Cases Rule 2 Digest
Cases Rule 2 Digest
Cases Rule 2 Digest
In the case at bar, petitioners did not present the clerk of Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing manpower
courts assessment of the docket fees. Moreover, the records for the servicing and maintenance of air conditioning and air
do not include this assessment. There can be no handling units that it likewise provides to its
determination of whether private respondents correctly paid clients. On September 8, 1997, petitioner hired respondent
the docket fees without the clerk of courts assessment. Buensalida as an aircon maintenance technician.
Exception to Notice of Hearing On February 26, 2003, respondent injured his left ring finger
while repairing the air handling units at the SM Department
The Rules require every written motion to be set for hearing Store in Davao City. As a result, respondent underwent a
by the applicant and to address the notice of hearing to all surgical debridgement procedure and was confined in the
parties concerned. The Rules also provide that no written hospital for two days.
motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without
proof of service thereof. However, the Rules allow a liberal SM Prime Holdings initially shouldered respondents
construction of its provisions in order to promote [the] hospitalization expenses which amounted to P30,331.61 but
objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive it subsequently collected the amount from petitioner who, in
disposition of every action and proceeding. turn, informed respondent that the amount would be deducted
from his salary. Thus, on April 20, 2003, petitioner began
In these exceptional cases, the Court considers that no party deducting P300.00 from respondents weekly earnings or a
can even claim a vested right in technicalities, and for this monthly deduction of P1,200.00.
reason, cases should, as much as possible, be decided on the
merits rather than on technicalities. According to respondent, he wanted to avail of the SSS
benefits thus he accomplished an Employee Notification
The case at bar falls under this exception. To deny the Sharia Form. But petitioner did not send it backc because it was
District Court of an opportunity to determine whether it has allegedly filed beyond the allowable period. Petitioner also
jurisdiction over a petition for the settlement of the estate of a ignored respondent’s PhilHealth 1 which the latter sent
decedent alleged to be a Muslim would also deny its inherent together with the SSS form.
power as a court to control its process to ensure conformity
with the law and justice. Thereafter, respondent demanded for the restoration of the
deducted amounts but was denied by petitioner; hence,
on May 16, 2003, he filed a complaint for constructive
dismissal with money claims against petitioner before the
Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI of the NLRC-Davao City.
Issue: WON the 2 cases raised 2 distinct causes of action Davao case, the following issues were clearly spelled out:
Held: here, SC upheld the CA. it correctly relied not only on (1) whether the injury sustained by respondent was work-
the face of the complaints, but also on the position papers related;
submitted by respondent in determining the causes of action
raised in the 2 cases. (2) whether the salary deductions made by petitioner was
proper; and
A complaint in a case filed before the NLRC consists only of
a blank form which provides a checklist of possible causes of (3) whether petitioner was justified in refusing to complete
action that the employee may have against the employer. The respondents SSS and Philhealth forms. While the complaint
check list was designed to facilitate the filing of complaints by in the Davao case also indicated constructive illegal
employees and laborers even without the intervention of dismissal, non-payment of premium pay, holiday pay and
counsel. It allows the complainant to expediently set forth his service incentive leave pay as causes of action, these were
grievance in a general manner, but is not solely determinative not mentioned or discussed in respondents position paper.
of the ultimate cause of action that he may have against the
employer. In contrast, the amended complaint in the NCR case is one
for constructive illegal dismissal and underpayment of
Section 3, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, monetary benefits. The issues raised therein are:
as amended by NLRC Resolution No. 01-02 (Series of 2002),
provides: (1) whether complainant was illegally dismissed;
… These verified position papers to be submitted shall cover (2) whether complainant is entitled to all his monetary claims;
only those claims and causes of action raised in the
(3) whether complainant is entitled to full backwages and
complaint excluding those that may have been amicably
separation pay; and
settled, and shall be accompanied by all supporting
documents including the affidavits of their respective (4) whether complainant is entitled to moral and exemplary
witnesses which shall take the place of the latters direct damages.
testimony. The parties shall thereafter not be allowed to
allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred Thus, the causes of action pleaded in the two cases are
to and any cause or causes of action not included in the not the same. The Davao case was clearly one for illegal
complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents. deductions and the NCR case was for constructive illegal
dismissal and money claims.
