ACTIONS
Action (synonymous with suit) is the legal and formal demand of one‘s right from another person made and insisted upon in a court of justice. The kinds of actions are ordinary and special, civil and criminal, ex contractu and ex delicto, penal and remedial, real, personal, and mixed action, action in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem.
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS, SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS, CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Ordinary civil action is one by which one party sues another, based on a cause of action, to enforce or protect a right, or to prevent or redress a wrong, whereby the defendant has performed an act or omitted to do an act in
violation of the rights of the plaintiff. (Sec. 3a) The purpose is primarily compensatory.
Special civil action – actions which while governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, are subject to special rules provided for Special Civil Actions
Criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law (Sec.
3[b], Rule 1). The purpose is primarily punishment.
CIVIL ACTIONS VERSUS SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
The purpose of an action is either to protect a right or prevent or redress a wrong. The purpose of special proceeding is to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.
PERSONAL ACTIONS AND REAL ACTIONS An action is REAL when it affects title to or possession of real property, or an interest therein. All other actions are personal actions.
An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real estate, which means that the realty or an interest therein is the subject matter of the action. The issues involved in real actions are title to, ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage or condemnation of real property.
Not every action involving real property is a real action because the realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of the suit. Example is an action for damages to real property, because although it involves real property, it does not involve any of the issues mentioned.
Real actions are based on the privity of real estates; while personal actions are based on privity of contracts or for the recovery of sums of money.
The distinction between real action and personal action is important for the purpose of determining the venue of the action. A real action is ―LOCAL‖, which means that its venue depends upon the location of the property involved in the litigation. A personal action is ―TRANSITORY‖, which means that its venue depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff.
LOCAL AND TRANSITORY ACTIONS A local action is one founded on privity of estates only and there is no privity of contracts. A real action is a local action; its venue depends upon the location of the property involved in litigation. ―Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof is situated‖ (Sec. 1, Rule 4).
Transitory action is one founded on privity of contracts between the parties. A personal action is transitory, its venue depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff. A personal action
―may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of non-resident defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff‖. (Sec. 2, Rule 4).
Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem (this is important in service of summons)
An action in rem, one instituted and enforced against the whole world.
An action in personam is one filed against a definite defendant. It is intended to subject the interest of defendant on a property to an obligation or lien.
Jurisdiction over the person (defendant) is required.
It is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person, and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose is to impose through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. No other than the defendant is liable, not the whole world, as in an action for a sum of money or an action for damages.
An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. An individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. It deals with status, ownership or liability or a particular property but which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. Examples of actions quasi in rem are action for partition, action for accounting, attachment, foreclosure of mortgage.
An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor is a real action necessarily an action in rem. An in personam or an in rem action is a classification of actions according to foundation. For instance, an action to recover, title to or possession of real property is a real action, but it is an action in personam, not brought against the whole world but against the person upon whom the claim is made.
SC sums up the basic rules in Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank (2007):
1) The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action – whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14 likewise apply according to the nature of the action.
2) An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. And action in rem is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
3) Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case against said defendant where the action is one in personam but not where the action is in rem or quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either
a. by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or
b. as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.
CAUSE OF ACTION (Rule 2)
MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party (defendant) violates the rights of another (plaintiff).
It is the delict or wrong by which the defendant violates the right or rights of the plaintiff.
The elements are:
1) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
2) An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right;
and
3) Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
RIGHT OF ACTION VERSUS CAUSE OF ACTION
a) A cause of action refers to the delict or wrong committed by the defendants, whereas right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute the action;
b) A cause of action is determined by the pleadings;
whereas a right of action is determined by the substantive law;
a) A right of action may be taken away by the running of the statute of limitations, by estoppels or other circumstances; which do not at all affect the cause of action;
b) There is no right of action where there is no cause of action!
FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a complaint to prosper. Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the complaint or the pleading asserting the claim ―states no cause of action‖. This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be stated or alleged in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action required by substantive law must clearly appear from the mere reading of the complaint.
To avoid an early dismissal of the complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is: ―If you have a cause of action, then by all means, state it!‖ Where there is a defect or an insufficiency in the statement of the cause of action, a complaint may be dismissed not because of an absence or a lack of cause of action by because the complaint states no cause of action. The dismissal will therefore, be anchored on a ―failure to state a cause of action‖.
