Lawyerly

GR No. 187661

2013-12-04

PEREZ, J.

The Court has consistently held that the affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss.[13] Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.[14]

GR No. 172438

2012-07-04

METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES

MENDOZA, J.

The jurisdiction of the CIAC as a quasi-judicial body is confined to construction disputes,[32] that is, those arising from, or connected to, contracts involving "all on-site works on buildings or altering structures from land clearance through completion including excavation, erection and assembly and installation of components and equipment."[33] The CIAC has jurisdiction over all such disputes whether the dispute arises before or after the completion of the contract.[34]

GR No. 172438

2012-07-04

METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES

MENDOZA, J.

This Court has held that the CIAC has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a construction contract even though only one of the parties requested for arbitration.[62] In fact, in Philrock, Inc. v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission,[63] the Court held that the CIAC retained jurisdiction even if both parties had withdrawn their consent to arbitrate.

GR No. 170750

2009-04-07

HEIRS OF TOMAS DOLLETON v. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Furthermore, the affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the Complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. [41] If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss.[42] In the case at bar, respondents must first be able to establish by evidence that the subject properties are indeed covered by their certificates of title before they can argue that any remedy assailing the registration of said properties or the issuance of the certificates of title over the same in the names of respondents or their predecessors-in-interest has prescribed.

GR No. 175006

2008-11-27

BELEN A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is equally elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari. A writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. By its nature, a petition for certiorari lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[41] A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[42] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[43] The availability to petitioner Salvacion of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 from the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan effectively foreclosed her right to resort to a petition for certiorari.

GR No. 174350

2008-08-13

SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.) It is elementary in remedial law that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[21] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[22] And while it is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[23] this Court has, before,[24] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari;[25] this exception is not applicable to the present factual milieu.

GR No. 172299

2008-04-22

ALFREDO TAGLE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Basic is the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[38] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[39] Moreover, petitioner Alfredo failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule as to make available to him a petition for certiorari in lieu of making an appeal.

GR NO. 143188

2007-02-14

FLORENTINO PINEDA v. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA

TINGA, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proved positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss. At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature.[7] Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.[8]

GR NO. 167400

2006-06-30

PRISCILLA T. RIGOR v. TENTH DIVISION OF CA

GARCIA, J.

For a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. He must also show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. A recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" remedy.[4]

GR NO. 144075

2006-04-19

DAVAO MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY v. CA

CORONA, J.

Petitioners cannot now use this special civil action for certiorari, an extraordinary remedy, as a mode of obtaining a reversal of a decision they omitted to bring to us on appeal. Time and again, this Court has held that the special civil action for certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for a lapsed appeal.[29] A petition under Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a proxy for the lost remedy of an appeal under Rule 45, especially if the loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[30] We need not belabor this point for the rule and the exception that proves it are stated quite succinctly in Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong:[31]

GR NO. 144792

2006-01-31

GAMMON PHILIPPINES v. METRO RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

TINGA, J.

At any rate, the termination of the contract prior to a demand for arbitration will generally have no effect on such demand, provided that the dispute in question either arose out of the terms of the contract or arose when a broad contractual arbitration clause was still in effect.[21] The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred in ruling that there must be a subsisting contract before the jurisdiction of the CIAC may properly be invoked. The jurisdiction of the CIAC is not over the contract but the disputes which arose therefrom, or are connected thereto, whether such disputes arose before or after the completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or breach thereof.[22]

GR NO. 129704

2005-09-30

ULPIANO BALO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On the matter of prescription cited by the petitioners as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint, it is noteworthy that the motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners did not ipso facto establish prescription. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed;[28] otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss.[29]

GR No. 138945

2003-08-19

FELIX GOCHAN v. HEIRS OF RAYMUNDO BABA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Though laches applies even to imprescriptible actions,[29] its elements must be proved positively.[30] Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss.[31] At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature.

GR No. 143779

2003-04-04

FRANCISCA L. MARQUEZ v. SIMEON BALDOZ

QUISUMBING, J.

prescription with a pronouncement that such issue is better threshed after a full-blown trial on the merits. The trial court's reasoning, in our view, sufficiently explained the reason for dismissing the motion to dismiss. It satisfactorily served the purpose behind the new Rules of Court as earlier explained. Moreover, the trial court's ruling requiring a full-blown trial on the merits to resolve the issue of prescription, finds jurisprudential basis in our ruling in National Irrigation Administration (NIA) v. Court of Appeals,[10] reiterating