Thus, the complaint is not the only document from which the
complainants cause of action is determined in a labor the factual allegations that support the causes of action in the
case. Any cause of action that may not have been included in two cases are likewise dissimilar. The Davao case involved
the complaint or position paper, can no longer be alleged after factual circumstances related to petitioners refusal to shoulder
the position paper is submitted by the parties. In other words, respondents hospitalization costs as well as the validity of the
the filing of the position paper is the operative act which salary deductions made by the former. On the other hand, the
forecloses the raising of other matters constitutive of the NCR case pertained to alleged facts dealing with the
cause of action. This necessarily implies that the cause of aftermath of the filing of the Davao case, particularly the
action is finally ascertained only after both the complaint and tactics petitioner allegedly employed to harass respondent
position paper are properly evaluated. and ease him out of his regular employment, as well as
averments involving underpayment of monetary benefits.
A cause of action is the delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary right of Thus, respondent was not guilty of forum shopping when he
the plaintiff. A complaint before the NLRC does not contain filed the NCR case despite the pendency of the Davao case.
specific allegations of these wrongful acts or omissions which
constitute the cause of action. All that it contains is the term the two cases here cannot be consolidated because they were
by which such acts or omissions complained of are generally filed and are pending before different regional arbitration
known. It cannot therefore be considered as the final branches of the NLRC the first, in Davao City and the second,
determinant of the cause of action. in the National Capital Region.
[G.R. NO. 152572 : October 5, 2007] (3) Upon a judgment.
SPOUSES ABELARDO BORBE and ROSITA LAJARCA- (Multi-Realty Development Corporation v. The Makati
BORBE, Petitioners, v. VIOLETA CALALO,Respondent. Tuscany Condominium Corporation) the term "right of
action" is the right to commence and maintain an action.
Doctrine: The right of action springs from the cause of action, but
does not accrue until all the facts which constitute the
Facts: cause of action have occurred.
On September 28, 1981, Rosita Lajarca-Borbe, petitioner, and Under the terms of the "Kasunduan," petitioners would pay the
Violeta Calalo, the surviving spouse of Jose Palo, respondent, balance of P3,000.00 once the land sold will be titled in the
executed an agreement or "Kasunduan." The agreement name of respondent. TCT No. T-51153 covering the subject
provides that petitioner has purchased the 400-square meter lot was issued in respondent's name on September 22, 1982.
lot inherited by respondent from her late husband; that From this day, petitioners could have asked respondent to
petitioner shall pay respondent P3,000.00 as down payment; accept the remaining balance of P500.00 and execute a new
and that she shall pay the balance of P3,000.00 the moment deed of sale in their favor.
a new TCT shall have been issued in the name of respondent.
Unfortunately, it was only in 1995 when petitioners attempted
The Kasunduan was also signed by respondent's children. to pay the remaining balance of P500.00. And it was only on
August 15, 1995, or 13 years after the lot was registered in
After 13 years or in April 1995, petitioner spouses presented
respondent's name, that petitioners filed the complaint for
a prepared deed of sale in Filipino indicating that respondent
specific performance. Clearly by then, petitioners' cause of
is selling to petitioners the subject lot covered by TCT No. T-
action had prescribed.
51153 in her name. However, respondent and her children
refused to sign the document, asking a higher price for the lot.
Contentions:
Held: yes
REMEDIOS QUIOGUE, ET AL., Plaintiffs- considering that the first case refers to a transaction
Appellees, v. JACINTO BAUTISTA, ET different from those covered in the present case.
AL., Defendants-Appellants. Section 3, Rule 2, of our Rules of Court, invoked by
Bautista et al, which provides that a single cause of
Doctrine: action cannot be split up into two or more parts so as to
be made the subject of different complaints, does not
Section 3, Rule 2: A contract embraces only one single apply, for here there is not a single cause of action that
cause of action because it may be violated only once was split up, but several causes that refer to different
even if it contains several stipulations. Thus, non- transactions. And it was held that a contract embraces
payment of a loan secured by mortgage constitutes a only one cause of action because it may be violated only
single cause of action. The creditor cannot split up this once even if it contains several stipulations.1 Thus, non-
single cause of action into two separate complaints, one payment of a loan secured by mortgage constitutes a
for payment of the debt and another for the foreclosure single cause of action. The creditor cannot split up this
of the mortgage. single cause of action into two separate complaints, one
for payment of the debt and another for the foreclosure
Facts:
of the mortgage. If he does so, the filing of the first
This is an action to foreclose two deeds of mortgage complaint will bar the second complaint. In other words,
executed to secure the payment of two loans, one for the complaint filed for the payment of certain debt shall
P2,000.00 and another for P6,000.00 covering two be considered as a waiver of the right to foreclose the
parcels of land situated in the City of Manila. The first mortgage executed thereon.2 The lower court, therefore,
deed was executed on May 9, 1944 and the second on did not err in denying the motion to dismiss on this
October 11, 1944 and it was stipulated therein as a ground.
common provision that the two loans cannot be repaid
within one year from the date of the termination of the
last world war.
Contentions: