is no common venue and separate actions should be laid in the court of the province wherein each parcel of land is situated (Regalado, Vol 1, p. 118). A personal action is transitory. The venue is either: Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides; or Where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides.

- "Where the subject matter of the action involves various parcels of land situated in different provinces, the venue is determined by the singularity or plurality of the transactions involving said parcels of land. Thus, where said parcels are the objects of one and the same transaction, the venue was in the then CFI of any of the provinces wherein a parcel of land is situated" (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, p. 105). As enunciated by the Supreme Court inEl Hogar Filipino v. Seva (G.R. No. 36627, 19 November 1932),it is only "when various parcels of land or real property situated in different provinces, are included in one mortgage contract, (that) the Court of First Instance of the province wherein they are situated or a part thereof is situated, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action for the foreclosure of said mortgage, and the judgment therein rendered may be executed in all the other provinces wherever the mortgaged real property may be found." (United Overseas Bank Phils. vs. Rosemoore Mining, 518 SCRA 123)

Actions against non-residents Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides; or Where the non-resident may be found. Non-residents found in the Philippines Personal actions where the plaintiff resides; Real actions where the property is located. Non-residents not found in the Philippines Personal status of the plaintiff where the plaintiff resides; and Any property of the said defendant located in the Philippineswhere the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.

Agreement on venue In writing; Made before the filing of the action; and Exclusive as to the venue.

2.4. Commencement of Actions (Rule 1, Section 5) How and when deemed commenced? A civil action is commenced by filing of the complaint and payment of prescribed docket fees.

Section 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. (6a)

When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case? In Sun Insurance vs. Asuncion (G.R. No. 79937-38, February 13, 1989) the Supreme Court laid down the following rules:a. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but also the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within the reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive period.b. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive period or reglementary period.c. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee, but subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or specified, the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect additional fee.

Docket fee to be paid by the complainant/petitioner should be based on their amended complaint, if an amendment has been made. (Magaspi vs. Remolete, 115 SCRA 193) the basis of assessment of the docket fee should be the amount of damages sought in the original complaint and not in the amended complaint. (Manchester Development Corp. vs. CA, 149 SCRA 562)

To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case14in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is overturned and reversed. (Supra)

The rule is that payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory.8InManchester v. Court of Appeals,it was held that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. The strict application of this rule was, however, relaxed two (2) years after in the case ofSun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, wherein the Court decreed that where the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period of time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. This ruling was made on the premise that the plaintiff had demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees required.Thus, in the more recent case ofUnited Overseas Bank v. Ros,the Court explained that where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated inSun Insurance Office, Ltd., and not the strict regulations set inManchester, will apply. It has been on record that the Court, in several instances, allowed the relaxation of the rule on non-payment of docket fees in order to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. In the case ofLa Salette College v. Pilotin,the Court stated:

Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the following:first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal;second,such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances. (Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso vs. CA, G.R. No. 116121, July 18, 2011)

Effect of underpayment of docket fees Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within reglementary period but in several cases, both the CA and SC have caused the dismissal of cases for non-payment of docket fees.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts3.1. Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts3.2. Pleadings in general Kinds of Pleadings Formal requirements of pleadings Parts of a pleading Verification when required Formal, not jurisdictional Kilusan-Olalia vs. CA, 528 SCRA 45 Verification by counsel In-N-Out Burger, Inc. vs. Schwani Inc., 575 SCRA 535 Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory pleadings Definition of Forum Shopping Counsel cannot sign certification Co-owner or co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or co-parties Cavila vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, 400 SCRA 255 Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification against non-forum shopping requirement Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Piglas Kamao, 561 SCRA 569 Median Container Corp. vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., 561 SCRA 622 Substantial requirements of pleadings Sufficiency of allegations Ultimate Facts only Remitere vs. Yulo 16 SCRA 251 Philippine Stock Exchange vs. Manila Banking Corp., 559 SCRA 352 Tests of sufficiency of complaint: Can judgment be rendered if admitted? Always reckon against grounds for dismissal Is bill of particulars applicable? (Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Trazo, 500 SCRA 242) Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading Not susceptible to summary judgment Does not amount to confession of judgment MUST tender an issue Must specifically deny material allegation lest they be deemed admitted Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or answer, else waived Alternative causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even if inconsistent with each other Purpose of rule is to allow for complete adjudication of any controversy Counterclaims Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims Test to determine nature of counterclaim In the case of Namarco vs. Federation of United Namarco Distributors Inc., 49 SCRA 273, the Supreme Court stated the tests for compulsory counterclaim: First: Identity of Issues. Second: If it would be barred by res judicata Third: Same evidence or substantial identityin the evidence relating to the claim and counterclaim Fourth: A counterclaim has been held to be compulsory if there is a logical relationship between it and the main claim. We have indicated that a counterclaim is compulsory if it bears a "logical relationship" to an opposing party's claim.(Namarco vs. Federation of Namarco) The phrase "logical relationship" is given meaning by the purpose of the rule which it was designed to implement. Thus, a counterclaim is logically related to the opposing party's claim where separate trials of each of their respective claims would involve a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the courts. Where multiple claims involve many of the same factual issues, or the same factual and legal issues, or where they are off-shoots of the same basic controversy between the parties, fairness and considerations of convenience and of economy require that the counterclaimant be permitted to maintain his cause ofaction. (Supra) a compulsory counterclaim cannot be made the subject of a separate action but should be asserted in the same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence giving rise to it. Where the counterclaim is made the subject of a separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea ofauter action pendantorlitis pendentia,and/or dismissed on the ground ofres judicata. (Metals Engineering vs CA, 203 SCRA 273)

