Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Magdangal M. de Leon
A. Preliminary
1. Definition of Complaint
2. Requirements
2.1. Verification
1
RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, Sec. 3.
2
2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE, Rule II, Sec. 12: The phrase “competent evidence of
identity” refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification
document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual,
such as but not limited to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID,
National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay
certification, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS)
card, PhilHealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID,
OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
government office ID, certificate from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons
(NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development certification [as amended by A.M. No.
02-8-13-SC dated February 19, 2008]; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not
privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and
who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the
notary public documentary identification.
3
RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 4, as amended by A.M. No. 002-10-SC.
B-1
CIVIL PROCEDURE
4
Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) v. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC-Negros
Occidental, Branch 52 and Campos, G.R. No. 179878, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 575; see
also Topacio v. Justice Ong, G.R. No. 179895, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 817; and Sari-
Sari Group of Companies, Inc. v. Piglas-Kamao, G.R. No. 164624, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA
569, cited in Altres et al. v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 583.
5
United Paragon Mining Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150959, August 4, 2006, 497
SCRA 638, 647-648, cited in Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform et
al., G.R. No. 175049, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 185.
6
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Macadaeg, 109 Phil. 981 [1960]; Buenaventura v. Uy, G.R. No.
28156, March 31, 1987, 149 SCRA 22.
7
Vicar International Construction Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corp., G.R. No. 157195, April
22, 2005, 456 SCRA 588.
8
Uy v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 43389, April 28, 1980, 97 SCRA 255;
In-n-Out Burger, Inc. v. Sehwani Incorporated, G.R. No. 179127, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA
535 citing Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146364, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 492, 509.
9
The Rules of Court requires only initiatory pleading to be accompanied with a certificate of non-
forum shopping omitting any mention of “applications” as in Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94.
Hence, the absence of such certification will not result in the dismissal of the application for
search warrant (Kenneth Roy Savage v. Judge A.B. Taypin, G.R. No. 134217, May 11, 2000,
331 SCRA 697).
B-2
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2.2.1. Nature
10
RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 5.
11
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines
(FASAP), G.R. No. 143088, January 24, 2006, 497 SCRA 605.
12
Vicar International Construction Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corp., supra note 7.
13
Robern Development Corp. v. Quitain, G.R. No. 135042, September 23, 1999, 315 SCRA 150.
14
Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149660, January 20, 2009,
576 SCRA 463; Vda. de Melencion et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 148846, September 25, 2007,
534 SCRA 62.
B-3
CIVIL PROCEDURE
15
Sheker v. Estate of Alice O. Sheker, G.R. No. 157912, December 13, 2007, 540 SCRA 111.
16
Five-Star Bus Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127064, August 31, 1999, 313 SCRA
367. Please compare with verification signed by counsel (supra note 9).
17
Docena v. Lapesura, G.R. No. 140153, March 28, 2001, 355 SCRA 658.
18
Tible & Tible Company, Inc., et al. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association and Quiling, G.R.
No. 155806, April 8, 2008, 550 SCRA 562, citing Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
148287, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 510 and Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.
139396. August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 62, 68.
19
Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149660, January 20, 2009,
576 SCRA 463, citing BPI Leasing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127624, November 18,
2003, 416 SCRA 4.
20
Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 151413,
February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 10, citing the following cases: Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Company v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd., G.R. No. 153885, September 24, 2003, 412
SCRA 101, 109; Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146125, September 17,
2003, 411 SCRA 211, 217-220; Pfizer v. Galan, G.R. No. 143389, May 25, 2001, 358 SCRA 240,
246-248; Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139495,
November 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 126, 132-133.
B-4
CIVIL PROCEDURE
21
Spouses Diu v. Ibajan, G.R. No. 132657, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 452; Domingo v.
Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 90, citing Young v. Spouses Sy, G.R.
No. 157745 and 157955, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 151, 166; Santos v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 164439, January 23, 2006, 497 SCRA 487.
22
Buan v. Lopez, G.R. No. 75349, October 13, 1985, 145 SCRA 34.
23
Guaranteed Hotels, Inc. v. Baltao, G.R. No. 164338, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 738, 744;
Young v. Keng Seng, G.R. No. 143464, March 5, 2003, 398 SCRA 629; Philippine Nails and
Wires Corporation v. Malaya Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 143933, February 14, 2003, 397
SCRA 431; Employees Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115858, June
26, 1996, 257 SCRA 717;.
24
RULES OF COURT, Rule 7, Sec. 5; See Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. v. Social Security
Commission, G.R. No. 159323, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 719, and Ao-As v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 128464, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 353.
B-5
CIVIL PROCEDURE
B. Filing of Complaint
1. Manner
25
RULES OF COURT, Rule 13, Sec. 2.
26
Id., Sec. 3.
27
Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 89070,
May 18, 1992, 209 SCRA 55.
28
RULES OF COURT, Rule 13, Sec. 4.
B-6
CIVIL PROCEDURE
a) The rule in this jurisdiction is that when an action is filed in court, the
complaint must be accompanied by the payment of the requisite
docket and filing fees.32 Where the party does not deliberately intend
to defraud the court in payment of docket fees, and manifests its
willingness to abide by the rules by paying additional docket fees when
required by the court, the liberal doctrine enunciated in Sun
Insurance33 and not the strict regulations set in Manchester34 will
apply.35
b) In real actions, the docket and filing fees are based on the value of
the property and the amount of damages claimed, if any, which must
be specified in the body and prayer of the complaint. In computing the
docket fees for cases involving real properties, the courts, instead of
relying on the assessed or estimated value, would now be using the
fair market value of the real properties (as stated in the Tax
29
Id., Sec. 11.
30
Guidelines in the Implementation of Section 1 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended
(A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, April 17, 2007): Sec. 2. Modes of Payment. – The filing fees may be paid
in cash or check, xxx.
31
G.R. No. 125683, March 2, 1999, 304 SCRA 34.
32
Guidelines in the Implementation of Section 1 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended
(A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, April 17, 2007): Sec. 1. Payment of Fees. – Upon the filing of the pleading,
all prescribed fees such as but not limited to filing fees accruing to the Judiciary Development
Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, and other fees accruing to the Legal
Research Fund, Victim Compensation Fund and Mediation Fund, shall be paid in full, provided
that, in petitions for rehabilitation under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Governance,
filing fees in excess of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) may be paid on a staggered
basis, subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof, in accordance with the schedule provided
under the Resolution of the Court in A.M. No. 04-2-04 dated September 19, 2006; Take note also
that where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different from, or
more than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional fees which
shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien (RULES OF COURT, Rule 141,
Sec. 2).
33
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA
274.
34
Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 75919, May 7, 1987, 149
SCRA 562.
35
Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) v. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC-Negros
Occidental, Branch 52, Bacolod City and Campos, G.R. No. 179878, December 24, 2008, 575
SCRA 575.
