Two small claims were filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Cebu. The first concerned unauthorized withdrawals from the Complainant's HSBC bank account. HSBC characterized the withdrawals as valid and allowed the initial complaint to go unanswered until it lapsed. On resubmission, the complaint was rejected as exceeding the time allowed for disputed transactions. The second concerned Air Asia's sale of a flight ticket marketed with a reservation-change option that proved impossible to exercise in practice, with customer support staff unreachable.

Both cases were dismissed on the ground that the Complainant had failed to file affidavits with the claims. This requirement does not appear in any applicable court rule. The anti-forum shopping affidavit included on the standard filing form contains language identical to what the courts erroneously demanded as a separate requirement. Affidavits constitute witness statements of evidence and are not required prior to the commencement of proceedings or the discovery phase under internationally accepted legal standards, a principle not generally recognized in Philippine courts that categorize documents solely by their titles rather than their legal function. Filing fees were collected by the court before both claims were dismissed.

A complaint was filed with the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission for compensation and issuance of a condominium title to Unit 45Q, Horizons 101 Tower 2, Cebu City. The case was dismissed after the time allowed to adjudicate. Regional Adjudicator Joe Vinson dismissed on the ground of no cause of action, reasoning that the developer was not a party to the agreement between the Complainant and the original owner.

This reasoning failed to account for the Special Power of Attorney conferring title rights upon the Complainant at the time of purchase and the developer's statutory obligation under Presidential Decree No. 957 to issue a title within a reasonable period of purchase and to deliver the title to the condominium owner upon presentation of all documents of sale. The grounds for dismissal are contrary to Philippine property law and further prejudiced the Complainant's legal position with respect to subsequent proceedings.

The small claims cases dismissed by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Cebu were brought before the Supreme Court in Manila to present the legal question of affidavit requirements that exceed those contemplated by applicable procedural rules. The cases were dismissed on procedural grounds without the underlying legal questions being considered on the merits.

In the request for reconsideration, the Petitioner argued that the legal questions raised were of greater importance than correctable filing deficiencies and that the matter ought to be reviewed following correction. The deficiencies cited in dismissal included a demand for original courier receipts when only printed copies existed, and an assertion of insufficient complaint copies, notwithstanding that the copies filed complied with the Efficient Use of Paper Rule and were verified as compliant upon submission. A USB file offered on submission as required under the Rule was rejected by the Court Clerk. On multiple occasions when the Petitioner contacted the clerk's office for updates, staff inquired whether the litigant was a foreigner. The request for reconsideration was rejected by the presiding judge, who stated only that he saw no reason to reconsider, without addressing any of the substantive issues raised. This rejection appeared to serve solely the purpose of clearing the matter from the court's docket before year-end.

Criminal complaints were filed against the Developer and Property Manager with the Office of the Chief Prosecutor in Cebu. The Prosecutor's Office required judicial affidavits in addition to the complaints, notwithstanding that Department Circular No. 15 requires no such affidavits at the preliminary investigation stage. Affidavits are required only for matters that proceed to court.

The Prosecutor's Office further demanded six copies of the complaint per criminal charge, when applicable regulations require only two duplicate copies per respondent regardless of the number of charges filed. The complaints were dismissed for insufficient cause of action. A Petition for Review is pending before the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice, encompassing the delays in addressing the Complainant's damages and the Cebu City Prosecutor's procedurally irregular denials. The DOJ review proceeds in parallel with a conciliatory proceeding before the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (No. R07AFD1-2026-0127-029).

A DHSUD Complaint was initiated before the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development under case number R07AFD1-2026-0127-029. Nearly seven years have elapsed since full payment for unit and no condominium title has been delivered to the owner. The developer, Taft Property Ventures Development Corp., made no effort to contact either the original buyer or the current owner regarding title delivery. The title was issued in the name of the original buyer and transferred to a bank holding no ownership interest or cognizable claim to the property; the bank refused to release the title to the current owner despite presentation of all legal ownership documentation.

The DHSUD Omnibus Order presupposes an active dispute between the original buyer and the current owner, but no such dispute exists. The sole issue is Taft's non-performance of its statutory obligation under Presidential Decree No. 957 to issue and deliver a title upon completion of payment. The DHSUD complaint was dismissed and is subject to review, considered in conjunction with the pending Petition for Review before the Department of Justice addressing the Cebu City Prosecutor's irregular dismissals.