It doesn‗t mean that the plaintiff has no cause of action. It only means that the plaintiff‗s allegations are insufficient for the court to know that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by the defendant. Thus, even if indeed the plaintiff suffered injury, if the same is not set forth in the complaint, the pleading will state no cause of action even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
TEST OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
The test is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other matter aliunde are not considered but the court may consider in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.
It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or to hold preliminary hearings to determine its existence.
SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND ITS EFFECTS
It is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part the subject of a separate complaint.
In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate. This practice is NOT ALLOWED by the Rules because it breeds multiplicity of suits, clogs the court dockets, leads to vexatious litigation, operates as an instrument of harassment, and generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.
The filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of the other or others and a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a bar to, or a ground for dismissal of, the others
The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion to dismiss. Hence, if the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on litis pendencia, there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. If a final judgment had been rendered in the first action when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on res judicata, that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment. As to which action should be dismissed would depend upon judicial discretion and the prevailing circumstances of the case.
JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTIONS (SECS. 5 AND 6, ULE 2)
Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone (Sec. 5, Rule 2). It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action, subject to the following conditions:
a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties (same transaction ad common question of law an fact);
b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules;
c) Where the cause of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC 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 of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction (totality rule).
Note: Restrictions on joinder of causes of action are: jurisdiction, venue, and joinder of parties. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules.
When there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the erroneously joined cause of action can be severed or separated from the other cause of action upon motion by a party or upon the court‗s own initiative. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of the case.
PARTIES IN CIVIL ACTION (Rule 3)
REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST (e.g. plaintiff and defendant) 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 3).
The interest must be real, which is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential.
It is an interest that is material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in.
While ordinarily one who is not a privy to a contract may not bring an action to enforce it, there are recognized exceptions this rule:
a) Contracts containing stipulations pour atrui or stipulations expressly conferring benefits to a non-party may sue under the contract provided such benefits have been accepted by the beneficiary prior to its revocation by the contracting parties (Art. 1311, Civil Code).
b) Those who are not principally or subsidiarily obligated in the contract, in which they had no intervention, may show their detriment that could result from it. For instance, Art.
1313, CC, provides that ―creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defrauded them‖. Further, Art. 1318, CC, provides that contracts entered into in fraud of creditors may be rescinded when the creditors cannot in any manner collect the claims due them. Thus, a creditor who is not a party to a contract can sue to rescind the contract to redress the fraud committed upon him.
INDISPENSABLE PARTY is a real party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
Without the presence of this party, the judgment of a court cannot attain real judgement.
The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the exercise of juridical power and when an
indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed.
The absence of indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only to the absent parties but even as to those present.
A person is not an IP if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an IP if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action.
Although normally a joinder of action is permissive (Sec. 6, Rule 3), the joinder of a party becomes compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party. Clearly, the rule directs a compulsory joinder of IP (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
NECESSARY PARTY is one who is not indispensable but ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, of for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
But a necessary party ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties (Sec. 8, Rule 3).
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 (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
INDIGENT PARTY is one who is allowed by the court to litigate his claim, action or defense upon ex parte application and hearing, when the court is satisfied that such party has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter, basic necessities for himself and his family (Sec. 21, Rule 3).
If one is authorized to litigate as an indigent, such authority shall include an exemption from the payment of docket fee, and of transcripts of stenographic notes, which the court may order to e furnished by him.
However, the amount of the docket and other fees, which the indigent was exempt from paying, shall be lien on the judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent. A lien on the judgment shall or arise if the court provides otherwise.
REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES pertains to the parties allowed by the court as substitute parties to an action whereby the original parties become incapacitated of incompetent (Sec. 18, Rule 3).
The substitution of a party depends on the nature of the action. If the action is personal, and a party dies pendent lite, such action does not survive, and such
party cannot be substituted. If the action is real, death of the defendant survives the action, and the heirs will substitute the dead. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein may be enforced against the estate of the deceased defendant (Sec. 1, Rule 87).
In case a party becomes incapacitated or incompetent during the pendency of the action, the court, upon motion, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incapacitated or incompetent party with the assistance of his legal guardian or guardian ad litem (Sec. 18, Rule 20).
In case of transfer, the action may be continued by or
In case of transfer, the action may be continued by or