B-7
CIVIL PROCEDURE
c) If the complaint is filed but the fees are not paid at the time of filing,
the court acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a
reasonable time as the court may grant, barring prescription.
d) Where the fees prescribed for the real action have been paid but
the fees of certain related damages are not, the court, although having
jurisdiction over the real action, may not have acquired jurisdiction over
the accompanying claim for damages.37
g) The same rule also applies to third-party claims and other similar
pleadings.40
While the court acquires jurisdiction over the plaintiff by the latter’s
voluntary submission to said jurisdiction with the filing of the complaint, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the defendant by his voluntary submission to said
jurisdiction, as shown, for instance, by the filing of his Answer to the Complaint
36
Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Dev’t. Corporation v. Formaran III, G.R. No. 175914,
February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 575. In Tacay v. RTC of Tagum Davao del Norte, G.R. Nos.
88075-77, December 20, 1989, 180 SCRA 483, the Supreme Court opined that a real action may
be commenced or prosecuted without an accompanying claim for damages.
37
Original Development and Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94677,
October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 753.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Asuncion, supra note 33.
41
Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, supra note 36.
B-8
CIVIL PROCEDURE
without reservation or the service of summons and a copy of the complaint upon
him.
1. Personal Service
2. Substituted Service
42
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 6.
43
Bello v. Ubo, G.R. No. 30353, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 91.
44
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 7.
45
Montalban v. Maximo, G.R. No. 22997, March 15, 1968, 22 SCRA 1070.
46
Filmerco Commercial Co., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70661, April 9, 1987,
149 SCRA 194.
B-9
CIVIL PROCEDURE
4) the service was made upon some person of suitable age and
discretion residing therein, if effected at defendant’s residence, or
with some competent person in charge thereof, if effected at
defendant’s office or regular place of business, at the time of the
service.47
47
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 7; Note that judgment may be annulled based on lack of
jurisdiction for improper substituted service for failure to show in return impossibility of personal
service within a reasonable time (Sps. Miranda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114243, February
23, 2000, 326 SCRA 278; Jose v. Boyon, G.R. No. 147369, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 216).
48
Administrative Circular No. 59.
49
Venturanza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77760, December 11, 1987, 156 SCRA 305.
50
Keister v. Navarro, G.R. No. 29067, May 31, 1977, 77 SCRA 209; Filmerco Commercial Co.,
Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 46.
51
Cezar v. Ricafort-Bautista, G.R. No. 136415,. October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 322.
B-10
CIVIL PROCEDURE
52
Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA
106.
53
E. B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Benito, G.R. No. 136426, August 4, 1999, 312 SCRA 65.
54
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 12.
55
Litton Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 94980, May 15, 1996, 256 SCRA 696; Signetics
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105141, August 31, 1993, 225 SCRA 737.
B-11
CIVIL PROCEDURE
56
Id.
57
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 14.
58
Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil 921 [1918]; Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil 186 [1939];
Sahagum v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 44.
59
Jose v. Buyon, G.R. No. 147369, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 216; The case for collection of
sum of money and damages filed by the respondent against the petitioner (non-resident and not
found in the Philippines) being an action in personam, then personal service of summons upon
the petitioner within the Philippines is essential for the RTC to validly acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the petitioner (Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No.
172242, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 170).
B-12
CIVIL PROCEDURE
1) Personal service;
2) By publication (and copy of the summons and order of the court
must be sent by registered mail to the last known address);
3) Any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.62
The trial court does not acquire jurisdiction and renders null and void
all subsequent proceedings and issuances in the actions from the order of
default up to and including the judgment by default and the order of
execution.66 However, lack of summons may be waived as when the
defendant fails to make any seasonable objection to the court’s lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.67
A. Preliminary
After the court has acquired jurisdiction over the parties, but before the
defendant files his responsive pleading, the parties may file the following
notice, motions and pleadings:
60
Filmerco Commercial Co., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra note 46.
61
Obaña v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87635, April 27, 1989, 172 SCRA 866.
62
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 17.
63
Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108538, January 22, 1996, 252 SCRA 92.
64
Montalban v. Maximo, G.R. No. 22997, March 15, 1968, 22 SCRA 1070.
65
RULES OF COURT, Rule 14, Sec. 16; Montefalcon v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008,
554 SCRA 513.
66
Toyota Cubao, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126321, October 23, 1997, 281 SCRA 198.
67
Baticano v. Chu, Jr., G.R. No. 58036, March 16, 1987, 148 SCRA 541.
B-13
CIVIL PROCEDURE
1. Plaintiff
2. Defendant
2) where the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same case in a court
of competent jurisdiction;
3) even where the notice of dismissal does not provide that it is with
prejudice but it is premised on the fact of payment by the defendant of
68
RULES OF COURT, Rule 17, Sec. 1.
B-14
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The trial court has no discretion or option to deny the motion, since
dismissal by the plaintiff under Section 1, Rule 17 is guaranteed as a
matter right to the plaintiffs. Even if the motion cites the most ridiculous of
grounds for dismissal, the trial court has no choice but to consider the
complaint as dismissed, since the plaintiff may opt for such dismissal as a
matter of right, regardless of ground.71
2. Amended Complaint
A party may amend his pleading once as matter of right at any time
before a responsive pleading72 is served or, in the case of a reply, at any
time within ten (10) days after it is served.73
3. Supplemental Complaint
Upon motion of a party, the court may, upon reasonable notice and
upon such terms as are just, permit said party to serve a supplemental
pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have
happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.76
69
Serrano v. Cabrera, 93 Phil 774 (1953).
70
RULES OF COURT, Rule 17, Sec. 1; Minute Resolution, Gordon v. Payumo, G.R. No. 134071,
July 7, 1998.
71
O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corp. v. Macamir Realty, G.R. No. 135803, March
28, 2006, 485 SCRA 446.
72
See Andres v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 150869, June 9, 2005, 460 SCRA 68.
73
RULES OF COURT, Rule 10, Sec. 2.
74
Paeste v. Jarique, 94 Phil. 179 [1953]; The right granted to the plaintiff under procedural law to
amend the complaint before an answer has been served is not precluded by the filing of a motion
to dismiss or any other proceeding contesting its sufficiency, otherwise, the right to amend a
pleading under Section 2, Rule 10 will be rendered nugatory and ineffectual, since all that a
defendant has to do to foreclose this remedial right is to challenge the adequacy of the complaint
before he files an answer (Remington Industrial Sales Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
133657, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 499).
75
RULES OF COURT, Rule 10, Sec. 3.
76
Id., Sec. 6.
B-15
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days from
notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading.77 The answer to
the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if
no new or supplemental answer is filed.78
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose
of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as
a witness;
77
Id.
78
Id., Rule 11, Sec. 7.
