Lawyerly

GR No. 171303

2016-01-20

ELIZABETH L. DIAZ v. GEORGINA R. ENCANTO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, which seeks to reverse and set aside the April 28, 2005 Decision[1] and January 20, 2006 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55165,[3] which reversed the April 17, 1996 Decision[4] and September 17, 1996 Order[5] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 58397.

GR No. 180651

2014-07-30

NURSERY CARE CORPORATION v. ANTHONY ACEVEDO

BERSAMIN, J.

The nature of the issues to be raised on appeal can be gleaned from the appellant's notice of appeal filed in the trial court, and from the appellant's brief submitted to the appellate court.[27] In this case, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal in which they contended that the April 26, 2002 decision and the order of July 17, 2002 issued by the RTC denying their consolidated motion for reconsideration were contrary to the facts and law obtaining in the consolidated cases.[28] In their consolidated memorandum filed in the CA, they essentially assailed the RTC's ruling that the taxes imposed on and collected from the petitioners under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila constituted double taxation in the strict, narrow or obnoxious sense. Considered together, therefore, the notice of appeal and consolidated memorandum evidently did not raise issues that required the re-evaluation of evidence or the relevance of surrounding circumstances.

GR No. 207266

2014-06-25

HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO v. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK

MENDOZA, J.

One. The MTCC failed to consider the absence of any allegation in the complaint regarding the authority of Remedios Chan to institute Civil Case No. 1184 for the Heirs of Yabao. Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity must be averred in the complaint. The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. It bears stressing that an unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.[27]

GR No. 196276

2014-06-04

TAKATA CORPORATION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

PERALTA, J.

Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was not specifically authorized by respondent, such appeal is considered to have not been filed at all. It has been held that "if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect."[19]

GR No. 194362

2013-06-26

PHILIPPINE HAMMONIA SHIP AGENCY v. EULOGIO V. DUMADAG

BRION, J.

We find Dumadag's position untenable. For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties or any of them. Otherwise stated, there is a question of law when the issue arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the issue involves the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[26] In the present case, the controversy arises not from the findings made by Dumadag's physicians which contradict the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician; it arises from the application of the law and jurisprudence on the conflicting assessments of the two sets of physicians. We thus find no procedural obstacle in our review of the case.

GR No. 197598

2012-11-21

MIRANT CORPORATION v. DANILO A. SARIO

BRION, J.

There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. "For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them[,]"[22] which we find to be the situation in this case. In any event, even if we were to consider that the petition raises only factual issues, we still find it necessary to review the case, in view of the divergence of the factual findings between the CA and the NLRC.[23] Based on these divergent factual findings, the NLRC found that Sario had been validly dismissed, while the CA declared illegal the termination of his employment.

GR No. 171219

2012-09-03

ATTY. FE Q. PAL MIANO-SALVADOR v. CONSTANTINO ANGELES

PERALTA, J.

What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority to represent a plaintiff in filing an action? In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals,[6] the Court categorically stated that "[i]f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff."[7] This ruling was reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company,[8] where the Court went on to say that "[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the [MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent [plaintiff before the lower court]."[9]

GR No. 179488

2012-04-23

COSCO PHILIPPINES SHIPPING v. KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY

PERALTA, J.

In the present case, since respondent is a corporation, the certification must be executed by an officer or member of the board of directors or by one who is duly authorized by a resolution of the board of directors; otherwise, the complaint will have to be dismissed.[20] The lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by mere amendment of the complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.[21] The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the corporation.[22]

GR No. 164703

2010-05-04

ALLAN C. GO v. MORTIMER F. CORDERO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

First, on the issue of whether the case had been filed by the real party-in-interest as required by Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which defines such party as the one (1) to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The purposes of this provision are: 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.[31] A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.[32]

GR Nos. 151983-84

2008-07-31

JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has consistently ruled that a question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the alleged truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[35] The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[36]

GR No. 168779

2007-09-14

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO

NACHURA, J.

The petition is captioned as a petition for review. Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for review shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.[9] A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[10]

GR No. 150918

2007-08-17

NEGROS MERCHANTS ENTERPRISES v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals,[30] we held that if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff.[31]

GR NO. 151132

2006-06-22

FIRST BANCORP v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.[25] The nature of the issues to be raised on appeal can be gleaned from the appellant's notice of appeal filed in the trial court and in his or her brief as appellant in the appellate court.[26]

GR NO. 143870

2005-09-30

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. RIVERA VILLAGE LESSEE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

TINGA, J.

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) requires that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, i.e., 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.[15] A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.[16]

GR NO. 159156

2005-01-31

RAMON P. ARON v. FRANCISCO REALON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court further provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity must be averred in the complaint. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is, he or she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can lawfully be prosecuted in the name of that person. The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. It must be stressed that an unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.[53] Corollary, the defendant can assail the facts alleged therein through a motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff has no capacity to sue under Section 1(d) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, that is, that he does not have the representative he claims.[54]

GR NO. 147969

2005-01-17

FELICISSIMA GALINDO v. HEIRS OF MARCIANO A. ROXAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Section 1, Rule 3[16] of the Rules of Court provides that only persons or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Section 4, Rule 8[17] of the said Rules further provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity must be averred in the complaint. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is, he or she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can lawfully be prosecuted in the name of that person.[18] The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.[19] Corollary, the defendants can assail the facts alleged in the complaint through a motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff has no capacity to sue under Section 1(d) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, that is, that he does not have the representative he claims.[20]

