VENUE OF CASES

In the Complaint, you will also see in which venue the case is to be filed, or is actually filed.

What is venue? 

Venue is the area where the case is to filed. It refers to geographic location. It is different from subject matter jurisdiction which refers to the court where the case is to be filed based on the hierarchy of courts, whether it should be filed with the MTC, RTC, CA or SC. 

Complaint Part 2 - Jurisdiction (subject matter jurisdiction)

When you draft a Complaint, you should be careful to indicate  the court which has the proper subject matter jurisdiction over your case. As stated, this is indicated in the caption of the Complaint.  At first glance, you will be able to tell whether the Complaint is to be filed in the MTC or RTC. 

Remember that your choice of subject matter jurisdiction must be correct, because if a case is filed in the court that has no subject matter jurisdiction, your case can be dismissed at anytime during the proceedings either upon motion of the Defendant, or by the court motu proprio. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is one of four grounds for dismissal that can be raised any time. 

Although subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law, it is determined by the allegations of the Complaint. To reiterate,  it is the Complaint that determines subject matter jurisdiction. The Answer does not do so. 

To illustrate this concept more concretely, if the Complaint is for unawful detainer, the MTC has subject matter jurisdiction. An action for unlawful detainer can be filed by a landlord who leased out a piece of real properrty, but the lessee continued to stay despite the termination of the lease contract. 

Suppose the lessee, as Defendant, claims in his Answer that he owns the real property, in an attempt to prove that the case is not for unlawful detainer, and that the issue involves ownership of the property. The Defendant insists that the RTC, not the MTC, has subject matter jurisdiction given the assessed value of the property. He now files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Will this prosper?

The answer is no. The reason is that the allegations of the Complaint (not the Answer) determine subject matter jurisdiction.

Your assignment:

Editha Padlan vs. Elenita Dinglasan and Felicisimo Dinglasan, GR No. 180321, March 30, 2013

Overview of pleadings

 There is a tendency for many lawyers and law students to refer to all court submissions as pleadings, including motions, manifestations, and memoranda.

However, under the ROC, there are only nine (9) kinds of pleadings:

1. Complaint (Rule 6, Section 3)

Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiffs or claiming party's cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.

2. Answer (Rule 6, Section 4)

Section 4. Answer. - An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses.

3.  Counterclaim (Rule 6, Section 6)

Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party.

4.  Cross-claim (Rule 6, Section 8) 

Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. — A counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant.  A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.

5.  Third party, fourth party etc. complaint (Rule 6, Section 11)

Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim.

The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied admission, and the court shall require the defendant to institute a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b) matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or (c) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.

6.  Complaint-in-intervention (Rule 6, Section 2; Rule 19, Section 3)

Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he or she asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he or she unites with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.

7.  Answer-in-intervention (Rule 19, Section 3)

Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he or she asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he or she unites with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.

8. Reply (Rule 6, Section 10)

Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.

A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.

9. Rejoinder (Rule 6, Section 10)

Section 10 - In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely on an actionable document.

Cause of action

 A civil action is hinged on the Plaintiff's cause of action. This is the reason for filing a case. It is what triggers the filing of a complaint.

A cause of action is vital to an ordinary civil action. This is why Rule 2, Section 1 states that "Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action."

Cause of action is defined as follows:

Section 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. 

It has three elements, as held in China Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, GR No. 153267, June 23, 2005:

Otherwise stated, a cause of action has three elements, to wit, (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) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.

It bears stressing that it is only when the last element occurs that a cause of action arises. Accordingly, a cause of action on a written contract accrues only when an actual breach or violation thereof occurs.

Some examples of cause of action are breach of contract, fraud, and torts.

Do not confuse cause of action with the relief sought. Cause of action refers to the violation, and is the reason for filing a complaint, while the remedy is the ultimate solution for the violation.

Breach of contract is a cause of action, while the relief sought may be either specific performance or damages. In specific performance, the court will require the defendant to do what he committed under the contract, in order to restore the parties as closely as possible to their positions or situations before the breach. If the act can no longer be performed, then the court will order the defendant to pay damages which, again, is intended to restore the parties as closely as possible to their positions before the breach.

The choice of cause of action is important because this will determine what allegations you will need to make in your complaint, and what evidence you need to present.

If your cause of action is torts, the relief sought would be damages. Then you have to allege and prove there was an act or omission committed by the defendant that damaged your client. 

Readings:

1) Dr. Genevieve L. Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. at al, GR No. 180440, December 5, 2012

2) Rebecca T. Cabutihan vs. Landcenter Construction & Development Corporation, GR No. 146594, June 10, 2002

INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

Cases in which the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC except when the law provides that these should come under the original jurisdiction of the MTC.

When is a subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation? When we cannot give a monetary value due to the nature of the case. If a subject matter can be given a monetary value, even if we do not know the value as of now, then it is capable of pecuniary estimation.  

This was explained by the Supreme Court in Alona G. Roldan vs. Spouses Clarence I. Barrios et al, GR No. 214803, April 23, 2018:

The RTC dismissed the foreclosure cases finding that being a real action and the assessed value of the mortgaged property is only ₱13,380.00, it is the first level court which has jurisdiction over the case and not the RTC.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law and an objection based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties. To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought.

Batas Pambansa Big. (BP) 129 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7691 pertinently provides for the jurisdiction of the RTC and the first level courts as follows:

Sec. 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 (₱20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

and

Sec. 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:

x x x x

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 (₱20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.

From the foregoing, the RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to, or possession of, real property or any interest in it where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds ₱20,000.00, and if it is below P20,000.00, it is the first level court which has jurisdiction. An action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiff's cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal right to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same.

The allegations and reliefs sought in petitioner's action for foreclosure of mortgage showed that the loan obtained by respondents spouses Barrios from petitioner fell due and they failed to pay such loan which was secured by a mortgage on the property of the respondents spouses; and prayed that in case of default of payment of such mortgage indebtedness to the court, the property be ordered sold to answer for the obligation under the mortgage contract and the accumulated interest. It is worthy to mention that the essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default in payment. Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of the mortgage indebtedness. In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation. Therefore, the foreclosure suit is a real action so far as it is against property, and seeks the judicial recognition of a property debt, and an order for the sale of the res.

Petitioner cites Russell v. Vestil to show that action for foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the RTC. We are not persuaded. In the Russell case, we held:

In Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill, we had the occasion to rule that:

[I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).

Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment; also actions questioning the validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid and for rescission, which is a counterpart of specific performance.

While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed ₱20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or ₱50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds ₱20,000.00 or ₱50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2). However, the subject matter of the complaint in this case is annulment of a document denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION.

Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the court's jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property involved.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED as we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Kalibo, Aklan in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction of courts in civil cases

Specific courts can take cognizance only of certain types of cases. This means that each court level has a specific set of subjects that come within its jurisdiction.

Earlier, we discussed that courts have exclusive jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, and concurrent jurisdiction. Familiarize yourselves with these distinctions in the post on Philippine courts: definition, classifications, and principles.

For now, here is an enumeration of specific subjects that fall within the jurisdiction of courts in civil cases:

Supreme Court

• Original exclusive

• Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the Court of Appeals, Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, and Court of Tax Appeals

• Disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys

• Original concurrent

• Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the Regional Trial Court, Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission, other quasi-judicial agencies

• Concurrent original jurisdiction

• Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against lower courts and bodies, concurrently with Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts

• Quo warranto, habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data petitions concurrently with CA and RTC

• Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, concurrently with RTC

• Appellate jurisdiction

• Decisions of the CA and RTC on pure questions of law through petitions for review on certiorari also known as appeal by certiorari

• Cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, ordinance or regulation

Court of Appeals

• Original exclusive 

• Actions for annulment of judgment of RTCs 

• Original concurrent 

• Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against RTC, CSC, other quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43, NLRC [concurrent with the SC] 

•  Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against lower courts and bodies [concurrent with the SC and RTC] 

• Exclusive appellate jurisdiction 

• Decisions of RTC and Family Courts [by way of ordinary appeal] 

• Decisions of RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction [by way of petition for review] 

• Decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC and other agencies mentioned in Rule 43 [by way of petition for review] 

• Appellate jurisdiction 

• Decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdicion

Regional Trial Court

• All civil actions in which the subject is incapable of pecuniary estimation

• All civil actions involving title to, possession or, real property or interest therein where the assessed value of the property exceeds Php400,000 (RA 11576) except forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases which come within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC

• All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in which the demand or claim exceeds Php2,000,000

• All matters of probate, testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds Php2,000,000

• All actions involving marriage and marital relations (These come within the jurisdiction of Family Courts under RA 8369 but if there are none, these cases shall be within the cognizance of RTCs)

• Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

• Cases in which the demand exclusive of interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs exceed Php2,000,000

Family Courts

• Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;

• Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

• Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;

• Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;

• Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the “Family Code of the Philippines”;

• Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;

• Petitions for the constitution of the family home;

• Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,” as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and

• Cases of domestic violence against:

• Women – which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman’s personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and

• Children – which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.

If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Exclusive original jurisdiction

• 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 demand does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000) exclusive of interest, damages and whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be alleged. 

• 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. 

• 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 any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs; Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. 

• Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions where the demand or claim does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).

Delegated jurisdiction

• Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.), 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.

Special jurisdiction

• In the absence of all the RTC 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 of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent RTC judges sit.

Summary procedure 

(a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, regardless of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00).

(b) All civil actions, except probate proceedings, admiralty and maritime actions, and small claims cases falling under Rule IV hereof, where the total amount of the plaintiff ’s claim does not exceed Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs.

(c) Complaints for damages where the claim does not exceed Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

(d) Cases for enforcement of barangay amicable settlement agreements and arbitration awards where the money claim exceeds One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00), provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six (6) months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the date the obligation stipulated or adjudged in the arbitration award becomes due and demandable, pursuant to Section 417, Chapter VII of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991. 

(e) Cases solely for the revival of judgment of any Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. 

(f) The civil aspect of a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law), if no criminal action has been instituted therefor. Should a criminal action be later instituted for the same violation, the civil aspect shall be consolidated with the criminal action and shall be tried and decided jointly under the Rule on Summary Procedure. All other cases not included herein shall be governed by the regular rules of procedure. 

Small Claims Cases

• The claim does not exceed One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. 
• A “small claim” is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim or relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money. It excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from payment or reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled with provisional remedies. 
• The claim or demand may be: 

(a) For money owed under any of the following:

1. Contract of Lease;

2. Contract of Loan and other credit accommodations;

3. Contract of Services; or

4. Contract of Sale of personal property, excluding the recovery of the personal property, unless it is made the subject of a compromise agreement between the parties.

 (b) The enforcement of barangay amicable settlement agreements and arbitration awards, where the money claim does not exceed One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00), provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay within six (6) months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award or from the date the obligation stipulated or adjudged in the arbitration award becomes due and demandable, pursuant to Section 417, Chapter VII of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991. B

Barangay conciliation

Though not courts under our judicial system, you should know the jurisdiction of the Lupang Tagapaya which conducts barangay conciliation proceedings as a condition precedent for the filing of certain cases in court.

The Guidelines on the Katarungan Pambarangay Conciliation Procedure to Prevent Circumvention of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Sec. 399 to 422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, RA 7160 [The Local Government Code of 1991] provides that prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices except in the following disputes:

1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;

3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);

5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;

6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

7. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following:

a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);

b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf;

c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and

d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.

9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;

10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);

11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);

12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).