79
Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 622;
Sales v. Sabino, G.R. No. 133154, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 101.
B-16
CIVIL PROCEDURE
80
The testimony or deposition of a witness given in a former case or proceeding may be given in
evidence against the adverse party where the witness is deceased, out of or cannot with due
diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify (RULES OF
EVIDENCE, Rule 130, Sec. 47 in relation to RULES OF COURT, Rule 115, Sec. 1(f)). The
preconditions set forth must be strictly complied with. The inability to testify does not cover the
case of witnesses who were subpoenaed but did not appear. The inability must proceed from a
grave cause, almost amounting to death, as when the witness is old and has lost the power of
speech (Cariaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143561, June 6, 2001, 358 SCRA 583).
81
Marcelo et al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 385.
82
RULES OF COURT, Rule 29, Sec. 3 (3).
B-17
CIVIL PROCEDURE
At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and
serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter
of the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in
and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact set forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be
delivered with the request unless copies have already been furnished.83
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to file and serve a request for
admission on the adverse party of material and relevant facts which are,
or ought to be within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be
permitted to present evidence on such facts.84 The rule authorizing a
party to call on the other party to ma ke an ad mission implies
the ma king of demands for ad mission of relevant and mater ial
matters of fact and not for ad mis s ion of matters of law,
conclusions, or opinions. 85 Sec. 1 of Rule 26 requires that the request
for admission must be served directly upon the party requested.
Otherwise, that party cannot be deemed to have admitted the
genuineness of any relevant matters of fact set forth therein on account of
failure to answer the request for admission.86
This mode of discovery does not mean that the person who is
required to produce the document or the thing will be deprived of its
possession even temporarily. It is enough that the requesting party be
given the opportunity to inspect or copy or photograph the document or
take a look at the thing.87
83
Id., Rule 26, Sec. 1.
84
Id., Sec. 5.
85
DBP v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153034, September 20, 2005, 470 SCRA 317.
86
Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court Of Appeals, G. R. No. 102404. February 1, 2002, 375 SCRA
543.
87
Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, October 24, 2007, Sec. 13 (c): The court,
justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute
or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection,
copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. The motion may be opposed on the
ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information, in which case the court,
justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
B-18
CIVIL PROCEDURE
88
Diman v. Alumbres, G.R. No. 131466, November 27, 1998, 299 SCRA 459.
89
Lañada v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102390, February 1, 2002, 375 SCRA 543; Nestle Phil.,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102404, February 1, 2002, 375 SCRA 543.
90
Sps. Zepada v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 17217, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 126;
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97654, November 14, 1994, 238
SCRA 88, 93.
91
RULES OF COURT, Rule 9.
92
Gonzalez v. Francisco, 49 Phil. 747 [1926]; Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76366, July
3, 1990, 187 SCRA 153.
93
The Philippine British Co., Inc. v. De los Angeles, G.R. Nos. 33720-21, March 10, 1975, 63
SCRA 50.
B-19
CIVIL PROCEDURE
94
Cavili v. Florendo, G.R. No. 73039, October 9, 1987, 154 SCRA 610; Santos v. Samson, G.R.
No. 46371, December 14, 1981, 110 SCRA 215.
95
Cavili v. Florendo, supra.
96
RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, Sec. 3(a).
97
Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 151098, March 21, 2006, 485 SCRA 108.
98
Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No 83929, June 11, 1992, 209 SCRA 732.
99
Cavili v. Florendo, supra note 94.
B-20
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(a) From notice of the order of default but before judgment, motion
to set aside order of default; and, in a proper case, petition
for certiorari under Rule 65.
100
RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, Sec. 3 (b); Malanyaon v. Suñga, G.R. No. 49463, May 7, 1992, 208
SCRA 436; Circle Financing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77315, April 22, 1991, 196
SCRA 166; Lina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 63397, April 9, 1985, 135 SCRA 637; Akut v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 45472, August 10, 1982, 116 SCRA 213; Omico Mining and Industrial
Corporation v. Vallejos, G.R. No. 38974, March 25, 1975, 63 SCRA 285; Matute v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 26571, January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 768.
101
RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, Sec. 3(e).
102
Continental Cement Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88586, April 27, 1990, 184
SCRA 728; Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75000, February 27,
1987, 148 SCRA 280; Joesteel Container Corporation v. Commonwealth Financing Corporation,
G.R. No. 25778, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 43.
103
RULES OF COURT, Rule 70, Secs. 13 and 19.
B-21
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The Court need not wait for the date set for hearing of the motion.
Upon the filing of the motion, the clerk of court must immediately bring it to
the attention of the court which may either grant or deny it or hold a
hearing therein.105
Within the time for but before filing the answer to the
complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may
be made on any of the following grounds:
104
Naga Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 28173, September 30, 1971, 41
SCRA 105.
105
RULES OF COURT, Rule 12, Sec. 2.
106
Id., Sec. 4.
107
A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Rule 10, Sec. 2 (which allows
amendment by a party of his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive
pleading is filed). As no responsive pleading had been filed, plaintiff could amend the complaint
as a matter of right (Alpine Lending Investors v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 157107, November 25, 2006,
508 SCRA 45).
B-22
CIVIL PROCEDURE
108
De Dios v. Bristol Laboratories (Phil.), Inc., G.R. No. 25530, January 29, 1974, 55 SCRA 349.
109
RULES OF COURT, Rule 15, Sec. 6.
110
Id., Rule 16, Secs. 1(a), (b), and (c).
B-23
CIVIL PROCEDURE
111
Fortune Motors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76431, October 19, 1989, 178 SCRA 564.
112
United Overseas Bank Phils. (formerly Westmont Bank) v. Rosemoore Mining &
Development Corp., G.R. Nos. 159669 & 163521, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 123.
113
RULES OF COURT, Rule 4, Sec. 4 (b); Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 119657, February 7, 1997, 267 SCRA 759; Polytrade v. Blanco, G.R. No. 27033,
October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 187.
114
G.R. No. 106920, December 10, 1993, 228 SCRA 385; Bautista v. Borja, G.R. No. 20600,
October 28, 1966, 18 SCRA 474.
115
Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra. See also Pacific Consultants
International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld, G.R. No. 166920, February 19, 2007, 206 SCRA 40.
116
RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, Sec. 6.
B-24
CIVIL PROCEDURE
i. Meaning
ii. Jurisprudence
117
Id., Rule 9, Sec. 1.
118
Calano v. Cruz, 91 Phil. 247 [1952].
119
1 Moran 174-177 [1979].
120
CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 133.
121
G.R. No. 44888, February 7, 1992, 206 SCRA 40.
122
Leviton Industries v. Salvador, G.R. No. 40163, June 19, 1982, 114 SCRA 420.
