III.

RULES 6-9 PLEADINGS AND DEFAULT

A. KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Lucas v. Judge Fabros (January 31, 2000) case under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The
prohibited pleading of a motion for reconsideration applies only where the judgment sought to be
reconsidered is one rendered on the merits. As held by the SC in Joven v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA
700 involving Sec. 15 (c) of the Rules on Summary Procedure, later Sec. 19 (c) of the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure effective November 15, 1991: "The motion prohibited by this Section is that
which seeks reconsideration of the judgment rendered by the court after trial on the merits of the
case." Here, the order of dismissal issued by respondent judge due to failure of a party to appear
during the preliminary conference is obviously not a judgment on the merits after trial of the case.
Hence, a motion for the reconsideration of such order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated
under Section 19 (c) of the present Rule on Summary Procedure. Thus, respondent judge committed
no grave abuse of discretion, nor is she guilty of ignorance of the law, in giving due course to the
motion for reconsideration subject of the present complaint.
NB: The Order subject of the motion for reconsideration dismissed the complaint because of the
failure of the plaintiff and his counsel to appear at the preliminary conference despite due notice.
In Jalique v. Dandan (November 28, 2003), the SC emphasized the liberal interpretation of the rules
saying that not all lawyers are gifted with the skill to craft pleadings that fully meet the requirements
as to substance and form. In this case, the defendant instead of filing an answer to the complaint for
ejectment submitted a Joint Counter Affidavit. This case calls for a liberal, not a technical and rigid,
interpretation of the rules on Summary Procedure in the light of the presence rather than a total
absence of a responsive pleading. A perusal of the respondents Joint Counter Affidavit shows that it
disputed the material allegations of the Complaint and presented valid issues for the lower courts
resolution, such as the ownership of the subject lot, the period of lease, right of reimbursement for
improvements and the right to eject respondents. "Rules of pleadings are intended to secure a
method by which the issues may be properly laid before the court. When those issues are already
clear before the court, the deficiency in the observance of the rules should not be given undue
importance. What is important is that the case be decided upon the merits and that it should not be
allowed to go off on procedural points."
Complaint and Answer
Rule 6, Sec. 3: Complaint. The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of
action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint. (3a)
Rule 6, Sec. 4: Answer. An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses.
(4a)

Defenses: Negative and Affirmative

Negative defenses
Rule 6, Sec. 5 (a): A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the
pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action.
Negative pregnant
A negative pregrant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least
an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission
of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying
language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, has been
held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003)
Affirmative Defenses
Rule 6, Sec. 5 (b): An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter
by way of confession and avoidance. (5a)
Counterclaims: Compulsory and Permissive
Rule 6, Sec. 6: Counterclaim. A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against
an opposing party. (6a)
Compulsory counterclaim
Rule 6, Sec. 7: Compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable
by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication
the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must
be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in
an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount. (n)
Spouses Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 159746, July 18, 2012
Accordingly, a counterclaim is compulsory if: (a) it arises out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim; (b) it does not
require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction; and (c) the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim both as to its amount and nature,
except that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount.

A compulsory counterclaim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be
contained therein. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a compulsory
counterclaim not set up shall be barred.
The four tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not are the following, to wit:
(a) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?
(b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
(c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as the defendants
counterclaim? and
(d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort
and time by the parties and the court?
Of the four, the one compelling test of compulsoriness is the logical relation between the claim
alleged in the complaint and that in the counterclaim. Such relationship exists when conducting
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail substantial duplication of time and
effort by the parties and the court; when the multiple claims involve the same factual and legal issues;
or when the claims are offshoots of the same basic controversy between the parties. If these tests
result in affirmative answers, the counterclaim is compulsory.
The four tests are affirmatively met as far as the Makati case was concerned. The Makati case had
the logical relation to the Manila case because both arose out of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the
real estate mortgage constituted to secure the payment of petitioners credit purchases under the
distributorship agreement with Shell. Specifically, the right of Shell to demand the deficiency was
predicated on the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure, such that there would not have been a
deficiency to be claimed in the Manila case had Shell not validly foreclosed the mortgage. As earlier
shown, Ramons cause of action for annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure was a true compulsory
counterclaim in the Manila case. Thus, the Makati RTC could not have missed the logical relation
between the two actions.
Permissive counterclaim
Banco de Oro v. Court of Appeals, 468 SCRA 166 (August 25, 2005) The counterclaim must be existing
at the time of filing the answer, though not at the commencement of the action for under Section 3
of the former Rule 10, the counterclaim or cross-claim which a party may aver in his answer must be
one which he may have "at the time" against the opposing party. That phrase can only have reference
to the time of the answer. Certainly a premature counterclaim cannot be set up in the answer. This
construction is not only explicit from the language of the aforecited provisions but also serves to
harmonize the aforecited sections of Rule 10, with section 4 of the same rule which provides that "a
counterclaimwhich either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with
the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaimby supplemental pleading before
judgment." Thus a party who fails to interpose a counterclaim although arising out of or is necessarily

connected with the transaction or occurrence of the plaintiffs suit but which did not exist or mature
at the time said party files his answer is not thereby barred from interposing such claim in a future
litigation.
While BDO could have, after the Locsins filed on March 26, 1999 a Supplemental Complaint in Civil
Case No. Q-98-35337, set up, in its Supplemental Answer, its claim subject of Civil Case No. MC-99935, again assuming arguendo that it is a Compulsory Counterclaim, the setting up of such "afteracquired counterclaim," is merely permissive, not compulsory.
Effect on the Counterclaim when the complaint is dismissed
Rule 17, Sec. 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. Except as provided in the preceding section, a
complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon
such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a
defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff's motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be
limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
motion he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless
otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class
suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.
Rule 17, Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to
appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his
action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court,
the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion,
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court.
Cross-claims
Rule 6, Sec. 8: Cross-claim. A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted
is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the
cross-claimant.
May a plaintiff file a cross-claim against his co-plaintiff? Yes, the rules simply refer to a party against
a co-party.
May a third-party defendant file a crossclaim against the plaintiff? Yes, under Sec. 13, Rule 6, In
proper cases, he (third-party defendant) may also assert a counterclaim against the original plaintiff
in respect of the latters claim against the third-party plaintiff.
Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints
Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc. v. Paras, G.R. No. 161909, April 25, 2012

Requisites for a 3rd party action are:

(a) that the party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to the action;
(b) that the claim against the 3rd party defendant must belong to the original defendant;
(c) the claim of the original defendant against the 3rd party defendant must be based upon the
plaintiffs claim against the original defendant; and,
(d) the defendant is attempting to transfer to the 3rd party defendant the liability asserted against
him by the original plaintiff.
See Samala v. Judge Victor, 170 SCRA 453 (February 21, 1989) for remedy over. Emerita was a
passenger of a jeepney driven by Virgilio and owned by spouses Garcia. A bus driven by Leonardo and
owned by Purificacion bumped the back portion of a delivery van which in turn collided with the
jeepney resulting in injuries to Emerita. The latter filed a complaint for damages based on breached
of contract of carriage against Virgilio and the spouses Garcia. In turn, the spouses Garcia filed a 3rd
party complaint against Purificacion and Leonardo. The latter defendants filed a 4 th party complaint
against Imperial Insurance Inc., the insurer of the bus.
Sec. 13, Rule 6 states that the 3rd party defendant may allege in his answer his defenses,
counterclaims or cross-claims including such defense that the 3rd party plaintiff may have against the
original plaintiffs claim. In proper cases, the 3rd party defendant may also assert a counterclaim
against the original plaintiff in respect of the latters claim against 3rd party plaintiff.
Note that Sec. 11 of Rule 6 mentions contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in
respect of his opponents claim. Under this Rule, a person not a party to an action may be impleaded
by the defendant either (a) on an allegation of liability to the latter; (b) on the ground of direct liability
to the plaintiff; or, (c) both (a) and (b). The situation in (a) is covered by the phrase for contribution,
indemnity or subrogation while (b) and (c) are subsumed under the catch all phrase or any other
relief in respect of his opponents claim. Thus, it is not a pre-requisite for attachment of the liability
to 3rd party defendant and its driver that 3rd party plaintiff be first declared and found liable to the
plaintiff for the breach of its contract of carriage with him.
In Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Tempongko (27 SCRA 418), the SC
emphasized the nature of a third-party complaint, particularly its independence from the main case:
The third-party complaint is, therefore, a procedural device whereby a "third party" who is neither a
party nor privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with
leave of court, by the defendant, who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce against such third-party
defendant a right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the
plaintiffs claim. The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate and distinct from
the plaintiffs complaint. Were it not for this provision of the Rules of Court, it would have to be filed
independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party.
But the Rules permit defendant to bring in a third-party defendant or so to speak, to litigate his
separate cause of action in respect of plaintiffs claim against a third party in the original and principal
case with the object of avoiding circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits and of

disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from one particular set of
facts. When leave to file the third-party complaint is properly granted, the Court renders in effect
two judgments in the same case, one on the plaintiffs complaint and the other on the third-party
complaint. When he finds favorably on both complaints, as in this case, he renders judgment on the
principal complaint in favor of plaintiff against defendant and renders another judgment on the thirdparty complaint in favor of defendant as third-party plaintiff, ordering the third-party defendant to
reimburse the defendant whatever amount said defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff in the case.
Failure of any of said parties in such a case to appeal the judgment as against him makes such
judgment final and executory.
It follows then that the plaintiff in the main action may not be regarded as a party to the third-party
complaint; nor may the third-party defendant be regarded as a party to the main action. As for the
defendant, he is party to both the main action and the third-party complaint but in different
capacities in the main action, he is the defendant; in the third-party complaint, he is the plaintiff.
CDCP v. Cuenca, 466 SCRA 714 (August 12, 2005) Phrase remedy over was further explained. In
this case, Malayan Insurance filed a complaint for sum of money against Ultra International, Edilberto
and Rodolfo praying for indemnity of the amount it paid to Goodyear. Rodolfo file a motion for leave
to file 3rd party complaint against CDCP now PNCC. The TC held Ultra International and PNCC jointly
and solidarily liable to Malayan Insurance under the indemnity agreement. It dismissed the complaint
against Edilberto and Rodolfo. Ultra International and PNCC appealed the decision to the CA but
Malayan Insurance did not. The CA affirmed the appealed decision in toto. PNCC then appealed to
the SC. According to the SC, the 3rd party defendant cannot be held jointly and severally liable with
the 3rd party plaintiff where case against some of the 3rd party defendant plaintiffs was dismissed. If
only the 3rd party defendant files an appeal, the decision in the main case becomes final. Therefore,
the CAs decision in the main action holding Ultra International liable to Malayan Insurance and
dismissing the case as against the Cuencas became final and executory when none of the said parties
filed an appeal with the SC. The SC further held 3rd party plaintiff Rodolfo impleaded PNCC as a
remedy over, and not as one directly liable to Malayan Insurance. Since PNCCs liability is grounded
on that of Cuencas, it is imperative that the latter be first adjudged liable to Malayan Insurance
before PNCC may be held liable.
Complaint-in-intervention
Rule 19, Section 1: Who may intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely
affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer
thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider
whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate
proceeding.
Rule 19, Sec. 3: Pleadings-in-intervention. The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he
asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he unites
with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.

To warrant intervention, two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter
in litigation, and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
the parties nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate
proceeding. (Mabayo Farms, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 386 SCRA 110) The interest, which entitles a
person to intervene in a suit, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the
judgment. (Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279 (1939)
In Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Spouses de Guzman, G.R. No. 182136-37, August 29, 2008, BonMar was allowed to intervene in Civil Case No. 56393 since he is not a mere stranger to the litigation
but a necessary party who must be joined in the suit if complete relief is to be accorded as to those
already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
Reply
Rule 6, Sec. 10: Reply. 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 by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or
make issue as to such new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the 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.
The rule is, if a party does not file a reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. When is a reply necessary? Herrera cites 3 instances:
(a) where the answer alleges the defense of usury in which case a reply under oath should be made;
otherwise, the allegation of usurious interest shall be deemed admitted (Sun Bros. Appliances Inc. v.
Caluntad, 16 SCRA 895 (1966); See also last sentence of Sec. 11, Rule 8 which reads: Allegations of
usury in a complaint to recover interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath. In Sun Bros,
the SC held if it is alleged that defendant entered into a contract of loan with plaintiff in which the
latter collected a usurious interest there is need to deny the transaction under oath, and if no oath is
taken the only thing admitted is the allegation that the interest is usurious and not that the contract
entered into is a loan. The nature of the transaction is not admitted. The fact that what is alleged is
that the transaction was a loan under the guise of a conditional contract of sale and that by increasing
its price by 150% the consideration became usurious, such is not deemed admitted by the mere
failure to deny the answer under oath. This transaction must still be proven before usury can be
invoked.
(b) where the defense in the answer is based on an actionable document, a reply under oath pursuant
to Sec. 8, Rule 8 must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document shall
be deemed admitted (Toribio v. Bidin, 134 SCRA 162 (1985). In Toribio, the SC observed that the
situation obtaining is not a common one. The usual case is between plaintiff and defendant where,
the latter, as his defense, would present a document to which both parties are parties and which
states that the former relinquishes his rights to the defendant. In the case at bar, we have a situation
where the defendant presented a document in his defense, a document to which the plaintiff is a

party but to which defendant is not. Thus, the question arises as to whether or not the document is
included as a necessary part of the defense so as to make it actionable. The SC then noted that the
deed of sale executed by the petitioners in favor of their brother Dionisio is an essential and
indispensable part of their defense to the allegation that the petitioners had never disposed of their
property. Thus, Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 8 apply and the proper procedure was for the petitioners to
specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the questioned deeds of sale and
to set forth what they claim to be the facts. However, the oversight or negligence of petitioners'
counsel in not properly drafting a reply to the answer and an answer to the counter claim is not
necessarily fatal to their cause.
(c) Reply is necessary to set up affirmative defenses on the counterclaim (Rosario v. Martinez, 92 Phil.
1064 (1952). 2. Pleadings allowed in small claim cases and cases covered by the rules on summary
procedure
In small claim cases, the pleadings allowed are: (a) verified Statement of Claim; (b) verified Response;
(c) compulsory counterclaim, which shall be incorporated in the response; and, (d) permissive
counterclaim provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the coverage of the Rule and
the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid. In cases covered by the rules on summary
procedure, the pleadings allowed are: (a) complaint; (b) compulsory counterclaims and crossclaims
pleaded in the answer; and, (c) answer.
B. PARTS OF A PLEADING
Caption
Rule 7, Section 1: Caption. The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and
the docket number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party
on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
Signature and address
Rule 7, Sec. 3: Signature and address. Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the
best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not
interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not
intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in
violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to
the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

Verification and Certification

Purpose
To assert that the parties had read the pleading and to know where the processes of the court may
be properly served. The signature must be of the parties themselves
Which is more important, signature or verification?
Signature is more important because when the pleading is not signed the effect is that the pleading
is not deemed filed. The remedy is to re-file. Lack of verification on the other hand is not fatal. The
remedy is to file an amendment. If both are present, verification is confirmation of the signature.
Certification against forum shopping
The certifier attest that he has not commenced any other action against the same parties with the
same issues, or if there is a case pending a statement of the present status thereof or if he should
learn of a similar action or claim filed he should inform the court within 5 days therefrom.
What is the effect of lack of certification?
Dismissal under Rule 17, lack of certification of non-forum shopping is not correctible by amendment.
In practice some lawyers separate verification from certification but some does not. Both the
verification and certification must be signed by the parties themselves except if the party is a
corporation and the lawyer is the in-house counsel.
In case of three or more plaintiffs, all of them must sign the verification and certification.
NOTE: Certification of non-forum shopping is very important because of it can be proved that absence
of such is malicious you can even be cited in contempt.
What is Forum-shopping?
Party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other that appeal or certiorari by
raising identical causes of action, subject-matter and issues.
Remedy?
Motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia or res judicata
NOTE: Do not confuse forum shopping with pre-judicial question. In forum shopping it involves even
the same case file in other tribunal. In pre-judicial question it is necessary that one case is civil and
the other one criminal which is not the issue in forum shopping.
Rule 7, Sec. 4: Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings
need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief or based on authentic records.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief," or
upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading. (As amended, A.M. No. 00-2-10, May 1, 2000)
Rule 7, Sec. 5: Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under
oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such
other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute wilful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall
be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a
cause for administrative sanctions. (n)
Note special rules of procedure in Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriages. Sec. 8 of A.M. No. 02-1110-SC states that the answer must be verified by the respondent himself and not by counsel or
attorney-in-fact. Sec. 5 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC on Legal Separation provides for a similar rule.
The person who should verify the pleading is not necessarily the plaintiff or principal party. It must
be verified by a person who can attest that the allegations contained in the pleading are true and
correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. Not all pleadings have to be verified.
Pleadings covered by the rules on summary procedure must be verified. Thus, a complaint for
collection of a sum of money not covered by the rules on summary procedure need not be verified
but must contain a certification against forum shopping.
(1) Requirements of a corporation executing the verification/certification of non-forum shopping
Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, June 1, 2011
Respecting the appellate courts dismissal of petitioners appeal due to the failure of some of them
to sign the therein accompanying verification and certification against forum-shopping, the Courts
guidelines for the bench and bar in Altres v. Empleo, which were culled "from jurisprudential
pronouncements," are instructive: For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in
capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting noncompliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification
against forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of

defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the
pleading fatally defective. The Court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if
the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in
order that the ends of justice may be served thereby
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike
in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special
circumstances or compelling reasons."
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a
case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest
and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification
against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must
execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
Bank of Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals (October 6, 2010) -- The requirement under
Administrative Circular No. 04-94 for a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. The
subsequent compliance with said requirement does not excuse a party's failure to comply therewith
in the first instance. In those cases where this Court excused the non-compliance with the
requirement of the submission of a certificate of non-forum shopping, it found special circumstances
or compelling reasons which made the strict application of said Circular clearly unjustified or
inequitable.
In this case, BPI did not submit any proof of authority in the first instance because it did not believe
that a board resolution evidencing such authority was necessary. It even claimed that it was not
required to submit one. Later, it merely attached to its opposition a special power of attorney issued
by Mr. Kabigting, a bank vice-president, granting Asis and Ong the authority to file the complaint.
Thus, no direct authority to file a complaint was initially ever given by BPI the corporate entity in
whose name and behalf the complaint was filed. Only in its Reply to the Comment to plaintiffs
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss did BPI "beg the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court as it
inadvertently failed to submit with the Special Power of Attorney the Corporate Secretarys
Certificate which authorized Mr. Zosimo Kabigting to appoint his substitutes." Even this submission,
however, was a roundabout way of authorizing the filing officers to file the complaint.