	GR No. 187661 2013-12-04	MODESTO SANCHEZ v. ANDREW SANCHEZ PEREZ, J.
The Court has consistently held that the affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss.[13] Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.[14]
	GR No. 172438 2012-07-04	METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES MENDOZA, J.
The jurisdiction of the CIAC as a quasi-judicial body is confined to construction disputes,[32] that is, those arising from, or connected to, contracts involving "all on-site works on buildings or altering structures from land clearance through completion including excavation, erection and assembly and installation of components and equipment."[33] The CIAC has jurisdiction over all such disputes whether the dispute arises before or after the completion of the contract.[34]
	GR No. 172438 2012-07-04	METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES MENDOZA, J.
This Court has held that the CIAC has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a construction contract even though only one of the parties requested for arbitration.[62] In fact, in Philrock, Inc. v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission,[63] the Court held that the CIAC retained jurisdiction even if both parties had withdrawn their consent to arbitrate.
	GR No. 170750 2009-04-07	HEIRS OF TOMAS DOLLETON v. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, the affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the Complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed. [41] If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in a motion to dismiss.[42] In the case at bar, respondents must first be able to establish by evidence that the subject properties are indeed covered by their certificates of title before they can argue that any remedy assailing the registration of said properties or the issuance of the certificates of title over the same in the names of respondents or their predecessors-in-interest has prescribed.
	GR No. 175006 2008-11-27	BELEN A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is equally elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari. A writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. By its nature, a petition for certiorari lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."[41] A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[42] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[43] The availability to petitioner Salvacion of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 from the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan effectively foreclosed her right to resort to a petition for certiorari.
	GR No. 174350 2008-08-13	SPS. BERNYL BALANGAUAN KATHERENE BALANGAUAN v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied.) It is elementary in remedial law that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioners from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[21] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[22] And while it is true that in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice,[23] this Court has, before,[24] treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for review on certiorari, particularly if the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari;[25] this exception is not applicable to the present factual milieu.
	GR No. 172299 2008-04-22	ALFREDO TAGLE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Basic is the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency.[38] In this case, appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.[39] Moreover, petitioner Alfredo failed to show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule as to make available to him a petition for certiorari in lieu of making an appeal.
	GR NO. 143188 2007-02-14	FLORENTINO PINEDA v. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA TINGA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proved positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss. At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature.[7] Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses.[8]
	GR NO. 167400 2006-06-30	PRISCILLA T. RIGOR v. TENTH DIVISION OF CA GARCIA, J.
For a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. He must also show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. A recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" remedy.[4]
	GR NO. 144075 2006-04-19	DAVAO MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY v. CA CORONA, J.
Petitioners cannot now use this special civil action for certiorari, an extraordinary remedy, as a mode of obtaining a reversal of a decision they omitted to bring to us on appeal. Time and again, this Court has held that the special civil action for certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for a lapsed appeal.[29] A petition under Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a proxy for the lost remedy of an appeal under Rule 45, especially if the loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.[30] We need not belabor this point for the rule and the exception that proves it are stated quite succinctly in Federation of Free Workers v. Inciong:[31]
	GR NO. 144792 2006-01-31	GAMMON PHILIPPINES v. METRO RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TINGA, J.
At any rate, the termination of the contract prior to a demand for arbitration will generally have no effect on such demand, provided that the dispute in question either arose out of the terms of the contract or arose when a broad contractual arbitration clause was still in effect.[21] The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred in ruling that there must be a subsisting contract before the jurisdiction of the CIAC may properly be invoked. The jurisdiction of the CIAC is not over the contract but the disputes which arose therefrom, or are connected thereto, whether such disputes arose before or after the completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or breach thereof.[22]
	GR NO. 129704 2005-09-30	ULPIANO BALO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the matter of prescription cited by the petitioners as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint, it is noteworthy that the motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners did not ipso facto establish prescription. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed;[28] otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss.[29]
	GR No. 138945 2003-08-19	FELIX GOCHAN v. HEIRS OF RAYMUNDO BABA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Though laches applies even to imprescriptible actions,[29] its elements must be proved positively.[30] Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss.[31] At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature.
	GR No. 143779 2003-04-04	FRANCISCA L. MARQUEZ v. SIMEON BALDOZ QUISUMBING, J.
prescription with a pronouncement that such issue is better threshed after a full-blown trial on the merits. The trial court's reasoning, in our view, sufficiently explained the reason for dismissing the motion to dismiss. It satisfactorily served the purpose behind the new Rules of Court as earlier explained. Moreover, the trial court's ruling requiring a full-blown trial on the merits to resolve the issue of prescription, finds jurisprudential basis in our ruling in National Irrigation Administration (NIA) v. Court of Appeals,[10] reiterating

NIA v. CA