123
Bulakhidas v. Navarro, G.R. No. 49695, April 7, 1986, 142 SCRA 4; Antam Consolidated, Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61523, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 288.
124
Investor’s Finance Corporation v. Ebarle, G.R. No. 70640, June 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 60.
B-25
CIVIL PROCEDURE
125
Andresons Groups, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114928, January 21, 1997, 266 SCRA
423; Victronics Computer, Inc. v. Logarta, G.R. No. 104019, January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 517;
Arceo v. Oliveros, No. 38257, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 308.
126
Valencia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111401, October 17, 1996, 263 SCRA 275; Cokaliong
Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Amin, G.R. No. 112233, July 31, 1996, 260 SCRA 122; Suntay v.
Aqueous, G.R. No. 28883, June 3, 1992, 209 SCRA 500; FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical
Foundation v. Trajano, G.R. No. 76273, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 725; Lamin Ents. v. Lagamon,
G.R. No. 57250, October 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 740.
127
United Coconut Planters Bank v. Beluso, G.R. No. 159912, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 567;
Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95223, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 371.
B-26
CIVIL PROCEDURE
b.4. there must be, between the first and second actions,
identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of
action.130
128
Res judicata literally means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
thing or matter settled by judgment.” Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or
decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent
jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit (Republic v. Yu, G.R. No. 157557,
March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 416, 420).
129
Linzag v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122181, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 304.
130
Heirs of Abalos v. Bucal, et al., G.R. No. 156224, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 252, 272;
Casil v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121534, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 204.
B-27
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(d) Jurisprudence
131
Philippine National Bank v. Sia and Ngo, G.R. No. 165836, February 18, 2009; Islamic
Directorate of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117897, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA
454.
132
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110020, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 171.
133
Bachrach Corporation v, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128349, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA
487.
134
Sempio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124326, January 22, 1998, 284 SCRA 580.
B-28
CIVIL PROCEDURE
ART. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years
from the time the right of action accrues:
1. Upon a written contract;
2. Upon an obligation created by law; and
3. Upon a judgment.
ART. 1147. The following actions must be filed within one year:
1. For forcible entry and detainer; and
2. For defamation.
ART. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this
Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the
time the right of action accrues.
ART. 1151. The time for the prescription of actions which have for
their object the enforcement of obligations to pay principal with
135
As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1755 [1980].
B-29
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The period for the action arising from the result of the
accounting runs from the date when said result was recognized by
agreement of the interested parties.
ART. 1154. The period during which the obligee was prevented by
a fortuitous event from enforcing his right is not reckoned against
him.
(a) Jurisprudence
136
Delos Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121468, January 27, 1998, 285 SCRA 705.
137
RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, Sec. 1; Agnar v. Bernad, G.R. No. 81190, May 9, 1988, 161 SCRA
276; Ferrer v. Erieta, G.R. No. 41767, August 23, 1978, 84 SCRA 705.
138
Castillo v. Heirs of Vicente Madrigal, G.R. No. 62650, June 27, 1991, 198 SCRA 556; Ruiz v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 29213, October 21, 1977, 79 SCRA 525.
139
Landayan v. Bacani, G.R. No. 30455, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 117.
B-30
CIVIL PROCEDURE
140
Dulay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108017, April 3, 1995, 243 SCRA 220, cited in Parañaque
Kings Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11538; February 16, 1997, 268 SCRA 727.
141
Merill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97816, July 24, 1992, 211 SCRA 824;
Rava Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96825, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA
144; Del Bros. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87678, June 16, 1992, 210 SCRA 33; D.C. Crystal,
Inc. v. Laya, G.R. No. 53597, February 28, 1989, 170 SCRA 734.
142
Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Garcia, G.R. No. 55935, July 30, 1986, 143 SCRA 178;
Bañez Electric Light Company v. Abra Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 59480, December 8,
1982, 119 SCRA 90; Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 23136, August
26, 1974, 58 SCRA 560; U. Dalandan v. Julio, G.R. No. 19101, February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA
400.
B-31
CIVIL PROCEDURE
143
Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. 24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302.
144
Id.
145
Santiago v. Pioneer Savings and Loan Bank, G.R. No. 77602, January 15, 1988, 157 SCRA
100.
146
Asia Banking Corporation v. Walter E. Olsen and Co., 48 Phil. 529 [1925].
147
Peltan Development, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117029, March 29, 1997, 270 SCRA
82.
B-32
CIVIL PROCEDURE
148
Pineda v. Court of First Instance of Davao, 111 Phil. 643 [1961].
B-33
CIVIL PROCEDURE
13.3. Jurisprudence
After hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the
motion, or order the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason
that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.
149
Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. 55048, May 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 668.
150
Id.
B-34
CIVIL PROCEDURE
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the
reasons therefore.151
Where there are several defendants but only one filed a motion to
dismiss, the denial of the motion to dismiss cannot prejudice the other
defendants, in that they can still move for a preliminary hearing on their
own affirmative defenses and be preliminarily heard thereon.
A. Answer
1. Time to Plead
151
RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, Sec. 3.
152
Id., Sec. 6.
153
Id.
154
Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. v. David, G.R. No. 129928, August 25, 2005, 468
SCRA 63; Gochan v. Gochan, G.R. No. 143089, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 323; Gochan v.
Gochan, G.R. No. 146089, December 13, 2001, 372 SCRA 436.
155
Associated Bank v. Spouses Montano and Tres Cruces Agro-Industrial Corporation, G.R. No.
166383, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 134.
156
RULES OF COURT, Rule 11, Secs. 1 and 5.
B-35
CIVIL PROCEDURE
1.3.2. amended complaint was filed with leave of court (Rule 10,
Sec. 3) – ten (10) days from notice of order admitting the
amended complaint.160
1.5. Reply – within ten (10) days from service of the pleading
responded to.162
157
Id., Rule 14, Sec. 12.
158
Id., Rule 11, Sec. 2.
159
Id., Sec. 3.
160
Id.
161
Id., Sec. 4.
162
Id., Sec. 6.
163
Id., Sec. 7.
B-36
CIVIL PROCEDURE
3.2. Exceptions –
B. Counterclaim
1. Definition
164
Id., Rule 19, Sec. 7.
165
Legaspi-Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60577, October 11, 1983, 125 SCRA 22;
Mangali v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47296, August 21, 1980, 99 SCRA 236; Valdez v.
Ocumen, 106 Phil. 929 [1960]; Alvero v. De La Rosa, 76 Phil. 428 [1946].
166
FJR Garments Industries v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49320, June 29, 1984, 130 SCRA 216.
167
RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, Sec. 6.
B-37
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2. Kinds
168
Id., Sec. 7.
169
Santo Tomas University v. Surla, G.R. No. 129718, August 17, 1998, 294 SCRA 382.
170
RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, Sec. 2.