For all intents and purposes, such proposition runs counter to the nature of a compulsory counterclaim in that it cannot remain pending for independent adjudication by the court.This is because a compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suitand derives its jurisdictional support therefrom,inasmuch as it arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint. It follows that if the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main action of the case and dismisses the same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary to the principal controversy, must likewise be dismissedsince no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim.(Supra) Furthermore, it has been held that a counterclaim presupposes the existence of a claim against the party filing the counterclaim. Where there is no claim against the counterclaimant, then the counterclaim is improper and should be dismissed.The complaint filed by herein petitioner was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for non-payment of docket fees. By reason of said dismissal, it is as if no claim was filed against herein private respondent, hence the counterclaim has no leg to stand on. In addition, it was at the instance of private respondent that the complaint was dismissed. In the words of Justice Abad Santos, "(private respondent) does not object to the dismissal of the civil case but nonetheless wants (his) counterclaim therein to subsist. Impossible. A person cannot eat his cake and have it at the same time. If the civil case is dismissed, so also is the counterclaim filed therein." (Supra) The dismissal of the complaint on defendant's own motion operated likewise to dismiss the counterclaim questioning the complaintThe Rules of Court provides a remedy to recover on defendant's counterclaim if plaintiff moves to dismiss the case. Under Sec. 2, Rule 17, defendant may raise objection to the dismissal of the complaint; in such case, the trial curt may not dismiss the main action. (BA Finance vs Co, 224 SCRA 163) If any of the grounds to dismiss under Sec. 3, Rule 17, of the Rules of Court arises,8the proper recourse for a defendant who desires to pursue his compulsory counterclaim in the same proceeding is not to move for the dismissal of the complaint; instead, he should only move to have plaintiff declarednon-suitedon the complaint so that the latter can no longer present his evidence thereon, and simultaneously move that he be declaredas in defaulton the compulsory counterclaim, and reserve the right to present evidenceex parteon his counterclaim. This will enable defendant who was unjustly haled to court to prove his compulsory counterclaim, which is intertwined with the complaint, because the trial court retains jurisdiction over the complaint and of the whole case. The non-dismissal of the complaint, the non-suit notwithstanding, provides the basis for the compulsory counterclaim to remain active and subsisting. (Supra)

3.3. Effect of failure to plead Order of default Consequence of order of default Judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for Need for presentation of evidence Rationale for order of default

3.4. Amended/Supplemental pleadings Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of action set out in original pleading Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment or even motion for judgment on the pleadings which are not considered responsive pleading Rule when some but not all defendants file responsive pleading

When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to the rule that the cause of action is not substantially changed or the theory altered The purpose of the supplemental pleading is to bring into the records new facts which will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled; hence, any supplemental facts which further develop the original right of action, or extend to vary the relief, are available by way of supplemental complaint even though they themselves constitute a right of action. (Planters Development Bank vs. LZK Holdings & Development Co., 456 SCRA 366) The parties may file supplemental pleadings only to supply deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, but not to introduce new and independent causes of action. InLeobrera v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that when the cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint is different from the causes of action mentioned in the original complaint, the court should not admit the supplemental complaint. However, a broad definition of causes of action should be applied. As the United States Supreme Court ruled inSmith v. Biggs Boiler Works Co.:

While a matter stated in a supplemental complaint should have some relation to the cause of action set forth in the original pleading, the fact that the supplemental pleading technically states a new cause of action should not be a bar to its allowance but only a factor can be considered by the court in the exercise of its discretion; and of course, a broad definition of "cause of action" should be applied here as elsewhere. (Supra)

Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented during trial is allowed: When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the consent of the parties When, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will befall the objecting party

Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right A supplemental complaint should, as the name implies, supply only deficiencies in aid of an original complaint. It should contain only causes of action relevant and material to the plaintiff's right and which help or aid the plaintiff's right or defense. The supplemental complaint must be based on matters arising subsequent to the original complaint related to the claim or defense presented therein, and founded on the same cause of action. It cannot be used to try a new matter or a new cause of action. (Leobrera vs. CA, 170 SCRA 711) In the case of Leobrera vs. CA, the supplemental complaint alleged acts of harassment committed by BPI in unreasonably opting to declare petitioner in default and in demanding full liquidation of the 1985 three-year term loan. This three-year term loan, as previously mentioned, was entirely distinct and separate from the two promissory notes. It was independent of the 1980 amicable settlement between petitioner and BPI which gave rise to the credit facility subject of the original complaint. Although there is Identity in the remedies asked for in the original and supplemental complaints, i.e. injunction, petitioner's subsequent cause of action giving rise to the claim for damages in the supplemental complaint is unrelated to the amicable settlement which brought about the grant of the credit facilities, the breach of which settlement is alleged to be the basis of the original complaint. Petitioner himself in his supplemental complaint admits this As the allegations reveal, the P 500,000.00 three-year term loan is a transaction independent of the P 800,000.00 credit facility and BPI's questioned act of threatening to foreclose the properties securing said loan was the result of an alleged default by petitioner in the payment of the amortization due for 9 February 1987 and not because of any circumstance related to the 1980 amicable settlement The two causes of action being entirely different, the latter one could not be successfully pleaded by supplemental complaint. (Supra)

Effect of amended pleadings Supersedes original pleading As a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need to be offered in evidence The Court of Appeals also correctly overruled the petitioner's contention that the averment in the original application for registration attributing the origin of the land to the action of the sea, which averment, with leave of court, was later superseded by an amendment to the effect that the land was formed by the action of rivers, was binding on the private respondent as a judicial admission. Pleadings that have been amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions. While they may nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as extra-judicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally offered in evidence. (Director of Lands vs. CA, 196 SCRA 94 [1991])

3.5. Filing of responsive pleading3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers3.7. Summons3.8. Dismissal of actions3.9. Pre-trial3.10. Discovery3.11. Trial3.12. Consolidation3.13. Demurrer to Evidence3.14. Judgment on the pleadings3.15. Summary Judgments3.16. Judgments3.17. Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)3.18. Execution of judgments only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution final judgment vs final and executor judgment a "final judgment" in the sense just described becomes final "upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected"or, an appeal therefrom having been taken, the judgment of the appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of origin.The "final" judgment is then correctly categorized as a "final and executory judgment" in respect to which, as the law explicitly provides, "execution shall issue as a matter of right."It bears stressing that only a final judgment or order, i.e., "a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action of proceeding"can become final and executory. (Investments vs. CA, 147 SCRA 334)

test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court to do with respect to the merits of the case? Execution a matter of right when judgment final and executor, but only upon motion Judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e. when no appeal has been taken within the period provided by law Enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it becomes final, subject to certain exceptions Execution before finality, only upon good reasons Execution pending appeal is not to be granted except for good reason to be stated in a special order. For the general rule is that only judgments which have become final and executory may be executed.In this case, the issuance of an order granting execution pending appeal is sought to be justified on the plea that the "[r]espondents' dilatory appeal and refusal to pay petitioner the amount justly due it had placed petitioner in actual and imminent danger of insolvency." (BF Corp. vs. CA, 294 SCRA 109) Even assuming that it was indeed in financial distress and on the verge of facing civil or even criminal suits, the immediate execution of a judgment in its favor pending appeal cannot be justified as Falcon's situation may not be likened to a case of a natural person who be ill or may be of advanced age. Even the danger of extinction of the corporation will notper sejustify a discretionary execution unless there are showings of other good reasons, such as for instance, impending insolvency of the adverse party or the appeal being patently dilatory.But even as to the latter reason, it was noted in Aquino vs. Santiago (161 SCRA 570 [1998]), that it is not for the trial judge to determine the merit of a decision he rendered as this is the role of the appellate court. Hence, it is not within competence of the trial court, in resolving a motion for execution pending appeal, to rule that the appeals is patently dilatory and rely on the same as its basis for finding good reasons to grant the motion. Only an appellate court can appreciate the dilatory intent of an appeals as an additional good reason in upholding an order for execution pending appealwhich may have been issued by the trial court for other good reasons, or in cases where the motion for execution pending appeal is filed with the appellate court in accordance with Section 2, paragraph (a), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court. (Supra) Nor does the fact that petitioner filed a bond in the amount of P35 million justify the grant of execution pending appeal. We have held in a number of casesthat the posting of a bond to answer for damages is not alone a sufficient reason for ordering execution pending appeal. Otherwise, execution pending appeal could be obtained through the mere filing of such a bond. (Supra)

Discretionary execution, when stayed Execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the nature of the judgment, i.e. recovery of property vs. money judgments

4. Appeals a remedy to set aside or reverse or modify a judgment on the merits.

4.1. Concept of appeal guard against judgment of unskilled and unfair judges prevention as much as correction of mistakes not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost

4.2. Who may appeal any of the parties to a case may appeal.

4.3. What are appealable Judgments decisions on the merits after a full-blown trial Final Orders disposes of a portion of a case on the merits/ disposes of the case on the merits without trial on the merits, i.e. Order of Dismissal due to a Motion to Dismiss. Declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable

what are final judgments? When does a judgment or order become final? When no appeal is filed after the lapse of the period to appeal.

Final judgments vs. judgments that are final and executory The concept of "final" judgment, as distinguished from one which has "become final" (or "executory" as of right [final and executory]), is definite and settled. A "final" judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case,leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, ofres adjudicataor prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to use the established and more distinctive term, "final and executory." (Investments vs. CA, 147 SCRA 334) Now, a "final judgment" in the sense just described becomes final "upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected"or, an appeal therefrom having been taken, the judgment of the appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of origin.The "final" judgment is then correctly categorized as a "final and executory judgment" in respect to which, as the law explicitly provides, "execution shall issue as a matter of right."It bears stressing that only a final judgment or order, i.e., "a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action of proceeding"can become final and executory. (Supra)

What are not appealable and why are they not? Interlocutory orders, because they do not dispose of the case.

Test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case

4.4. Modes of appeal ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment) MTC to RTC RTC to CA Review of judgments rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction No extension of time to file notice of appeal Period to appeal in interrupted by filing of Motion for New Trial or Motion for Reconsideration If MNT or MR is denied, fresh period to appeal Neypes vs. CA, G.R. No. 141524, September 24, 2005

Payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal

petition for review (by filing with the CA under Rule 42) second level of review review of judgments rendered in appellate jurisdiction RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA Not a matter of right; discretionary on the part of the CA Ong vs. Tating, 149 SCRA 265 appeal by certiorari (filing with the SC) appeal to the SC from RTC on questions of law from order or resolutions of the CA or SB (Rule 45) but only questions of law appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, Sec. 6) Cheesman vs IAC, 193 SCRA 93 Sumbingco vs. CA, 155 SCRA 24

what is a question of law? When doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. Questions of facts there is a doubt or difference as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.

petition for review vs. petition for certiorari New York Maritime vs. CA, 249 SCRA 416 Ybanez vs CA, 253 SCRA 540

4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal upon transmission of the records to the appellate court. May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by the court? Yes, when filed out of time; and Non-payment of docket fees within the reglementary period Duty of the court when notice of appeal is filed? Verify the correctness of the records Verify completeness of the records If incomplete, complete the same Transmit to appellate court the records Dilatory appeals Should be dismissed

4.6. Improper appeals to CA from RTC on questions of law to SC via notice of appeal to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in appellate jurisdiction the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be allowed Exception: when the SC on questions of law and fact in which case, the case will be remanded to CA.