	GR No. 171303 2016-01-20	ELIZABETH L. DIAZ v. GEORGINA R. ENCANTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, which seeks to reverse and set aside the April 28, 2005 Decision[1] and January 20, 2006 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55165,[3] which reversed the April 17, 1996 Decision[4] and September 17, 1996 Order[5] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City, in Civil Case No. 58397.
	GR No. 180651 2014-07-30	NURSERY CARE CORPORATION v. ANTHONY ACEVEDO BERSAMIN, J.
The nature of the issues to be raised on appeal can be gleaned from the appellant's notice of appeal filed in the trial court, and from the appellant's brief submitted to the appellate court.[27] In this case, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal in which they contended that the April 26, 2002 decision and the order of July 17, 2002 issued by the RTC denying their consolidated motion for reconsideration were contrary to the facts and law obtaining in the consolidated cases.[28] In their consolidated memorandum filed in the CA, they essentially assailed the RTC's ruling that the taxes imposed on and collected from the petitioners under Section 21 of the Revenue Code of Manila constituted double taxation in the strict, narrow or obnoxious sense. Considered together, therefore, the notice of appeal and consolidated memorandum evidently did not raise issues that required the re-evaluation of evidence or the relevance of surrounding circumstances.
	GR No. 207266 2014-06-25	HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO v. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK MENDOZA, J.
One. The MTCC failed to consider the absence of any allegation in the complaint regarding the authority of Remedios Chan to institute Civil Case No. 1184 for the Heirs of Yabao. Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity must be averred in the complaint. The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. It bears stressing that an unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.[27]
	GR No. 196276 2014-06-04	TAKATA CORPORATION v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS PERALTA, J.
Since Mole's appeal filed with the BLR was not specifically authorized by respondent, such appeal is considered to have not been filed at all. It has been held that "if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect."[19]
	GR No. 194362 2013-06-26	PHILIPPINE HAMMONIA SHIP AGENCY v. EULOGIO V. DUMADAG BRION, J.
We find Dumadag's position untenable. For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties or any of them. Otherwise stated, there is a question of law when the issue arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the issue involves the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[26] In the present case, the controversy arises not from the findings made by Dumadag's physicians which contradict the fit-to-work certification of the company-designated physician; it arises from the application of the law and jurisprudence on the conflicting assessments of the two sets of physicians. We thus find no procedural obstacle in our review of the case.
	GR No. 197598 2012-11-21	MIRANT CORPORATION v. DANILO A. SARIO BRION, J.
There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. "For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them[,]"[22] which we find to be the situation in this case. In any event, even if we were to consider that the petition raises only factual issues, we still find it necessary to review the case, in view of the divergence of the factual findings between the CA and the NLRC.[23] Based on these divergent factual findings, the NLRC found that Sario had been validly dismissed, while the CA declared illegal the termination of his employment.
	GR No. 171219 2012-09-03	ATTY. FE Q. PAL MIANO-SALVADOR v. CONSTANTINO ANGELES PERALTA, J.
What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority to represent a plaintiff in filing an action? In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals,[6] the Court categorically stated that "[i]f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff."[7] This ruling was reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company,[8] where the Court went on to say that "[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the [MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent [plaintiff before the lower court]."[9]
	GR No. 179488 2012-04-23	COSCO PHILIPPINES SHIPPING v. KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY PERALTA, J.
In the present case, since respondent is a corporation, the certification must be executed by an officer or member of the board of directors or by one who is duly authorized by a resolution of the board of directors; otherwise, the complaint will have to be dismissed.[20] The lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by mere amendment of the complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.[21] The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file the complaint on behalf of the corporation.[22]
	GR No. 164703 2010-05-04	ALLAN C. GO v. MORTIMER F. CORDERO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
First, on the issue of whether the case had been filed by the real party-in-interest as required by Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which defines such party as the one (1) to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. The purposes of this provision are: 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public policy.[31] A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.[32]
	GR Nos. 151983-84 2008-07-31	JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has consistently ruled that a question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the alleged truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[35] The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[36]
	GR No. 168779 2007-09-14	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN S. GO NACHURA, J.
The petition is captioned as a petition for review. Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for review shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.[9] A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[10]
	GR No. 150918 2007-08-17	NEGROS MERCHANTS ENTERPRISES v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals,[30] we held that if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff.[31]
	GR NO. 151132 2006-06-22	FIRST BANCORP v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.[25] The nature of the issues to be raised on appeal can be gleaned from the appellant's notice of appeal filed in the trial court and in his or her brief as appellant in the appellate court.[26]
	GR NO. 143870 2005-09-30	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. RIVERA VILLAGE LESSEE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TINGA, J.
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules of Court) requires that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, i.e., 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.[15] A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action.[16]
	GR NO. 159156 2005-01-31	RAMON P. ARON v. FRANCISCO REALON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court further provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity must be averred in the complaint. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is, he or she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can lawfully be prosecuted in the name of that person. The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. It must be stressed that an unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.[53] Corollary, the defendant can assail the facts alleged therein through a motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff has no capacity to sue under Section 1(d) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, that is, that he does not have the representative he claims.[54]
	GR NO. 147969 2005-01-17	FELICISSIMA GALINDO v. HEIRS OF MARCIANO A. ROXAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Section 1, Rule 3[16] of the Rules of Court provides that only persons or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Section 4, Rule 8[17] of the said Rules further provides that facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity must be averred in the complaint. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is, he or she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can lawfully be prosecuted in the name of that person.[18] The party bringing suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect.[19] Corollary, the defendants can assail the facts alleged in the complaint through a motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff has no capacity to sue under Section 1(d) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, that is, that he does not have the representative he claims.[20]

NEIL TAMONDONG v. CA