171
Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No. 26768, October 30, 1970, 35 SCRA 557; Navarro v. Bello, 102 Phil.
1019 [1958]; Lama v. Apacible, 79 Phil. 68 [1947].
172
Feria, Annotated 1997 Rules of Court, 41.
B-38
CIVIL PROCEDURE
4. Jurisprudence
4.2. The dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the
cross-claim which is purely defensive, but not a cross-claim seeking
affirmative relief.175 It does not also carry with it a dismissal of the
counterclaim that has been pleaded by the defendant prior to
service to him of the notice of dismissal,176 or to a dismissal due to
the fault of the plaintiff.177
V. PRE-TRIAL
1. Concept of Pre-Trial
173
RULES OF COURT, Rule 8, Sec. 8.
174
Id., Rule 9, Sec. 2.
175
Torres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 25889, January 12, 1973, 49 SCRA 67.
176
RULES OF COURT, Rule 17, Sec. 2.
177
Id., Sec. 3.
178
Anaya v. Palaroan, G.R. No. 27930, November 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 97.
179
Pascual v. Bautista, G.R. No. 21644, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 301.
B-39
CIVIL PROCEDURE
documentary evidence, the nature and purpose of each of them and the
number of trial dates that each will need to put on his case.
2. Purpose of Pre-Trial
180
Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 29776, November 29, 1968, 26
SCRA 332.
181
Circular No. 1-89, Administrative Circular No. 4, September 4, 1988.
182
Martinez v. de la Merced, G.R. No. 82309, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 182; Note: Rule 18,
Sec. 4, imposes the duty on litigating parties and their respective counsel to appear during pre-
trial. The provision also provides for the instances where the non-appearance of a party may be
excused. Nothing, however, in Section 4 provides for a sanction should the parties or their
respective counsel be absent during pre-trial. Instead, the penalty is provided for in Section 5.
Notably, what Section 5 penalizes is the failure to appear of either the plaintiff or the defendant,
and not their respective counsel (Paredes v. Verano, G.R. No. 164375, October 12, 2006, 504
SCRA 262).
B-40
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(i) such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the
action.183
B. Court-Annexed Mediation184
C. Pre-Trial Order185
1. Exceptions
1.3. Issues not included in the pre-trial order but were tried expressly
or impliedly by the parties.190
183
RULES OF COURT, Rule 18, Sec. 2.
184
See A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, 0ctober 16, 2001. For an extended discussion, see the
ADR section of this BenchBook.
185
See Annex B.
186
Macaraeg v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 48008, January 20, 1989, 169 SCRA 259, citing
Lucenta v. Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, G.R. No. 39789, June 20, 1988, 162 SCRA 197.
187
Son v. Son, G.R. No. 73077, December 29, 1996, 251 SCRA 556.
188
Sese v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66186, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 585.
189
Velasco v. Apostol, G.R. No. 44588, May 9, 1989, 173 SCRA 228 cited in Son v. Son, supra
note 187.
190
Son v. Son, supra note 187.
B-41
CIVIL PROCEDURE
VI. TRIAL
1. Unless the docket of the court requires otherwise, not more than
four (4) cases shall be scheduled for trial daily
5. The judge shall conduct trial with utmost dispatch, with judicious
exercise of the court’s power to control trial proceedings to avoid
delay.
6. The judge must take notes of the material and relevant testimonies
of witnesses to facilitate his decision-making.
7. The trial shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from initial
hearing. Appropriate disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on the
judge and the lawyers for failure to comply with the requirement
due to causes attributable to them.
9. All trial judges must strictly comply with Circular No. 38-98, entitled
“Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 8493” (“An Act to
Ensure a Speedy Trial of All Cases Before the Sandiganbayan,
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
B-42
CIVIL PROCEDURE
11. In criminal cases, the judge will do well to announce in open court
at the termination of the trial the date of the promulgation of the
decision, which should be set within 90 days from the submission of
the case for decision.
B. Jurisprudence
xxxx
191
Yu v. Mapayo, G.R. No. 29742, March 29, 1972, 44 SCRA 163.
B-43
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Under Rule 30, Sec. 5(g), upon admission of the evidence, the
case shall be deemed submitted for decision, unless the court directs the
parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further
pleadings.
1) if it is newly discovered;
2) omitted through mistake or inadvertence; or
3) when the purpose is to correct evidence previously offered.192
192
Lopez v. Liboro, 81 Phil. 429 (1948).
B-44
CIVIL PROCEDURE
193
RULES OF COURT, Rule 36, Sec. 1.
194
Id.; Meneses v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 156304, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA
90.
195
Sps. Hontiveros v. Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Br. 25, G.R. No. 125465, June 29, 1999, 309
SCRA 340.
B-45
CIVIL PROCEDURE
196
RULES OF COURT, Rule 35, Sec. 3: xxx (Summary) judgment sought shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on filed, show that,
except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; Rivera v. Solidbank, G.R. No.
163269, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 512, 535, cited in Bitanga v. Pyramid Construction
Engineering Corporation, G.R. No. 173526, August 28, 2008, 565 SCRA 544.
197
Ontimare v. Elep, G.R. No. 159224, January 20, 2006, 479 SCRA 257; The trial court cannot
motu proprio decide that summary judgment on an action is in order. Under the applicable
provisions of Rule 35, the defending party or the claimant, as the case may be, must invoke the
rule on summary judgment by filing a motion (Pineda v. Heirs of Guevara, G.R. No. 143188,
February 14, 2007, 515 SCRA 627).
198
RULES OF COURT, Rule 35, Sec. 1.
199
Id.
200
Id., Sec. 2.
201
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., and or Chemical Bank v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 136804,
February 19, 2003, 397 SCRA 709.
202
Id.
203
Evadel Realty and Development Corporation v. Soriano, G.R. No. 144291, April 20, 2001, 357
SCRA 395, 401, cited in Ontimare, Jr. v. Sps. Elep., supra note 197.
B-46
CIVIL PROCEDURE
204
Estrada v. Consolacion, G.R. No. 40948, June 29, 1976, 71 SCRA 523; In summary
judgments, the trial court can determine a genuine issue on the basis of the pleadings,
admissions, documents, affidavits or counter affidavits submitted by the parties. When the facts
as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or question
as to any fact, and summary judgment is called for (Rivera v. Solidbank, G.R. No. 163269, April
19, 2006, 487 SCRA 512, 535, cited in Bitanga v. Pyramid Construction Engineering Corp., G.R.
No. 173526, August 28, 2008, 563 SCRA 544).
205
Jugador v. de Vera, 94 Phil. 704 [1954].
206
Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Luzon Surety Co., Inc., 95 Phil. 924 [1954].
207
Id.
208
Fletcher v. Krise, 4 Fed. Rules Service, 765, March 3, 1941.
209
Diman v. Alumbres, G.R. No. 131466, November 27, 1998, 299 SCRA 459.
210
RULES OF COURT, Rule 35, Sec. 4.
211
Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49024, August 30, 1983, 124 SCRA 297.
212
Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124049, June 30, 1999, 309 SCRA 539.
B-47
CIVIL PROCEDURE
213
RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, Sec. 3.
214
Id., Rule 33, Sec. 1.
215
Nepomuceno v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 60601, December 29, 1983, 126 SCRA
472.
216
CIVIL CODE, Art. 9.
B-48
CIVIL PROCEDURE
b. The court is not required to state in its decision all the facts found in the
records. It is enough that the court states the facts and law on which its
decision is based.217
e. It is not sufficient that the court or trial judge take into account the facts
brought out in an action, the circumstances of each question raised, and
the nature and conditions of the proofs furnished by the parties. He must
also set out in his decision the fact alleged by the contending parties which
he finds to have been proven, the conclusions deduced therefrom and the
opinion he has formed on the issues raised. Only then can he intelligently
set forth the legal grounds and considerations proper in his opinion for the
due determination of the case.219
217
People v. Derpo, G.R. Nos. 41040 and 43908-10, December 14, 1988, 168 SCRA 447.
218
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 70008, April 26, 1990, 184 SCRA 597.
219
People v. Escober, G.R. No. 69564, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 541.
220
National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 50877, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA
777.
221
Leo v. To-Chip, G.R. No. 76597, February 26, 1988, 158 SCRA 243.
222
People v. Escalante, G.R. No. 37147, August 22, 1984, 131 SCRA 237. Please see
Resolution Providing Guidelines in the Inventory and Adjudication of Cases Assigned to Judges
Who Are Promoted or Transferred to Other Branches in the Same Court Level of the Judicial
Hierarchy (A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC, which took effect on June 8, 2004).
B-49
CIVIL PROCEDURE
h. The 90-day period to decide a case shall be reckoned from the date
said case is submitted for decision despite the non-availability of the
stenographic notes.223 In the same manner, the judge should decide the
case even if the parties failed to submit memoranda within the given
periods.224
i. Reason for Award of Attorney’s Fees Must be Stated in the Body of the
Decision
Attorney’s Fees
223
Lawan v. Moleta, A.M. No. 1696-MJ, June 19, 1979, 90 SCRA 579; The time period provided
for courts to decide cases is found in the 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 15: (1) All cases or
matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-
four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all lower
courts; (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon filing of the
last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself; (3) Upon
the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice
or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the
case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why the decision or
resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
224
Salvador v. Salamanca, A.M. No. R-177-MTJ, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 276.
225
Mirasol v. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 32552, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 337.
B-50
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(8) xxx
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
4. Memorandum Decision
5. Special Judgment
226
CIVIL CODE, Art. 2208.
227
Yao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132428, October 24, 2000, 344 SCRA 202, citing Natural
Gas Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114323, September 28, 1999, 315 SCRA 296;
Francisco v. Permskul, G.R. No. 81006, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 324; Romero v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 59606, January 8, 1987, 147 SCRA 183.
228
Lacurom v. Tienzo, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2075, April 18, 2008, 535 SCRA 252, citing Francisco v.
Permskul, G.R. No. 81006, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 324, 335-336.
229
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. xxx; Sec.
10: Execution of judgments for specific acts. xxx
B-51
CIVIL PROCEDURE
or by law to obey the same, and such party or person may be punished for
contempt if he disobeys such judgment.230
A. Kinds of Remedies
1. Before Finality
2. After Finality
1. Common Rules
230
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39; In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin
Vergara v. Gedorio, Jr., G.R. No. 154037, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 520.
231
Cledera v. Sarmiento, G.R. Nos. 32450-51, June 10, 1971, 39 SCRA 552; Firme v. Reyes,
G.R. No. 35858, August 21, 1979, 92 SCRA 713.
232
Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson, G.R. No. 70895, May 30, 1986, 142 SCRA 208.
B-52
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2.1. Grounds:
i. damages awarded are excessive;
ii. evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order; and
iii. decision or final order is contrary to law.235
3.1. Grounds
233
RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 3; In ordinary appeal under Rules 40 and 41, a party is now
given a fresh period of 15 days from denial of motion for reconsideration or new trial within
which to file notice of appeal (Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14,
2005, 469 SCRA 633).
234
RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 4.
235
Id., Rule 37, Sec. 1.
236
Id., Sec. 2.
237
Id., Sec. 5.
B-53
CIVIL PROCEDURE
3.2. Jurisprudence
3.4. Mistake generally refers to mistakes of fact but may also include
mistakes of law where, in good faith, the defendant was misled in the
case. Thus, a mistake as to the scope and extent of the coverage of
an ordinance,242 or a mistake as to the effect of a compromise
agreement upon the need for answering a complaint,243 although
actually constituting mistakes of law, have been considered sufficient
to warrant a new trial.
238
Id., Rule 37, Sec. 2.
239
Magno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 28486, September 10, 1981, 107 SCRA 819.
240
Palanca v. American Food Manufacturing Co., Inc., G.R. No. 22822, August 30, 1968, 24
SCRA 819.
241
Tarca v. Vda. De Carretero, 99 Phil. 419 [1956]; Conde v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 70443, September 15, 1986, 144 SCRA 144.
242
City of Iloilo v. Pinzon, 97 Phil. 968 [Unreported] [1955].
243
Salazar v. Salazar, 8 Phil. 183 [1907].
244
Ayllon v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 79244, December 10, 1987, 156 SCRA 257; Gaba v. Castro, G.R.
No. 56171, January 1, 1983, 120 SCRA 505.
B-54
CIVIL PROCEDURE
that the party was prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his
case.245
245
People v. Manzanilla, 43 Phil. 167 [1922]; cf. Republic v. Arro, G.R. No. 48241, June 11, 1987,
150 SCRA 625.
246
National Shipyards and Steel Corporation v. Asuncion, 103 Phil. 67 [1958].
247
Arce v. Arce, 106 Phil. 630 [1959].
248
Ferrer v. Yap Sepeng, G.R. No. 39373, September 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 149.
249
Malipol v.Tan, G.R. No. 27730, January 2, 1974, 55 SCRA 202; Ferrer v. Yap Sepeng, supra.
250
Ganaban v. Bayle, G.R. No. 28804, November 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 365.
251
Republic v. De Leon, 101 Phil. 773 [1957].
252
Gonzalez v. Francisco, supra note 92.
253
Valerio v. Tan, 99 Phil. 419 [1956].
254
Mendoza v. Bautista, G.R. No. 45885, April 8, 1983, 121 SCRA 760.
B-55
CIVIL PROCEDURE
C. Appeal
This subject shall be limited to appeal from first level courts to the
Regional Trial Court256 and appeals from the Regional Trial Court.257 Trial
courts are not concerned with the other kinds and modes of appeal.