5. Provisional Remedies5.1. Preliminary Attachment Kinds of attachments Preliminary Garnishment Levy on execution

At what stage is preliminary attachment granted? Grounds for attachment EXCLUSIVE May be granted ex parte Rule 57 in fact speaks of the grant of the remedy "at the commencement of the action or at any time thereafter." The phrase "at the commencement of the action," obviously refers to the date of the filing of the complaint which, as abovepointed out, its the date that marks "the commencement of the action;" and the reference plainly is to a time before summons is served on the defendant or even before summons issues. What the rule is saying quite clearly is that after an action is properlycommenced by the filing of the complaint and the payment of all requisite docket and other fees the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a writ of preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of the pertinent requisites laid down by law, and that he may do so at any time, either before or after service of summons on the defendant. And this indeed, has been the immemorial practice sanctioned by the courts: for the plaintiff or other proper party to incorporate the application for attachment in the complaint or other appropriate pleading (counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party claim) and for the Trial Court to issue the writex-parteat the commencement of the action if it finds the application otherwise sufficient in form and substance. (Onate vs. Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659)

We do not agree entirely with petitioners. True, this Court had held in a recent decision that the enforcement of writ of attachment may not validly be effected until and unless proceeded or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons But we must distinguish the case at bar from theSievertandBAC Manufacturingcases. In those two cases,summons was never served upon the defendants. The plaintiffs therein did not even attempt to cause service of summons upon the defendants, right up to the time the cases went up to this Court. This is not true in the case at bar. The records reveal that Sheriff Flores and Sun Life did attempt a contemporaneous service of both summons and the writ of attachment on January 3, 1992, but we stymied by the absence of a responsible officer in petitioners' offices. Note is taken of the fact that petitioners Oate and Econ Holdings admitted in their answer9that the offices of both Brunner Development Corporation and Econ Holdings were located at the same address and that petitioner Oate is the President of Econ Holdings while petitioner Dio is the President of Brunner Development Corporation as well as a stockholder and director of Econ Holdings. (Supra)

Writs of attachment may properly issueex parteprovided that the Court is satisfied that the relevant requisites therefor have been fulfilled by the applicant, although it may, in its discretion, require prior hearing on the application with notice to the defendant; but that levy on property pursuant to the writ thus issued may not be validly effected unless preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service on the defendant of summons, a copy of the complaint (and of the appointment of guardianad litem, if any), the application for attachment (if not incorporated in but submitted separately from the complaint), the order of attachment, and the plaintiff's attachment bond. (Davao Light and Water vs. CA, 204 SCRA 343)

Ordinarily, the prayer in a petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is embodied or incorporated in the main complaint itself as one of the forms of relief sought in such complaint. Thus, valid service of summons and a copy of the complaint will in such case vest jurisdiction in the court over the defendant both for purposes of the main case and for purposes of the ancillary remedy of attachment. In such case, notice of the main case is at the same time notice of the auxiliary proceeding in attachment. Where, however, the petition for a writ of preliminary attachment is embodied in a discrete pleading, such petition must be served eithersimultaneously with service of summonsand a copy of the main complaint, orafter jurisdiction over the defendant has already been acquiredby such service of summons. Notice of the separate attachment petition is not notice of the main action. Put a little differently, jurisdiction whetherratione personae or ratione materiaein an attachment proceeding is ancillary to jurisdiction ratione personae or ratione materiae in the main action against the defendant. If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant in the principal action, it simply has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary attachment against the defendant or his property. (Sievert vs. CA, 168 SCRA 692)

Section 20, Rule 57 does state that the award of damages shall beincluded in the judgment on the main case, and seemingly indicates that it should not be rendered prior to the adjudication of the main case. (Carlos vs. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266) The rule, which guarantees a right to damages incurred by reason of wrongful attachment, has long been recognized in this jurisdiction. Under Section 20, Rule 57 of the 1964 Rules of Court, it was provided that there must be first a judgment on the action in favor of the party against whom attachment was issued before damages can be claimed by such party. The Court however subsequently clarified that under the rule, "recovery for damages may be had by the party thus prejudiced by the wrongful attachment, even if the judgment be adverse to him. (Supra) The language used in the 1997 revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure leaves no doubt that there is no longer need for a favorable judgment in favor of the party against whom attachment was issued in order that damages may be awarded. It is indubitable that even a party who loses the action in main but is able to establish a right to damages by reason of improper, irregular, or excessive attachment may be entitled to damages. This bolsters the notion that the claim for damages arising from such wrongful attachment may arise and be decided separately from the merits of the main action. (Supra) Moreover, a separate ruleSection 8, Rule 58 covers instances when it is the trial court that awards damages upon the bond for preliminary injunction of the adverse party. Tellingly, it requires that the amount of damages to be awarded be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 57. (Supra)

To merit an award of actual damages arising from a wrongful attachment, the attachment defendant must prove, with the best evidence obtainable, the fact of loss or injury suffered and the amount thereof. Such loss or injury must be of the kind which is not only capable of proof but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. As to its amount, the same must be measurable based on specific facts, and not on guesswork or speculation.In particular, if the claim for actual damages covers unrealized profits, the amount of unrealized profits must be estalished and supported by independent evidence of the mean income of the business undertaking interrupted by the illegal seizure. (Spouses Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te, G.R. No. 155868) Nonetheless, we recognize that Spouses Yu suffered some form of pecuniary loss when their properties were wrongfully seized, although the amount thereof cannot be definitively ascertained. Hence, an award of temperate or moderate damages in the amount ofP50,000.00 is in order. As to moral and exemplary damages, to merit an award thereof, it must be shown that the wrongful attachment was obtained by the attachment plaintiff with malice or bad faith, such as by appending a false affidavit to his application. (Supra)

5.2. Preliminary Injunction preceded by a 72 hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA) within the TRO, hearing must be conducted may be granted at any stage of the proceeding requirement for issuance existence of the right to be protected that the act against which injunction is to be directed are violative of such right. coordinate body may not be enjoined may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself

Injunctionis a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action. (Bacolod City Water District vs. Labayen, 446 SCRA 110) The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve thestatus quountil the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction. (Supra) A restraining order, on the other hand, is issued to preserve thestatus quountil the hearing of the application for preliminary injunctionwhich cannot be issuedex parte. Under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a judge may issue a temporary restraining order with a limited life of twenty (20) days from date of issue. If before the expiration of the twenty (20)-day period the application for preliminary injunction is denied, the temporary restraining order would be deemedautomatically vacated. If no action is taken by the judge on the application for preliminary injunction within the said twenty (20) days, the temporary restraining order wouldautomatically expireon the 20th day by the sheer force of law, no judicial declaration to that effect being necessary. (Supra) The rule against the non-extendibility of the twenty (20)-day limited period of effectivity of a temporary restraining order is absolute if issued by a regional trial court. The failure of respondent court to fix a period for the ordered restraint did not lend the temporary restraining order a breath of semi-permanence which can only be characteristic of a preliminary injunction. The twenty (20)-day period provided by the Rules of Court should be deemed incorporated in the Order where there is an omission to do so. (Supra)

Absence of a showing that the applicant for injunction have an urgent and paramount need for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to prevent irreparable damage, they are not entitled to such writ. (China Banking Corp. vs. Co, G.R. No. 174569)

Requirements for them to be entitled to injunctive relief: (a) the existence of their right to be protected; and (b) that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of such right. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner must show,inter alia, the existence of a clear and unmistakable right and an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Thus, an injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. (Estares vs. CA, G.R. No. 144755) It must be remembered that a writ of preliminary injunction is generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. The evidence submitted during the hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction is not conclusive or complete for only a "sampling" is needed to give the trial court an idea of the justification for the preliminary injunction pending the decision of the case on the merits. (Supra)

It is well-settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve thestatus quountil the merits of the case can be heard. It is usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy thestatus quoof the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case. (Buyco vs. Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, December 21, 2009) Dismissal, discontinuance or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or temporary injunction has been grantedoperates as a dissolution of the restraining order or temporary injunction," regardless of whether the period for filing a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the case or appeal therefrom has expired. The rationale therefor is that even in cases where an appeal is taken from a judgment dismissing an action on the merits,the appeal does not suspend the judgment, hence the general rule applies that a temporary injunction terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action. (Supra) It is well settled that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final, subject to certain exceptions, e.g. where a sham preliminary investigation was hastily conducted. (Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 SCRA 182)

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner has the burden to establish the following requisites: 1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected;(2) a violation of that right;(3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.Hence, petitioners' entitlement to the injunctive writ hinges on their prima facie legal right to the properties subject of the present dispute. The Court notes that the present dispute is based solely on the parties' allegations in their respective pleadings and the documents attached thereto. We have on one hand, petitioners' bare assertion or claim that they are co-owners of the properties sold by their predecessors to respondent, and on the other, respondent's claim of ownership supported by deeds of conveyances and torrens titles in their favor. From these alone, it is clear that petitioners failed to discharge the burden of clearly showing a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Where the complainant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction. (Medina vs. Greenfield Development, G.R. 140228)

5.3. Receivership5.4. Replevin5.5. Support pendete lite