Thus, under the given facts, the SC concluded that, rather than an inadvertence, there was an initial
unwavering stance that the submission of a specific authority from the board was not necessary. In
blunter terms, the omission of the required board resolution in the complaint was neither an
excusable deficiency nor an omission that occurred through inadvertence. In the usual course in the
handling of a case, the failure was a mistake of counsel that BPI never cared to admit but which
nevertheless bound it as a client.
Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001 It is true that insofar as verification is
concerned, the SC has held that there is substantial compliance if the same is executed by an
attorney, it being presumed that facts alleged by him are true to his knowledge and belief. However,
the same does not apply as regards the requirement of a certification against forum shopping. Section
3, Rule 46, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly requires
x x x The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not
theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action
or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the
aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom x x x
It is clear from the above-quoted provision that the certification must be made by petitioner himself
and not by counsel since it is petitioner who is in the best position to know whether he has previously
commenced any similar action involving the same issues in any other tribunal or agency.
Petitioners argue that while it may be true that they are in the best position to know whether they
have commenced an action or not, this information may be divulged to their attorney and there is
nothing anomalous or bizarre about this disclosure. They further maintain that they executed a
Special Power of Attorney specifically to authorize their counsel to execute the certification on their
behalf.
We are aware of our ruling in BA Savings Bank v. Sia that a certification against forum shopping may
be signed by an authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed
in such document. However, BA Savings Bank must be distinguished from the case at bar because in
the former, the complainant was a corporation, and hence, a juridical person. Therefore, that case
made an exception to the general rule that the certification must be made by the petitioner himself
since a corporation can only act through natural persons. In fact, physical actions, e.g., signing and
delivery of documents, may be performed on behalf of the corporate entity only by specifically
authorized individuals. In the instant case, petitioners are all natural persons and there is no showing
of any reasonable cause to justify their failure to personally sign the certification. It is noteworthy
that PEPSI in its Comment stated that it was petitioners themselves who executed the verification
and certification requirements in all their previous pleadings. Counsel for petitioners argues that as a
matter of policy, a Special Power of Attorney is executed to promptly and effectively meet any
contingency relative to the handling of a case. This argument only weakens their position since it is
clear that at the outset no justifiable reason yet existed for counsel to substitute petitioners in signing

the certification. In fact, in the case of natural persons, this policy serves no legal purpose.
Convenience cannot be made the basis for a circumvention of the Rules.
Petition for Relief from Judgment is an initiatory pleading
Norris v. Parentela Jr. (February 27, 2003) -- Petition for relief from judgment is a new petition where
a party seeks relief based on grounds different from those in the original case namely FAME. It is an
initiatory pleading that requires a certification against forum shopping.
Observation: Note that under Rule 38, the petition shall be filed in such court and in the same case
where the judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a
party in any court through FAME. (Sec. 1, Rule 38) It will also be filed in such court and in the same
case where the judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by
FAME has been prevented from taking an appeal. (Sec. 2, Rule 38)
Do you serve a copy of the petition on the adverse party pursuant to Rule 13? According to Sec. 4,
Rule 38, if the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify relief, the court shall issue an
order requiring the adverse party to answer the petition within 15 days from receipt thereof. The
order shall be served in such manner as the court may direct together with copies of the petition and
the accompanying affidavits. It would appear then that there is no need to serve the petition on the
adverse party before filing the same. Rather, the court will serve a copy of the petition and the
accompanying affidavits on the adverse party together with the Order requiring it to file its answer.
In Green Asia Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals (508 SCRA 79) cited in
The Parents-Teachers Association of St. Matthew Christian Academy v. Metro Bank, G.R. No. 176518,
March 2, 2010, where the issue of validity of the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping was questioned
in an application for the issuance of a Writ of Possession, the SC held that:
x x x it bears stressing that a certification on non-forum shopping is required only in a complaint or a
petition which is an initiatory pleading. In this case, the subject petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession filed by private respondent is not an initiatory pleading. Although private respondent
denominated its pleading as a petition, it is more properly a motion. What distinguishes a motion
from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it, but its
purpose. The purpose of a motion is not to initiate litigation, but to bring up a matter arising in the
progress of the case where the motion is filed.
It is not necessary to initiate an original action in order for the purchaser at an extrajudicial
foreclosure of real property to acquire possession. Even if the application for the writ of possession
was denominated as a petition, it was in substance merely a motion. Indeed, any insignificant lapse
in the certification on non-forum shopping filed by the MBTC did not render the writ irregular. After
all, no verification and certification on non-forum shopping need be attached to the motion.
See also Ancheta v. Metrobank, 470 SCRA 157, where the SC held that a petition for a writ of
possession under Rule 7 of Act No. 3135 is not a complaint or an initiatory pleading.
C. ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Manner of making allegations

Rule 8, Section 1. In general. Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or
defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him
shall be clearly and concisely stated.
(1) Condition precedent
Rule 8, Sec. 3. Conditions precedent. In any pleading a general averment of the performance or
occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.
(2) Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of the mind, judgments, official
documents or acts
Rule 8, Sec. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent,
knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.
Actionable document
Two (2) ways of pleading an actionable document
1. By setting forth the substance of such document in the pleading and attaching the document
thereto as an annex; or
2. By setting forth said document verbatim in the pleading if such document is not lengthy.
How to contest an actionable document?
By denying specifically under oath. Failure to deny results in the admission of the genuineness and
due execution of the document.
Exceptions?
1. When the adverse party is not a party to the instrument
2. When an order for the inspection of the document was not complied with.
Meaning of Due execution
Means that the document was signed voluntarily and knowingly by the party whose signature
appears thereon, that if signed by somebody else such as representative that he had the authority to
do so, that it was duly delivered and formalities complied with
Four (4) criteria of authenticity and due execution:
1. Signature is not forged or falsified
2. The contents of the instrument is the same at the time it was signed

3. That all formal requirements are considered complied with

4. The same document has been signed and delivered
Case of Benguet (doctrine)
If the authenticity and due execution of a document is duly proved, it extends only to the extrinsic
validity of the document and not the truth of the contents of the document, which is the intrinsic
validity. The records of the case clearly shows that the documents were contested.
Rule 8, Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document. Whenever an action or defense is based upon
a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth
in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit,
which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in
the pleading.
Rule 8, Sec. 8. How to contest such documents. When an action or defense is founded upon a
written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding
section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the
adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but
the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to
the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.
Asian Construction and Development Corp. v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 176949, June 27, 2012 Charge
invoices are not actionable documents per se as these only provide details on the alleged
transactions. These documents need not be attached to or stated in the complaint as these are
evidentiary in nature.
In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 567, the document whose
genuineness and due execution is deemed admitted need not be formally offered in evidence. The
effect is to relieve the plaintiff from the duty of expressly presenting such documents as evidence
since they are considered as judicial admissions.
The following defenses, not being inconsistent with the genuineness and due execution are not
waived despite failure to specficially deny under oath the actionable document: (a) Fraud; (b)
Estoppel; (c) Want or Illegality of Consideration; (d) Mistake; (e) Payment; (f) Minority or Imbecility;
(g) Duress; (h) Statute of Limitations; and, (i) Compromise.
The following defenses are however deemed waived: (a) Forgery in the signature; (b) Unauthorized
signature as in the case of an agent signing for the principal; (c) the Corporation was not authorized
under its charter to sign the instrument; (d) Want of delivery; or, (e) at the time the document was
signed, it was not in the words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading.
Specific denial
(1) Effect of failure to make specific denials

Rule 8, Sec. 10. Specific denial. A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth
of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an
averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
(2) When a specific denial requires an oath
Rule 8, Sec. 11, Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
admitted if not denied under oath.
D. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
Rule 9, Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed
therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and
proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to
render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to
the clerk of court.
The rule refers to a defending party, which means that it is not only a defendant who fails to answer
who may be declared in default.
May a defendant who fails to answer a complaint that has been amended as a matter of right be
declared in default? No because an answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended
complaint if no new answer is filed.
May a plaintiff who fails to answer a compulsory counterclaim be declared in default? As a rule, an
answer to a counterclaim or cross-claim is required and failure to answer is a ground for default.
However, a counterclaim need not be answered where the 1. Answer would be a repetition of the
allegations in the complaint (Navarro v. Bello, 102 Phil. 1019 (1958) or where the 2. Issues raised in
the counterclaim are inseparable from those posed in the complaint. (Sarmiento v. Juan, 120 SCRA
403) Thus, a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be
declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed
automatically joined by the allegations in the complaint. (Gojo v. Goyala, 35 SCRA 557)
May a defendant who fails to answer a supplemental complaint be declared in default? No, the
answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or
supplemental answer is filed. (Rule 11, Sec. 7, 2nd sentence)
1. Failure to plead defenses and objections
Can the trial court motu proprio dismiss the complaint?
Under Sec. 1, Rule 9, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court
has no jurisdicition over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same

parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
Under Sec. 4 of Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, the court from an examination of the
allegations therein and such evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any
of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action. Thus, the court may motu proprio
dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue if its apparent on the allegations of the
complaint.
2. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
Rule 11, Sec. 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. A counterclaim or a cross-claim
which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with the permission
of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before
judgment.
Rule 11, Sec. 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he
may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment. The
plaintiff may still set up a counterclaim by amending the complaint as a matter of right or at any time
before a responsive pleading is served.
Waiver of Defenses and Objections; Default
The following defenses are not waived even if not raised in a motion to dismiss or answer (cross refer
to Sec. 8 Rule 15):
1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2) Litis pendentia
3) Res judicata; and
4) Prescription of action
NOTE: A compulsory counter-claim not interposed is barred except Sec. 10 Rule 11.
After the lapse of period within which to file an answer and defendant did not file an answer
seasonably.
May a plaintiff be declared in default?
Yes plaintiff can be declared in default relative to a counterclaim especially of the counterclaim is
permissive.
A files a case against B for unlawful detainer. B received summons Jan. 5 and on Jan. 25 B has not
filed any answer yet. May B be declared in default?
No. B cannot be declared in default because the case is unlawful detainer which falls under summary
proceedings. In summary proceedings a motion to declare a party in default is one of the prohibited
pleadings.

Suppose the case is one for collection of sum of money, may he now be declared in default? If yes,
how?
Yes B can be declared in default by As filing of a motion to declare B in default.
Two kinds of motion:
1. Litigated
2. Non-litigated
NOTE: If it is established that defendant did not receive a copy, it would be irregular for the court to
declare Defendant in default.
The phrase as in default no longer applies. The only ground for declaration of default is failure to
file an answer seasonably.
Remedy of defendant declared in default
File a motion to lift order of default
If denied: Motion for reconsideration
If denied: Certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
Suppose there is no ground?
Wait for rendition of judgment by default, you now have ordinary remedies such as appeal or new
trial or relief from judgment
NOTE: If the defendant is declared in default, he loses his personality before the court but by filing a
motion his personality is restored.
Order of default is different from judgment by default.
A judgment by default is always preceded by order of default. There is only one exception to this and
that is Rule 29, Sec. 3, Par. C which is refusal to comply with modes of discovery.
NOTE: Supreme Court always looks down on default order so if confronted with this problem your
inclination should always be against default orders.
There are no injunctive relief in default orders.
When a declaration of default is proper
Rule 9, Sec. 3, If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court
shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure,
declare the defending party in default.
Effect of an order of default

Rule 9, Sec. 3 (a): Effect of order of default. - A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent
proceedings but not to take part in the trial.
Pascua v. Florendo (April 30, 1985) -- Complainants are not automatically entitled to the relief prayed
for once the defendants are declared in default. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court
has ascertained that the relief is warranted by the evidence offered and the facts proven by the
presenting party. It would be meaningless to require presentation of evidence if every time the other
party is declared in default, a decision would automatically be rendered in favor of the non-defaulting
party and exactly according to the tenor of his prayer. See also Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, March
21, 2006. In Gajudo, SC explained that the proscription against the award of unliquidated damages is
significant because it means that the damages must be proved convincingly in accordance with the
quantum of evidence required in civil cases.
Relief from an order of default
Rule 9, Sec. 3 (b): Relief from order of default. - A party declared in default may at any time after
notice thereof and before judgment file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon
proper showing that his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may be set aside on such
terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice.
In Lina v. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 637 (1985), the SC discussed the various remedies of a defendant
declared in default:
(a) file a 1Motion under oath to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer
was due to FAME, and that he has a meritorious defense;
(b) if judgment has been rendered, he may file a 2Motion for new trial under Section 1 (a) of Rule 37;
(c) if the defendant discovers the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he may
file a 3Petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38;
(d) he may also 4Appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or the
law.
In Lina, Justice Herrera dissented citing Dimayacyac v. CA, 93 SCRA 265 (September 27, 1979),
insisting that certiorari still lies when such appeal does not prove to be a more speedy and adequate
remedy. In Dimayacyac, Justice Abad Santos said, the ordinary remedy which should be availed by a
party who has been declared in default and judgment rendered against him is that of appeal and not
certiorari. The rule is not without exceptions. Thus, although appeal is available, certiorari still lies
when such appeal does not prove to be a more speedy and adequate remedy.
In Arquero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168053, September 21, 2011, 658 SCRA 70, citing the case of
Martinez v. Republic, G.R. No. 160895, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 134, explained that the 4th
remedy, which is an appeal from the judgment, is anchored on Sec. 2, Rule 41 of the 1964 Rules. Even
after the deletion of that provision under the 1997 Rules, the SC did not hesitate to expressly rely on
the Lina doctrine, including the pronouncement that a defaulted defendant may appeal from the

judgment rendered against him. The defaulted defendant has the right to appeal and assail the
judgment on the ground that the amount of the judgment is excessive or is different in kind from that
prayed for, or that the plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of his complaint, or that the
decision is contrary to law. Such party declared in default is proscribed from seeking a modification
or reversal of the assailed decision on the basis of the evidence submitted by him in the Court of
Appeals, for if it were otherwise, he would thereby allowed to regain his right to adduce evidence, a
right which he lost in the TC when he was declared in default, and which he failed to have vacated.
Note that the appellate court can review the assailed decision and is not precluded from reversing
the same based solely on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.
Effect of a partial default
Rule 9, Sec. 3 (c): Effect of partial default. - When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause
of action against several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the
court shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the
evidence presented.
Extent of relief
Rule 9, Sec. 3 (d): Extent of relief to be awarded. - A judgment rendered against a party in default shall
not exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.
In what other instance may a judgment by default be rendered even if the defendant has filed an
answer? Under Sec. 5, Rule 29, If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party wilfully fails to
appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or
fails to serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such
interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that
party, or dismiss the action or prooceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against
that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred b the other, including
attorneys fees.
Actions where default are not allowed
Rule 9, Sec. 3 (e): Where no defaults allowed. - If the defending party in an action for annulment or
declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the
prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there
is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not
fabricated.
Note special rule of procedure on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriage, Sec. 8 (2) thereof,
which states: If the respondent fails to file an answer, the court shall not declare him or her in default.
Sec. 8 (3) further states that where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the
court shall order the Public Prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties.
Special rule of procedure in Legal Separation, Sec. 5 (b) and (c) provides for a similar rule.

IV. RULES 10 TO 14: AMENDMENTS TO SUMMONS

A. AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Kinds of Amendments
Two (2) Classifications of Amendment:
1. Amendment a matter of right or by leave or court
2. Substantial or formal amendment
Effect of amendment?
Amended pleading supersedes the original.
Totally?
No, admissions in the original pleading may be used as evidence.
A files a case against B for collection of sum of money. Summons was served Jan. 10 and B filed an
answer Jan. 20. May A still amend his complaint?
Yes because the period to amend a complaint as a matter of right is anytime before a responsive
pleading has been served. Filing and service are two different things. Filing is with the court while
service is to the parties.
NOTE: Amendment as a matter of right is absolute when the plaintiff has not yet received a copy of
responsive pleading. If a motion to dismiss is filed, such is not a bar for a plaintiff to amend his
complaint.
If A filed a case against B for a sum of money and then there was no allegation as to a demand, hence
the issue of demand is not within the jurisdiction of the court. During the presentation of plaintiffs
evidence, the witness of the plaintiff would like to present as evidence the demand letter, B objected
the same on the ground that it was not raised in the pleading and therefore the court has no
jurisdiction over the issue. If you were the judge, how will you rule on the objection?
You will grant the objection because the court has no actually jurisdiction over the issue. In granting
the objection for denying the presentation of such kind of evidence because it is without jurisdiction
of the court.
As plaintiff, what will you do?
Under Rule 10 section 5, Amendments to conform or authorize presentation of evidence, the plaintiff
may move for amendment and such must be granted to by the court with liberality. So even in this
instance, at this point in time of the proceeding (during trial), amendment is still available. It is an
amendment with leave of court. If the court does not grant it, it can be construed as grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the court which is adept to certiorari or mandamus as the case may be.

As a general rule, the evidence must conform to the pleading. This time, considering that the evidence
is not within the jurisdiction of the court, it should be the pleading that must conform to the evidence
to authorize the presentation of evidence. That is the meaning of section 5 Rule 10.
Suppose the amendment sought by the plaintiff here is a change of cause of action, will you grant it?
Even if it is a change of cause of action, it must be granted with liberality. But as a general rule, never
with jurisdiction. Cause of action yes but jurisdiction no.
Why?
Because if for example you filed a case with the RTC for sum of money in the amount of P350,000.00.
That is definitely outside the jurisdiction of the RTC and you ask for amendment with leave of court
so that the RTC will have jurisdiction, and changed the amount claimed to P500,000.00, you cannot
do that because this is an issue of jurisdiction. You cannot do that. Why? because remember, under
the latest jurisprudence on that matter, jurisdiction over the subject matter is not only conferred
upon filing of the necessary pleading but payment of the correct docket fees. So the docket fees you
paid for is only for the amount of P350,000.00, and you want to change it to P1 million, you wont be
allowed. It is an indirect way of escaping the payment of the correct docket fees. This is taken from
the old Mar Copper doctrine.
Amendments vs. Supplemental Pleadings
How would you distinguish an amended pleading from a supplemental pleading?
As to the purpose, an amended pleading aims to change certain facts while in a supplemental
pleading you dont change anything, you just ask for supplement. As held in the Remington case,
there is no need for the issuance of a new summons because it did not change the cause of action. If
the pleading changes the cause of action, then another summons is necessary because as a general
rule, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading.
Even if it superseded the original pleading, is there anything admissible from the original pleading?
Admissions remain even when the original pleading has been superseded pleading. What kind of
admissions are they? They used to be extrajudicial admissions but jurisprudence now, under the new
rule, these are already considered as judicial admissions. You have to distinguish that because the
effect of a judicial admission is different from an extra judicial admissions whereby the latter requires
or calls for proof, requires for offer. But because these are judicial admissions, you need not to offer
them. It can be used by the court as basis of its decisions, judgment or resolution.
B. TIME/PERIOD FOR FILING RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
Next rule is only about periods. The only thing to remember here in Rule 11 are the following days10 days, then 15 days, then 30 days and finally 60 days. Tandaan nyo lang yon and we are through
with Rule 11. So this is about when to file responsive pleading, take note they are responsive pleading
so if there is nothing to respond to, a responsive pleading is not necessary but if it is required, when
are you suppose to file them?

So 10 days, what pleading must be filed within the period of 10 days?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Answer to the complaint when it is covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure;

Answer to an amended pleading if the amendment is not a matter of right;
Reply;
Answer to the counterclaim, cross claim and answer to a complain in intervention;
Answer to a pleading after a bill of particulars has been granted.

Lets go to 15 days:
1. Answer to a complaint under regular procedure;
2. Answer to an amended complaint when the amendment is a matter of right;
3. Answer filed by a third, fourth or fifth party defendant as the case may be.
Why is the answer in a complaint in intervention is only 10 days?
Remember that the one who answers it is already within the jurisdiction of the court. Kaya 10 days
nalang but the one who is suppose to answer within 15 days is not yet within the jurisdiction of the
court like a fourth party defendant is not within the jurisdiction of the court. So he must be first
before he is brought within the jurisdiction of the court that is why you have the 15 days period.
How about the 30 day period?
There is only one instance- when the defendant is a foreign corporation or foreign private entity and
summons was served to the corporation through the government official in the Philippines. The 30
day period must be counted not from the receipt of the government official but from the receipt of
the defendant itself, the corporation. Under section 13 of Rule 14, you will find out that a foreign
private entity can be served with summons in three (3) ways. Kaya tatandaan nyo. If it is served to
the government official in the country, 30 days, otherwise 15 days. This is the only 30 day period,
wala ng iba sa rules.
Now finally, we go the 60 day period
When summons is served under section 15 of Rule 14 or what we call extra territorial service. But
take note, there is a cross reference in section 15, that is 14 and 16. Before and after. That summarizes
Rule 11.
In what instances is the period to answer within 15 days?
a. Answer to a complaint, within 15 days after service of summons unless a different period is fixed
by the court. (Rule 11, Sec. 1)
b. Answer to an amended complaint when the amendment is made as a matter of right, within 15
days after being served with a copy thereof. (Rule 11, Sec. 3)
c. Answer to a third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, within 15 days after service of summons, unless a
different period is fixed by the court. (Rule 11, Sec. 5)

The period is 10 days in the following instances:

a. In cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, defendant shall within 10 days from service
of summons file his answer to the complaint. (Sec. 5, Rules on Summary Procedure)
b. Answer to an amended complaint when the amendment is not a matter of right, within 10 days
from notice of the order of admitting the same. (Rule 11, Sec. 3, 2nd paragraph)
c. Answer to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third (fourth, etc.)-party
complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention, within 10 days from notice of the order of
admitting the same. (Rule 11, Sec. 3, 3rd paragraph)
d. Answer to a counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within 10 days from service. (Rule 11,
Sec. 4)
e. A reply may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded to. (Rule 11, Sec. 6)
f. A supplemental complaint may be answered within 10 days from notice of the order admitting the
same. (Rule 11, Sec. 7)
In what instance is the period different from either 10 or 15 days?
a. Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity and service of summons is made on the
government official designated by law to receive the same, the answer shall be filed within 30 days
after receipt of summons by such entity. (Rule 11, Sec. 2)
b. Where the defendant is served summons by publication under Sec. 15, Rule 14. Any order granting
suh leave shall specify a reasonable time which shall not be less than 60 days after notice within which
the defendant must answer.
Answer
Reply
C. BILL OF PARTICULARS
Rule 12 is only the Bill of Particulars. Bill of Particulars maybe filed by any party that is suppose to file
a responsive pleading. Before one files a responsive pleading and he wants to be clarified on certain
matters, then instead of filing of the answer, he must file a motion for a Bill of Particulars.
Who may file a motion for a bill of particulars?
1. So this can be filed by the plaintiff with regard to a permissive counterclaim.
2. This can be filed by the defendant with respect to the complaint.
3. This may again be filed by the plaintiff if he intends to file a reply.
Anyone who is bound or required to file a responsive pleading may ask for a bill of particulars. What
does this mean?
It simply means that you are not clear on a matter in his allegation, so clarify it.

Suppose in the complaint of the plaintiff, the plaintiff joined three (3) causes of action. Assuming the
defendant owns him P50,000.00, on another occasion he owes him P130,000.00 and another
occasion he owes him P300,000.00. There was no allegation of when and how it was loaned.
That is a very clear case that calls for a bill of particulars.
Although a bill of particulars is there in the rules, but you will note that this is very academic. Im
telling you now because in actual practice you dont ask for a bill of particulars. Good lawyers wont
ask for that. What will I do? Ill file a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action. If Im not clear on
the matter, motion to dismiss so hell amend the pleading. Thus, you bought time. Like default, if I
were the plaintiff and he did not file an answer, I will not move for declaration of default. Why? I will
ask for presentation of evidence, after all if the party is in default, you are delaying your own case.
Why? because there are many remedies to default and the court will grant this remedies. Motion to
set aside the order of default, motion for reconsideration then judgment and you go all over again
and when you move up to the Supreme Court the latter will say, no default, the party must be given
due process. Dont fight it out of technicalities, so remand the case for further proceedings after
fifteen (15) years. Although these are very good problems in the bar but later on, if you were in
practice, how can you avail of what you dont even know. Like in the bill of particulars, it may not be
that important but it might be given in the bar.
So when do you count the period?
When you file a bill of particulars, the period to file a responsive pleading is stop and youll only have
the balance of the period within which to file an answer if it is denied but if its granted, you have to
file a bill of particulars within the period of 10 days but the 10 day period must be counted from the
receipt of the resolution granting your motion for a bill of particulars.
Suppose A filed an action against B and the latter received the summons in January 1. So he has
ordinarily up to January 16 in which to file an answer but on January 5, instead of filing the answer
he filed a motion for a bill of particulars. The court granted the bill of particulars on January 20, then
the question is when should B file the answer?
No answer yet because it is A who should clarify because the bill of particulars is granted, the order
is directed to A to amend, to change what is suppose to be change, and if he does not, this may be
ground for dismissal.
Now, after he has change, the 15 day period will no longer apply. The 15 day period ordinarily within
which to file an answer no longer apply because of that bill of particulars. So what applies? You have
only the balance of the period but not less than 5 days. Pareho lang yan ng motion to dismiss under
Rule 16. Under Rule 16, when the defendant files a motion to dismiss and it is denied by the court,
you do not appeal. Why? It is an Interlocutory order. So the defendant has only the remaining balance
of the period but not less than 5 days.
Do not apply the Domingo Mated doctrine, the fresh day rule. This is a September 2005 case,
Domingo mated et al vs Court of Appeals penned by Justice Corona. Bago yan ha, September 14,
2005, this is the fresh day rule or the fresh day doctrine. Baka lumabas sa bar, atleast you know. It

simply says that when a motion to dismiss is filed and then the court denies it or grants it as the case
may be, of course denied. You have the entire period all over again, 15 days, not just the balance. But
do not apply it here in a bill of particulars and motion to dismiss because the time to file the answer
is the remaining balance which must not be less than 5 days.
So the old rule applies only to Rule 42, 43 and 45. Yun lang ang may fresh day doctrine. It applies to
Rule 41 as well. You have the entire period all over again. In fact my opinion on the matter is that it
applies as well to Rule 64 and 65 because in Rule 65, a motion for reconsideration is mandatory.
D. FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGEMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
What is Filing and what is Service? Which comes first, Filing or Service? Distinguish.
As to initiatory pleading, filing comes first, service later. Thereafter, service comes first and filing later.
So when you file a complaint, initiatory pleading yan, you dont serve first because it is the court that
serves the same together with the copy of the summons to the defendant so filing comes first. But
answer, before the court receives the same for filing, you must first establish that you have served a
copy thereof. Aside from initiatory pleading, ordinarily processes that emanated from the court, filing
comes first then service later. For example, judgment. A judgment that emanates from the court, this
is first filed and then served a copy to the party. Resolutions and orders, they are first filed and then
served.
We are going to discuss three (3) topics under Rule 13, so first is Manner or Mode of Filing and
Manner or Mode of Service. The second topic is completeness of Filing and completeness of service.
And the third topic is proof of Filing and Proof of Service. If you can answer that, tapos nanaman ang
Rule
What is the mode or manner of Filing?
There are two (2):
1. Personal Filing; and
2. Filing by Registered mail.
You have to distinguish now because in service it is different. How do you personally file?
There are three (3):
1. Personal Service;
2. Substituted Service; and
3. By mail. Under mail, it is divided in two kinds, either registered or ordinary mail. Importante eto
because you might ask regarding completeness and proof. So mag-didiffer yon, as to
completeness and proof.
What is Personal Service? And by mail? Have you ever mail by registered mail?
By Substituted Service. Do not confuse this with substituted service of summons.

To whom do you leave a copy? Which Clerk of Court?

In every court, when you say RTC, isa lang yon. Kasi ang concept nyo pag sinabing RTC, ang dami nyon.
Isa lang yon, but several branches. Every Regional Trial Court in a judicial region has only one clerk of
court. But each branch has what you called a branch clerk of court. This city here in Metro Manila,
for example here in Makati, there are more than 50 branches, but in Manila or Quezon City there are
maybe a hundred I supposed or even more. Each branch has a branch clerk of court. This Substituted
Service is not with the branch clerk of court but the Chief Clerk of Court. If your book says in the
branch clerk of court, thats wrong. It should be the Chief Clerk of Court and the latter is the one in
charge with all the branches. In fact the sheriff is under the clerk of court. That is substituted service.
What do you have to establish to avail of substituted service?
That is section 8, do not confuse that with section 9. You cannot avail of section 8 if the subject matter
to be serve are final resolution or judgment, that is under section 9. Service of judgment, service of
final order under section 9 is different from service of pleadings under section 8. In section 8, there
is substituted service of pleadings but when you go to section 9, you do not avail of substituted.
What is the provision of section 9? It is through publication. So that the period for finality of the
resolution or judgment starts to run only after availment of section 9. In the case of substituted
service, that begins to run upon receipt of the clerk of court of whatever pleading is served.
Do not confuse that with Rule 14, personal service is no longer used in summons. Personal service is
used now in Rule 13. If you go to Rule 14, they do not use anymore personal service and you must
follow that. It is already called Service on the person of the defendant under Rule 14. That is as to
summons because substituted service of summons is very different. While here in service of
pleadings, that is still personal service. If you cannot find the person to whom it must serve, you have
to leave at the residence where a person of sufficient age and discretion is found, or in the office to
a person in charge thereof. These three (3) ways are is still personal service of pleadings. Distinguish
from the service on the person of the defendant under Rule 14.
When is filing complete?
1. In Personal filing, after actual delivery.
2. If it is by registered mail, the posting is the date of filing. When you mail by registered mail, the
post office stamp is the date of filing so that within the 15 day period for example, the stamping
is in the 15th day, that is within the 15 day period.
When is service complete?
You have to distinguish whether it is by ordinary mail or registered mail.
If it is by registered mail, from the actual receipt of the mail or 5 days thereafter from the first notice
of the postmaster. The post office sends three notices, it is the first and not the last. Hindi eto
unlawful detainer. In Unlawful detainer, you count the one day period from the last demand, dito
first notice. In substituted service, upon actual receipt of the clerk of court.

Proof of filing
1. If it is personal filing, the stamp made by the clerk of court.
2. If it is by registered mail, proof is the registry receipt.
Proof of Service
Take note of the requirement, now of an affidavit of the sender, especially if you are filing with the
court of appeals or the supreme court under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, that is a ground for the
dismissal of your petition if you do not include an affidavit of service. If you do not include as proof
that you have serve to the adverse party the affidavit of the sender together with the registry receipt
stamp, that is a ground of the dismissal by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
There are many instances when you try to establish that you have filed a pleading with a court, the
court cannot find anymore the pleading you have filed. Should the record of the court prevail over
your personal record?
You present your own copy kasi karamihan ngayon nakakaligtaan.
Let me give a special mention to section 11. It says there priority of personal service. Of the many
modes we have discuss, the Rules seems to prioritize personal service, why? This is new in the 1997
Rules. If you cannot avail of personal service, you have to make an explanation stating therein the
reasons why you cannot avail of personal service. Service and filing cannot be made without that
written explanation.
What is the historical background regarding this amendment of Rule 13, these addition to the rules?
Because several practicing lawyers would try to delay for one reason or the other, some reasons are
valid but most reasons are not. They would not expedite the administration of justice. So the Supreme
Court amended the Rules modestly and moderately by simply prioritizing personal service. For
example here in Makati, in the same building, the plaintiffs counsel is in the 4th floor while the
defendant is in the 1st floor. What do they do? They mail pleadings to buy time. No amount of reason
will invalidate your delay, if that is the case. Although the court would not mind it, but now with this
rule, that must be practiced. The rule calls for a valid reason as long as he has a reason and the usual
reasons are for convenience and practicality or lack of personnel to serve the same or there are other
reasons I find like because of the horrendous traffic in Metro Manila.
Note distinction between substituted service of summons and substituted service of pleadings.
Under Sec. 8, Rule 13, if service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers
cannot be made either by personal service or by mail because the office and place of residence of the
party or his counsel is unknown, substituted service may be made by delivering a copy to the clerk of
court with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the
time of such delivery.
Under Sec. 7, Rule 14, if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable
time as provided in Sec. 6, Rule 14, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at

the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or
(b) by leaving the copies at the defendants office or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof.
Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions
Rule 13, Sec. 9: Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions. Judgments, final orders or
resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by
publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall
be served upon him also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party.
Distinction between filing and service
Distinguish between substituted service of pleading and substituted service of summons Under Sec.
8, Rule 13, If servie of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be
made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his counsel
being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure
of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of such delivery.
Under Sec. 7, Rule 14, If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable
time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the
summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.
Filing: Manner, completeness, proof
Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court. (Rule 13, Sec. 2) Rule
13, Sec. 3: Manner of filing. The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders,
judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly
indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first
case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case,
the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown
by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of
their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.
Service: Mode, completeness, proof
Service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall be made either
personally or by mail. (Rule 13, Sec. 5)
(1) Personal service
Rule 13, Sec. 6: Personal service. Service of the papers may be made by delivering personally a copy
to the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge
thereof. If no person is found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by
leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party's or
counsel's residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then residing therein.

(2) Service by mail

Rule 13, Sec. 7: Service by mail. Service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in
the office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known,
otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and with instructions to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (l0) days if undelivered. If no registry service is
available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail.
In Benguet Electric Coop v. NLRC, 209 SCRA 55 (May 18, 1992) estabished the rule that the
transmission through a private carrier or letter forwarder is not a recognized mode of filing pleadings.
The date of actual receipt by the court and not the date of delivery to the private courier is deemed
the date of the filing of the pleading.
(3) Substituted service
Rule 13, Sec. 8: Substituted service. If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and
other papers cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of residence of
the party or his counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of
court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at
the time of such delivery.
Substituted service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers should be
distinguished from substituted service of summons.
(4) Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions
Rule 13, Sec. 9: Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions. Judgments, final orders or
resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by
publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall
be served upon him also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party.
When service is deemed complete
Rule 13, Sec. 10: Completeness of service. Personal service is complete upon actual delivery. Service
by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court
otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or
after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is
earlier.
Rule 13, Sec. 12: Proof of filing. The filing of a pleading or paper shall be proved by its existence in
the record of the case. If it is not in the record, but is claimed to have been filed personally, the filing
shall be proved by the written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court on a copy
of the same; if filed by registered mail, by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who
did the mailing, containing a full statement of the date and place of depositing the mail in the post
office in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions
to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if not delivered.

Rule 13, Sec. 13: Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of
the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a
full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof
shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this
Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry
receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt
by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the
notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
Priorities in Modes of Service
In City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 102,
the SC noted that the counsel for the City holds office in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, in the
Visayas while the counsel for the PPA holds office in Quezon City, Metro Manila in Luzon. Given the
considerable distance between the offices of these two counsels, personal service of pleadings and
motions by one upon the other was clearly not practical and a written explanation as to why personal
service was not done would only be superfluous.
D. SUMMONS
1. What is summons
Is a process issued by the court and served upon the defendant for the purpose of acquiring
jurisdiction over him and to direct him to file responsive or an answer.
Purpose
There are only two ways by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant:
1.
Valid Service of Summons. Remember that it must be VALID. When you say service of
summons that is wrong because even if you serve the summons and the same but the service is
invalid, the court did not acquire jurisdiction.
2.

Voluntary Appearance

2. Who issues, to whom addressed

To whom is the Summons addressed?
Together with the summons is a copy of the complaint.
3. Who serves
The sheriff.
Aside from the sheriff, who may serve summons?
Any officer authorized by the court.
How does the sheriff serve summons? What are the modes of service of summons?

1.

Service on the person of the defendant

2.

Substituted service

3.

Extraterritorial Service (under section 14, 15 and 16)

a.

Service on the person of the defendant

b.

Substituted Service

c.

Publication

d.

By any other modes authorized by the court

Note: There is no service of summons by registered mail

Why is there no service of summons by registered mail?
Because the purpose of service of summons is to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
and if it is by mail, it is dependent already on the mail proper. The court will not allow that. So the
sheriff who is task to serve the summons will serve the same either service on the person of the
defendant or substituted service.
After he has done that, what should he do?
The sheriff will file a return.
What is this return?
Specific Details in the Return -- The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. The efforts made to find the defendant
and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time
of the attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the name/s of the
occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done, though futile, to
serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. The
form on Sheriffs Return of Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the Handbook for Sheriffs
published by the Philippine Judicial Academy requires a narration of the efforts made to find the
defendant personally and the fact of failure. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated
November 9, 1989 requires that "impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the
efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts," which should be made
in the proof of service.
4. Kinds of summons
How is summons served?
a. Service in person of the defendant
Note: It is not called personal service anymore to distinguish it from sec. 6 pleadings and
judgment but rather it should be called Service in person of the defendant. In 1964 rule we call

that personal service but under the present rule it is now known as service in person of the
defendant. So if you say personal service it will be marked wrong because there is no more
personal service of summons, technically speaking, because the rule already calls it service in
person of the defendant.
Note: There is no service by mail of summons, the rationale thereof is that the completeness of
the service would be doubtful and since summons is the way by which the court acquires
jurisdiction of the person of the defendant hence jurisdiction may not be acquired, and there is
always a question.

b. Substituted service
What are the requirements for substituted service? Where do you serve substituted service?
At the residence of the defendant to a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. The
place must be the residence of the defendant and you just cannot leave it to anyone there in the
residence, it must be a person residing therein and must be of suitable age and discretion. There are
many cases to that effect.
If you cannot find his residence, or there is no residence or the residence is unknown?
At the office of the defendant to a person in charged thereof.
If you leave it to a security guard in the office of the defendant, suppose in a condominium unit, the
office is at the 4th floor, pag pasok ng sheriff sabi ng guard do ho pwede, tapos iniwan sa kanya ng
sheriff, valid?
That is not valid because the security guard is not in charge thereof. For example are the cases of
Millenium and EB Villarosa doctrine. Substituted service means the service is not anymore to the
person of the defendant but rather to someone else whether residing in his residence and must be
of suitable age and discretion or to someone in charge of his office at his office to be valid.
And another basic requirement is after complying or after exerting earnest effort to serve
summons on the person of the defendant. So that is substituted service. You will note, going to Rule
13 that substituted service of pleading is handing over the pleading to the clerk of court, personal
service therein includes service in the office and in the residence.
You will note that in summons, it is the residence and then office, in Rule 13 it is office then residence,
why is that so? Have you ever thought of that why ganun ang priority?
A: Because when summons is supposed to be served, there is no counsel yet so the priority is the
residence while in pleading, there is already a presumption that he is already protected or he has
already a counsel of choice. Counsel de parte kaya ganun.
Is there a substituted service of pleadings? How do you distinguish substituted service of summons
with substituted service of pleadings?

Yes. Substituted service of pleadings and other processes is to the clerk of court. That substituted
service is at the place of residence or at the place of business or office.
In the office, who should received it?
The person who is in charge thereof.
In the residence?
Any person who is a resident thereof and of sufficient age and discretion.
May a minor receive summons?
It depends, because what is required is a person who is of sufficient age and discretion. The age refers
to one who has discretion. So even if he is a minor but he has discretion he can still received summons.
Age here does not mean age of majority. Definitely a child of 2 cannot receive it due to lack of
discretion but a student of 15 years old may receive it because he has discretion.
A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion -- If the substituted service will be effected at defendants
house or residence, it should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing
therein." A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity
(18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a
summons. "Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible
choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed". Thus,
to be of sufficient discretion, such person must know how to read and understand English to
comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and
complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action.
Thus, the person must have the "relation of confidence" to the defendant, ensuring that the latter
would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons. The sheriff must therefore
determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age, what
the recipients relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the
significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or
at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These matters must be clearly and
specifically described in the Return of Summons.
Can a janitor in the office receive it? Why?
No, because he is not in charge of the office, such summons must be served to a person in charge of
the office.
Can a secretary receive it?

Yes, because ordinarily secretaries are the ones in charge in the office and there are a lot of
jurisprudence that tells us that receipt of secretary of summons is a valid service.
There is another defendant which is a corporation and under this heading, the corporation can either
be of two kinds:
1. Public corporation; and
2. Private corporation
a. Domestic private entity; and
b. Foreign private entity
In public corporation, to whom must summons be served?
Correlate this with section 17 Rule 3. In local government unit, the head of the state. If it is a province
the governor, vice governor. If it is a city, the city mayor or vice mayor. If it is the municipality, the
municipal mayor and in cases of the barangay, the barangay captain. You can also serve it on the vice
mayor in the absence of the mayor. So any officer of that public corporation, summons may be
served. But you have to establish that it was received. Yan ang importante don. That can be done
through the return of course.
In private corporation, if it is a foreign corporation, summons may be served to the agent of the
corporation or the government entity charged with the said corporation or any agent authorized by
the corporation.
Is there any difference among these three? Who is that Philippine government officer authorized to
receive summons?
In cases of insurance corporation, summons may be served to the insurance commissioner or if it is
a bank, to the governor of the Central Bank. If the foreign corporation is authorized to do business
here in the Philippines, then it is necessary that he has an agent here, so you serve it to him. But going
back under Rule 11, the period to file a responsive pleading, if it is served upon the government
officer, 30 days from the receipt not by the government officer but by the corporate defendant. If it
is served upon the agent, 15 days lang. If it is served upon the representative, it is also 15 days.
If it is a domestic private corporation, summons may be served to the president, the managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer and the in-house counsel. Note that this is
exclusive under the Villarosa doctrine. You better memorize that because the doctrine now is it is
exclusive, the enumeration there is exclusive. As held in the case of Mason vs CA which reiterated
the Villarosa doctrine.
Lets go back to the modes because another situation here is when the defendant is outside the
country. When the defendant is outside the country, normally what comes into your mind is that
service of summons must also be made outside the country as well. That is why you call it
extraterritorial service of summons under section 15. You connect that with section 14 and 16

because they have the same mode when the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown or when the
defendant is temporarily outside the country.
What is the case of Valmonte vs CA?
When you speak of extraterritorial service under section 15, it does not follow that you must always
have to do it with publication, No!
The first mode of extraterritorial service is service on the person of the defendant. So even if she is a
residence of Washington, they could have ask the sheriff by giving him a round ticket to Washington,
and serve the summons there. That is within the range but of course it is very impractical, youll never
do that because the sheriff will not accept it and ask for another ticket for his wife.
The second mode is through substituted service but who will substitute for that? Now your course is
through publication.
c. Publication
When one whose whereabouts are unknown (sec 14) or where one is temporarily outside the country
(sec 16) summons by publican may be done. But in the case of Mason vs. CA, you have to consider
the kind of action in order to avail that mode of service available, so that service of summons by
publication is not allowed in action strictly in personam. Eg. Action for specific performance,
damages, claims etc.
If Mr. A married to Ms. B who is a nurse in Saudi Arabia and Mr. A has filed an action for annulment
of their marriage, how can summons be served?
Summons by publication may be done on the ground that annulment of marriage is a personal action
but not an action in personam. The subject matter of an annulment case is the status of a party from
that being married wanting to revert back to singlehood. Status as subject matter is not strictly in
personam, service of summons may be done by publication and together with furnishing a copy of
the summons and complaint in the last known address which is the address in fact of the plaintiff.
d. Extra-territorial
Note: The mode of extraterritorial service is also by way of publication.
There are 3 ways of extraterritorial service of summons.
a. Service in person of the defendant
b. Publication together with the sending of the copy of the summons and the complaint
at the last known address of the defendant
c. any other mode as directed by the court
Note: There is no service of summons by registered mail. If the court order that it must be mailed
to the Philippine embassy where the defendant may be residingthat falls under sec 16.
What if the court ordered that summons be served by registered mail, shall it be valid?

A: Yes it is valid but not because registered mail is allowed but because it is a mode of service ordered
by the court. Or if the court deems it proper to order the sheriff to send the sheriff there, but that
would be already service of person of the defendant.
Note: Under extraterritorial service there is no substituted service under sec 15
Where is service of summons deemed completed?
Service on person of the defendant and substituted service is completed upon actual receipt. Note
that in substituted service it is not the defendant who received it, it may only by representation but
actual receipt of the representatives completes the service. If the service is by publication, it is
deemed completed upon the completion of the publication.
i. Personal
Service in person of the defendant
ii. By publication
How is the completion of the service of summons by publication proved?
Completion thereof may be proven by affidavits of any person involved in the publication of said
summons, eg the editor, circulation manager, publisher etc. any affidavit of said person will establish
proof of service of summons.
iii. Any mode
Any other mode as directed by the court
any other mode that may be authorize by the court what is this? Can you give me an example of
this?
This is upon the discretion of the court but what are the instances of doing that? Through the
Philippine Embassy, through the courier (LBC, Fedex), but it must always be by leave of court, Yan
ang importante. Sometimes when you ask the court for any other mode, it will tell you send it by
registered mail.
So when you are asked can there be summons by registered mail?
A: Ordinarily not but it can fall under any other mode directed by the court as long as you present to
the court the registry receipt. That would fall under any other mode directed by the court.
5. On whom served
a. On corporations: public or private; domestic or foreign
When we go to another defendant, an artificial being, a corporation, we divide it into 2, which can be
a foreign corporation or domestic corporation. The rule now is quite strict to a defendant of a private
domestic corporation. Cases of Baliwag transit which you have studied, of Palsak enterprises, those

of Phil oil, of Medialay vs Fernando no longer apply. They were all overturned by the strict provision
of the rule.
These defendant corporations, private domestic corporation are required to be served only through
specific individuals who are these persons?
A: Service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel. In the old rules summons may be made on the cashier and agent, but
in the present rules they are not included anymore.
What is the Villarosa doctrine?
NOTE: Remember that there is no prohibition regarding substituted service when defendants are
public corporation in other words substituted service is not disallowed, meaning it can be availed of.
However there is an exact jurisprudence in the matter so indirectly we can apply the doctrine laid
down in Mason vs CA as well as Jose vs Boyo.
Where it was established that in order that the service of summons be considered valid the following
must concur:
1.
2.
3.
4.

that it must be actually received;

that the person who received it must be duly authorized;
and that there must be evidence to the effect of 1 and 2;
but most importantly you must establish the relationship of the person who received it with the
corporation.
Somehow, this relaxes the doctrine under Villarosa, because the doctrine in Villarosa if we strictly
implement it, all the corporations could never be sued.
If you sue SMC and summons would be served to the 6 as enumerated under Sec 11, will you ever
find them?
Before you reach anyone of them you have to pass through several rooms, through several
personalities just to serve the summons. Note: substituted service is not prohibited although there is
no clear cut jurisprudence on the subject matter, as of now there is none.
To whom was the summons served in the Villarosa? In Millenium vs Tan to whom was it served?
NOTE: Remember that if a corporation is the plaintiff, the address of the corporation should not be
the branch office, it must always be the principal office. That is why MERALCO for example, there are
several offices through out the country, that if you want to send summons upon MERALCO you have
to serve it in the principal office and not in any of its branches. Be sure that the defendant is properly
identified branch manager so that you can served it properly.
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 12, RULE 14 OF THE RULES OF COURT ON SERVICE UPON FOREIGN
PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY. As amended, said provision of the Rules of Court now reads:
SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident

agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines.
If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent,
service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following
means:
a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the defendant may
be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by-registered mail at the last
known address of the defendant;
c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or
d) By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct.
b. On natural persons: prisoners; minors/incompetents; unknown; entities without juridical
personality
Who are the persons or different kind of defendants to whom summons must be served?
It must be served to the prisoner through the warden. It must be served to a minor, incompetent and
its parent or guardian. It must be served to an insane and parent or guardian.
When we go to another defendant, an artificial being, a corporation, we divide it into 2, which can be
a foreign corporation or domestic corporation. The rule now is quite strict to a defendant of a private
domestic corporation. Cases of Baliwag transit which you have studied, of Palsak enterprises, those
of Phil oil, of Medialay vs Fernando no longer apply. They were all overturned by the strict provision
of the rule.
If the defendant is a minor to whom should the summons be served?
To the minor and the parents or guardian as the case maybe.
So how many summons?
Two (2) summonses. If you only serve it to the parents, that is wrong, it will be an invalid service of
summons. The rule says service on the minor AND service on the parents or guardian or guardian ad
litem.
If the defendant is an insane or an incompetent, to whom summons must be served?
Personally to the insane or incompetent and personally to the guardian.
Why will you serve the summons to an insane defendant?

Because an insane person is not insane all the time. They have lucid interval. But an imbecile is
different from an insane because the former is not qualified but the latter is qualified, therefore there
is no provision regarding an imbecile. If you are given a choice between an imbecile and an insane,
you choose the latter, must be insane.
If the defendant is a prisoner, to whom summons be served?
To the prisoner himself or to the deputized sheriff. So he is not within the concept authorized by
law because the rule says authorizes the sheriff or the warden. The rule itself authorizes the warden
or one charged with the jail to serve it but it is served to the prisoner or upon the prisoner not to the
sheriff. It is only the sheriff or the warden who is authorized by the rules to serve it. He is deputized.
These are natural persons. The rule says it must be served upon the person of the defendant
themselves but does it follow that it cannot be serve through substituted service? It can. So if ever it
is served upon the warden, it is already substituted service. Take note of that. It is no longer service
upon the person of the defendant but rather substituted service. Why? because that is where the
defendant resides, so you serve it on the person in charge thereof. So nagiging substituted service.
Magandang catch yon if it is given in the problem.
What kind of service is service upon the prisoner?
The answer is the rule requires personal service or service upon the person of the prisoner because
the rule says service on the prisoner through the warden. Service on the warden because he is in
charge thereof. Even in cases of this special kind of defendant, service of summons may still be made
through substituted service.
6. Proofs of Service
F. VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE
The other mode in which the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is through
VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE.
When is a defendant deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court?
When the defendant files a pleading other than a motion to dismiss.
Is filing a motion cannot be construed that the defendant voluntary submitted to the jurisdiction of
the court? Irrespective of the ground for the motion to dismiss?
When the defendant asks for affirmative relief from the court he is considered to voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court hence there is voluntary appearance.
It started in the case of Medialey vs Fernando when a defendant file a motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction he is not considered to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
court but if over and above the ground of lack of jurisdiction he avails of other grounds for a motion
to dismiss then he is considered to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

This jurisprudence is no longer correct because in the doctrine of the La Naval case states that if a
defendant files a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and other grounds he is not
considered that he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
And the latest case on the matter is that of Millenium Industrial vs Tan which says that in order for
the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by voluntary appearance, there
must be an unequivocal submission (and intentional submission) of himself to the jurisdiction of
the court. So if it is equivocal then the court does not acquire jurisdiction.
These somehow modified the old doctrine which says that when a defendant secures or ask for
affirmative relief he submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court. That doctrine was modified by
Millenium vs Tan. Because even if you seek affirmative relief but you do not categorically submit
yourself to the jurisdiction of the court. This seems contradictory, Why? Because if you are seeking
affirmative relief from the court you want to the court to give you relief but at the same time you are
questioning the jurisdiction of the court to give you relief.
NOTE: Under the grounds enunciated in Sec 1 Rule 16, that cannot happen but remember that under
said grounds are not exclusive, there are other grounds for motion to dismiss. In fact in sect 1 the
filing of motion to dismiss is before filing an answer but it does not follow that after answer you can
no longer file a motion to dismiss. You can still file a motion to dismiss on other grounds.
Where can you find that? Rule 17 sec 3 on dismissal of action those are other grounds:
If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of presentation of his evidence in
chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply
with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the
defendant or upon the courts own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
In these cases you can file a motion to dismiss even after an answer has been filed even during the
hearing of the case.
If a defendant files a motion for extension of time to file an answer, is that voluntary appearance?
When a defendant files a motion for extension of time to file an answer, he is deemed to have
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. As if he has already filed an answer, because filing
an answer is voluntary appearance. Even if defendant has not recieved the summons but he filed an
answer to the complaint, he submits himself already to the jurisdiction of the court under Sec 20 of
rule 14. and it has been construed when the defendant instead of filing an answer files a motion for
extension of time to answer he has deemed to file an answer under the doctrine that he voluntary
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court but not when he files a motion to dismiss even if his
motion to dismiss is grounded on other grounds other than lack of jurisdiction. With more reason
therefore, that if a defendant files a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction the court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the person. That is not voluntary appearance.

In Atiko Trans Inc. and Cheng Lie Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc., G.R.
No. 167545, August 17, 2011, Atiko Trans was served with summons thru its cashier Cristina while
Cheng Lie, a foreign shipping company doing business in the Philippines thru its duly authorized
shipagent defendant Atiko Trans, was served with summons thru its agent. Both defendants were
declared in default. Judgment was then rendered against the two defendants by the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Makati City. Atiko Trans then filed its Notice of Appeal to the Regional Trial Court, its
Memorandum of Appeal, its Motion for Reconsideration, and its Petition for Review of the decision
of the RTC. It never questioned the jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person.
According to the SC, when the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made
only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by
defendants voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the courts jurisdiction, as
embodied in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, viz:
SEC. 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be
equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
In the case at bench, when Atiko filed its Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal, Motion for
Reconsideration of the Decision of the RTC, and Petition for Review, it never questioned the
jurisdiction of the MeTC over its person. The filing of these pleadings seeking affirmative relief
amounted to voluntary appearance and, hence, rendered the alleged lack of jurisdiction moot. In
Palma v. Galvez (615 SCRA 86) this Court reiterated the oft-repeated rule that "the filing of motions
seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for
reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration,
are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court."
Moreover, petitioners contention is a mere afterthought. It was only in their Memorandum filed with
this Court where they claimed, for the first time, that Atiko was not properly served with summons.
In La Naval Drug Corporation v. Court of Appeals (236 SCRA 78) it was held that the issue of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant must be seasonably raised. Failing to do so, a party who invoked
the jurisdiction of a court to secure an affirmative relief cannot be allowed to disavow such
jurisdiction after unsuccessfully trying to obtain such relief.
MeTC however did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie. Before it was amended by
A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC, Section 12 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court reads:
SEC. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity. When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident
agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines.

Elucidating on the above provision of the Rules of Court, this Court declared in Pioneer International,
Ltd. v. Guadiz, Jr. (535 SCRA 584) that when the defendant is a foreign juridical entity, service of
summons may be made upon:
1. Its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose;
2. The government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not have a
resident agent; or,
3. Any of the corporations officers or agents within the Philippines.
In the case at bench, no summons was served upon Cheng Lie in any manner prescribed above. It
should be recalled that Atiko Trans was not properly served with summons as the person who
received it on behalf of Atiko, cashier Cristina, is not one of the corporate officers enumerated in
Section 11 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Atiko
Trans not thru valid service of summons but by the latters voluntary appearance. Thus, there being
no proper service of summons upon Atiko to speak of, it follows that the MeTC never acquired
jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie. To rule otherwise would create an absurd situation where
service of summons is valid upon the purported principal but not on the latters co-defendant cum
putative agent despite the fact that service was coursed thru said agent. Indeed, in order for the court
to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant foreign private juridical entity under Section
12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be prior valid service of summons upon the agent of
such defendant.
Also, the records of this case is bereft of any showing that cashier Cristina is a government official
designated by law to receive summons on behalf of Cheng Lie or that she is an officer or agent of
Cheng Lie within the Philippines. Hence, her receipt of summons bears no significance insofar as
Cheng Lie is concerned. At this point, we emphasize that the requirements of the rule on summons
must be strictly followed, lest we ride roughshod on defendants right to due process.
With regard to Cheng Lies filing of numerous pleadings, the same cannot be considered as voluntary
appearance. Unlike Atiko Trans, Cheng Lie never sought affirmative relief other than the dismissal of
the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person. From the very beginning, it has
consistently questioned the validity of the service of summons and the jurisdiction of the MeTC over
its person.
It does not escape our attention though that Cheng Lies pleadings do not indicate that the same
were filed by way of special appearance. But these, to our mind, are mere inaccuracies in the title of
the pleadings. What is important are the allegations contained therein which consistently resisted
the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, Cheng Lie cannot be considered to have submitted itself to
the jurisdiction of the courts.
In fine, since the MeTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Cheng Lie, its decision insofar
as Cheng Lie is concerned is void. Thus, Cheng Lie was improperly declared in default.

Applying the above disquisition, the MeTC likewise erred in declaring Cheng Lie in default. Settled is
the rule that a defendant cannot be declared in default unless such declaration is preceded by a valid
service of summons.