1. General Principles
1.3. A party cannot change the theory on appeal. Only issues pleaded
in the lower court and properly raised may be resolved by the
appellate court.260 However, issues which are inferred from or
necessarily connected with the issue properly raised and pleaded
may be resolved by the appellate court.261
255
RULES OF COURT, Rule 37, Sec. 6.
256
Id., Rule 40.
257
Id., Rules 41 and 42.
258
Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99357, January 27, 1992, 205 SCRA 537; Borne v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57204, March 14, 1988, 158 SCRA 560; Ponciano v. Laguna Lake
Development Authority, G.R. No. 174536, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 207; Accessories
Specialist Inc. v. Alabanza, G.R. No. 168985, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 550.
259
People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Jeremias, G.R. No. 43252, September 30,
1976, 73 SCRA 239.
260
Medina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98334, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 887.
261
Espina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102128, November 6, 1992, 215 SCRA 484.
B-56
CIVIL PROCEDURE
3) An interlocutory order;
6) An order of execution;
262
RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 1.
263
Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60036, January 27, 1987, 147 SCRA 334;
Caliwan v. Ocampo and Pasilona, G.R. No. 183270, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 500, citing
Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson, G.R. No. 150798, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA
612, 628; Repol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161418, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 321, 327-328.
B-57
CIVIL PROCEDURE
1. ordinary appeal;269
2. petition for review;270 and
3. appeal by certiorari (petition for review on certiorari).271
E. Jurisprudence
1) Decision of the First Level Courts or the Regional Trial Court where
execution pending appeal has been granted by the court of origin or in a
264
De La Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. 41053, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 556, cited in Republic v.
Tacloban City Ice Plant, Inc., G.R. No. 106413, July 5, l996, 258 SCRA 145.
265
De La Cruz v. Paras, supra; Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. (INPORT) v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 71771-73, March 31, 1989, 171 SCRA 579.
266
Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260, December 22, 1989, 180 SCRA 576.
267
Miranda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80030, October 26 1989, 178 SCRA 702.
268
RULES OF COURT, Rule 109, Sec. 1.
269
Id., Rules 40 and 41.
270
Id., Rules 42 and 43.
271
Id., Rule 45.
B-58
CIVIL PROCEDURE
proper case by the appellate court upon good reasons to be stated in the
order; 272
3. Jurisdiction
If the case is tried on the merits by the Municipal Trial Court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC, on appeal, may no longer
dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof. Moreover, the RTC
shall no longer try the case on the merits, but shall decide the case on the
basis of the evidence presented in the lower court, without prejudice to the
admission of the amended pleadings and additional evidence in the
interest of justice.278
272
Id., Rule 39, Sec. 2.
273
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Sec. 21.
274
Additional exception: when the law directs otherwise (Lapid v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
142261, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA 738).
275
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 4.
276
Id., Rule 70, Sec. 19.
277
Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74833. January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 93.
278
Encarnacion v. Amigo, G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA 172; Provost v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160406, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 675.
B-59
CIVIL PROCEDURE
4. Notice of Appeal
5. Record on Appeal
6. Perfection of Appeal
279
Serrano v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, November 10, 2006, 506 SCRA 712.
280
See the ADR Section in this BenchBook
281
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco, G.R. No. 109645, August 15, 1997, 277 SCRA
342.
282
RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 2.
B-60
CIVIL PROCEDURE
filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other
parties.283
a. Issue orders:
1. for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties
which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal;
2. approving compromises;
3. permitting appeals of indigent parties;
4. for execution of judgment pending appeal in accordance with
Rule 39, Sec. 2; and
5. allowing withdrawal of appeal.284
283
Id., Sec. 9.
284
Id.
285
Id., Sec. 13.
286
Government Service Insurance System v. Gines, G.R. No. 85273, March 9, 1993, 219 SCRA
724.
287
De Castro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 36021, February 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 288.
288
Velasco v. Ortiz, G.R. No. 51973, April 16, 1990, 184 SCRA 303.
289
Antonio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77656, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 592.
B-61
CIVIL PROCEDURE
2. Kinds of Execution
2.1. Discretionary
3.1. Jurisprudence
290
Pelejo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60800, August 31 1982, 116 SCRA 406.
291
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 2.
292
Id.
293
The City of Butuan v. Ortiz, 113 Phil. 636 [1961].
294
Lipana v. Development Bank of Rizal, G.R. No. 73884, September 24, 1987, 154 SCRA 257.
B-62
CIVIL PROCEDURE
3.1.6. Where the judgment has become dormant, the five (5) year
period under Rule 39, Sec. 6 having expired without the
judgment having been revived;299 and
295
Premiere Development Bank v. Flores, G.R. No. 175339, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 66.
296
Vda. De Albar v. De Carandan, 116 Phil. 516 [1961]; Heirs of Guminpin v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 34220, February 21, 1983, 120 SCRA 687; Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 68374, June 18, 1985, 137 SCRA 7.
297
Fua Cam Lu v. Yap Fauco, 74 Phil. 287 [1943]; Zapanta v. De Rotaeche, 21 Phil. 154 [1912];
Salvante v. Cruz, 88 Phil. 236 [1951].
298
RULES OF COURT, Rule 38, Sec. 5.
299
Cunanan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 25511, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 263.
300
Del Rosario v. Villegas, 49 Phil. 634[1926]; Ignacio v. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605 [1946].
301
Cu Unjieng E Hijos v. Mabalacat Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 380 [1940].
302
Sandico, Sr. v. Piguing, G.R. No. 26115, November 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 322; Cobb-Perez v.
Lantin, G.R. No. 22320, May 22, 1968, 23 SCRA 637.
B-63
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Must be filed within five (5) years from the date of judgment
303
entry.
6. Jurisprudence on Execution
303
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 6.
304
Id.
305
Yau v. Silverio, G.R. No. 158848, February 4, 2008, citing Camacho v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 118339, March 19, 1998, 287 SCRA 611, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals and Laureano
Bros., Co., Inc., G.R. No. 91885, August 7, 1996, 260 SCRA 344.
306
St. Dominic Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70623, June 30, 1987, 151
SCRA 577.
307
Cabresos v. Tiro, G.R. No. 46843, October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 400.
308
Lising v. Plan, G.R. No. 50107, November 14, 1984, 133 SCRA 194.
B-64
CIVIL PROCEDURE
309
City of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100626, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 362;
Munez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 46010, July 23, 1987, 152 SCRA 197.
310
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 1; Soco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116013, October 21,
1996, 263 SCRA 449.
311
JP Latex Technology, Inc. v. Balloons Granger Balloons, Inc., G.R. No. 177121, March 16,
2009, 581 SCRA 553.
312
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 661.
313
The last paragraph of the dispositive portion of said decision states: “(12) The heads of
petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group,
DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of ‘continuing mandamus,’
shall, from finality of this Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the
activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.”
314
Evangelista v. La Proveedora, Inc., G.R. No. 32824, March 31, 1971, 38 SCRA 379.
B-65
CIVIL PROCEDURE
6.5.6. The sheriff and the issuing party should carry out the
demolition of the improvement of the defeated party on the
premises in dispute in a manner consistent with justice and good
faith.319
6.5.7. Where the premises were padlocked and no one was therein
at the time execution was carried into effect, there was no need for
the sheriffs and the plaintiff to secure a “break-open” order
inasmuch as the character of the writ in their hands authorized
them to break open the said premises if they could not otherwise
execute its command.320
6.5.8. The timing of the filing of the third party claim is important
because the timing determines the remedies that a third party is
allowed to file. A third party claimant under Rule 39, Sec. 16
(Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments) of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure may vindicate his claim to the property in a
separate action, because intervention is no longer allowed as
judgment has already been rendered.321
315
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 14; Rom v. Cobadora, G.R. No. L-24764, July 17, 1969, 28
SCRA 758.
316
Fuentes v. Leviste, G.R. No. 47363, October 28, 1982, 117 SCRA 958.
317
Lorenzana v. Cayetano, G.R. No. 37051, August 31, 1977, 78 SCRA 485.
318
Cua v. Lecaros, G.R. No. 71909, May 24, 1988, 161 SCRA 480; David v. Ejercito, G.R. No.
41334, June 18, 1976, 71 SCRA 484.
319
Albeitz Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 32570, February 28, 1977, 75 SCRA
310.
320
Arcadio v. Ylagan, A. C. No. 2734, July 30, 1986, 43 SCRA 168.
321
Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Yllas Lending Corporation, G.R. No. 158997,
October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 454.
B-66
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Note that notice to the owner who is not the occupant does not
constitute compliance with the statute.326
322
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 9.
323
Valenzuela v. De Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 18083-84, May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 212.
324
Guevara v. Ramos, G.R. No. 24358, March 31, 1971, 38 SCRA 194.
325
Delta Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78012, November 29, 1988, 168
SCRA 206.
326
Philippine Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. Zabal, G.R. No. 21556, October 31, 1967, 21
SCRA 682.
327
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 9.
B-67
CIVIL PROCEDURE
328
Id., Sec. 12.
329
Top Rate International Services, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 674996, July 7,
1986, 142 SCRA 467.
330
De Leon v. Salvador, G.R. No. 30871, December 28, 1970, 35 SCRA 567.
331
Ong v. Tating, G.R. No. 61042, April 15, 1987, 149 SCRA 265.
332
China Banking Corporation v. Ortega, G.R. No. 34964, January 31, 1973, 49 SCRA 355.
333
Philippine National Bank v. Pabalan, G.R. No. 33112, June 15, 1978, 83 SCRA 595.
B-68
CIVIL PROCEDURE
8. Rules on Redemption
334
City of Naga v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 174042, July 9, 2008, 557 SCRA 528, citing City of
Caloocan v. Allarde, G.R. No. 107271, September 10, 2003, 410 SCRA 432, 439.
335
In cases involving redemption, the law protects the original owner. It is the policy of the law to
aid rather than to defeat the owner’s right. Therefore, “redemption should be looked upon with
favor and where no injury will follow, a liberal construction will be given to our redemption laws,
specifically on the exercise of the right to redeem.” In Doronilla v. Vasquez (72 Phil. 572 [1941]),
this Court allowed the redemption in certain cases even after the lapse of the one (1)- year period
in order to promote justice (Iligan Bay Manufacturing Corp., et al. v. Dy, G.R. Nos. 140836 &
140907, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 55).
336
Magno v. Viola, 61 Phil. 80 [1934]; Palicte v. Ramolete, G.R. No. 55076, September 21, 1987,
154 SCRA 132.
337
RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 27 (b)
338
As provided in Presidential Decree No. 464, Sec. 78, the redemption price should consist of:
(1) the total amount of taxes and penalties due up to the date of redemption, (2) the costs of sale,
and (3) the interest at the rate of twenty per centum (20%) on the purchase price (Iligan Bay
Manufacturing Corp., et al. v. Dy, G.R. Nos. 140836 & 140907, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 55).
B-69
CIVIL PROCEDURE
purchase was made with interest. Note that the foregoing does
not apply if the one who redeems is the judgment debtor, unless
he redeems from a redemptioner, in which case, he must make
the same payments as redemptioner.339
9.1. After the deed of sale has been executed, the vendee therein is
entitled to a writ of possession but the same shall issue only where it is
the judgment debtor or his successors-in-interest who are in
possession of the premises. Where the land is occupied by a third
party, the court should order a hearing to determine the nature of his
adverse possession.340 The writ shall issue where the period of
redemption has expired.
339
2 Moran 329 [1979].
340
Guevara v. Ramos, G.R. No. 24358, March 31, 1971, 38 SCRA 194; Unchuan v. Court of
Appeals (Fifth Division), G.R. No. 78775, May 31, 1988, 161 SCRA 710.
341
Gatchalian v. Arlegui, G.R. No. 35615, February 17, 1977, 75 SCRA 234; There are four
instances when a writ of possession may be issued: 1) in a land registration proceeding, which is
a proceeding in rem (Act No. 496, Sec. 17; Estipona v. Navarro, G.R. No. 41825, Jan. 30, 1976,
69 SCRA 285, 291); 2) in an extra-judicial foreclosure of a realty mortgage (Act No. 3135, Sec.
7); 3) in a judicial foreclosure of mortgage, a quasi in rem proceeding, provided that the
mortgagor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person, not a party to the
foreclosure suit, had intervened (Rivera v. Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and Rupac, 61
Phil. 201 [1935]; Ramos v. Manalac and Lopez, 89 Phil. 270, 275, [1951]; and 4) in execution
sales (RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 35, last paragraph) [Cardinal Building Owners Association,
Inc. v. Asset Recovery and Management Corp., G.R. No. 149696, July 14, 2006, 495 SCRA 103,
citing Mabale v. Apalisok, G.R. No. 46942, February 6, 1979, 88 SCRA 234, 247-248, reiterated
in Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465
SCRA 287].
342
Olego v. Rebuena, G.R. No. 39350, October 29, 1975, 67 SCRA 446.
B-70
CIVIL PROCEDURE
343
Mallari v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 157660, August 29, 2008, 563
SCRA 664.
344
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sps. Tarampi, G.R. No. 174988, December 10, 2008, 573
SCRA 537, citing Sueno v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174711, September 17, 2008,
565 SCRA 611.
345
Roxas v. Buan, G.R. No. 53798, November 8, 1988, 167 SCRA 43.
B-71