CIVIL PROCEDURE

Course Outline

1. Introduction

1.1. Batas Pambansa 129 as amended

1.2. Courts and their jurisdiction

 La Naval Drug Corp v CA 236 S 78
 Atwel v Concepcion Progressive Asso Inc GR 169370 April 14, 2008
 Figueroa v People GR 147406 July 14, 2008

1.3. How jurisdiction is obtained and exercised:

 over persons
 over subject matter
 over res

1.4. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc v Seludo Jr 671 S 78

2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions

2.1. Must be based on a cause of action

 What is cause of action
 Belle Corporation v De Leon-Banks 681 S 351
 No splitting of cause of action
 Read: City of Bacolod v San Miguel, 29 S 819
 Jalandoni v Martir-Guanzon, 102 P 859
 Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
 Test of single cause of action
 Read: Joseph v Bautista, 170 S 540

2.2. Parties to civil actions

 Who are parties in interest?
o Ang vs Severino Paculdo et al and Pedrito Azarcon, represented by their
attorney-in-fact Galileo Torralba GR No. 208928, July 8, 2015
  Competency of parties
 Indispensable and necessary parties
o PNB v Heirs of Estanislao Militar etal 467 S 377
o Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc 665 S 367
 Joinder and misjoinder of parties
 Death of party
 consequence of death of party
o Sarsaba vs Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410
o Gonzales vs Pagcor 429 SCRA 533, 540
 what counsel should do on death of party

2.3. Venue of actions

 Real and personal actions
 Read: United Overseas Bank Phils. V Rosemoore Mining & Development
Corp. 518 S 123 (2007)
 Actions against non-residents
 Agreement on venue

2.4. Commencement of actions

 How and when deemed commenced
 Read: Magaspi v Ramolete, 115 S 193
 Manchester Dev Corp v CA, 149 S 562
 Sun Insurance v Asuncion, 170 S 274
 Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso Jr versus CA, GR No. 116121, July 18,
2011
 When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case?
 Effect of underpayment of docket fees
 Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within
reglementary period
…but in several cases, both CA and SC have caused the dismissal of cases for
non-payment of docket fees.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts

3.1. Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts

3.2. Pleadings in general

 Kinds of pleadings

2
 Formal requirements of pleadings
 Parts of a pleading
 Verification when required
 Formal, not jurisdictional
 Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)
 Verification by Counsel
 In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Schwani Inc. 575 S 535 (2008)
 Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory pleadings
 Definition of Forum Shopping
 Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Compnay Inc. et.al v
Valdez GR No. 150107 28Jan2008
 Negros Slashers v Teng 666 S 629
 Counsel cannot sign certification; exception
 Digital Microwave Corp. v CA GR 128550 16Mar2000
 Guy v Court of Appeals GR 163707, September 15, 2006
 Sy Chin v Court of Appeals GR 136233, November 23,
2000
 Co-owner or Co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or co-parties
 Cavile v Heirs of Clarita Cavile 400 S 255 (2003)
 Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification against
non-forum shopping requirement
 Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. v Piglas Kamao 561 S
569 (2008)
 Altres et al v Empleo et al GR 180986 Dec 10, 2008
 Median Container Corp. v Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Co. 561 S 622 (2008)
 Substantial requirements of pleadings
 Sufficiency of allegations
 Ultimate facts only
 Remitere v Yulo 16 S 251
 Philippine Stock Exchange v Manila Banking Corp. 559 S
352 (2008)
 Tests of sufficiency of complaint:
 Can judgment be rendered if admitted?
 Always reckon against grounds for dismissal
 Is bill of particulars applicable?
 Read Philippine Bank of Communications v Trazo 500 S
242 (2006)
 Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading
 Not susceptible to summary judgment

3
  Does not amount to confession of judgment
 MUST tender an issue
 Must specifically deny “material allegations” lest they
be deemed admitted
o Gaza et al vs Lim GR 126863 Jan 16, 2003
 Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either in
motion to dismiss or answer, else waived
 Alternative causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even if
inconsistent with each other
 Purpose of rule is to allow for complete adjudication of
any controversy

 Counterclaims
 Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims
 Test to determine nature of counterclaim
 Read: Namarco v Federation of United Namarco
Distributors Inc., 49 S 238
 Bungcayao Sr v Fort Ilocandia 618 S 381
 Peoples Aircargo v Phillipine Airlines etal GR 226168,
January 30, 2019
 Calibre Traders Inc v Bayer Philippines 633 S 34

3.3. Effect of failure to plead

 Order of default
 by motion only, court cannot motu proprio declare party in default
 Consequences of order of default
 judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for
 need for presentation of evidence
 Rationale for order of default

3.4. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings

 Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed
 No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of action set
out in original pleading
 Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion for summary
judgment or even motion for judgment on the pleadings which are not
considered “responsive pleading”
 Rule when some but not all defendants filed responsive pleading

4
  When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to therule
that the cause of action is not substantially changed or the theory altered
 Planters Development Bank v LZK Holdings & Development Co. 456
S 366
 Young v Sy 503 S 151 (2006)
 PPA v WG&A GR 158401 January 28, 2008
 Amendment improper where cause of action not existing at filing of complaint
o Central Bank Board of Liquidators v Banco Filipino
GR 173399, Feb 21, 2017
 Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented during trial is
allowed:
 when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the consent of the
parties
 when, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will befall the
objecting party
 Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right
 Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989)
 Quirao v Quirao GR 148120, October 24, 2003
 Effect of amended pleadings
 supersedes original pleading
 as a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need to be
offered in evidence.
 Read Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94
 Dionisio v Linsangan GR 178159 March 2, 2011

3.5. Responsive pleadings

 What is responsive pleading
 Answer – Judicial admissions binding on party
 Read Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007)
 Answer – Judicial admissions NOT binding on party
 Read Gardner v CA 131 S 585
 When to file?
o San Pedro Cineplex v Heirs of Enano GR 190754 November 17, 2010
 Bill of particulars, motion to dismiss interrupt period to file responsive pleading
 Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be set up in responsive pleading.
However, it may be set up anytime thereafter (but before judgment) if omitted
through oversight, inadvertence or excusable negligence
 Remedies of party declared in default
o Otero v Tan 678 S 583

5
3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers
 Service on counsel is mandatory unless otherwise ordered by court
 Improper service is ineffectual and does not bind party
 Read: Cabili v Badelles, 6 S 190
 Service of pleadings and court papers (other than judgments, final orders and
resolutions) may be done by substituted service if personal service and service by
mail not successful
 Service of judgments, final orders and resolutions must be personal or by registered
mail only (or by publication where summons is served by publication)
 Service must be on counsel as service on party not permitted
 Where final order or judgment not served on party or lawyer, said judgment
cannot become final or executory.

3.7. Summons
 Rules on service is strictly construed, hence:
 For actions in personam
 against residents, service must be personal first then substituted if
unsuccessful or publication if whereabouts unknown or temporarily
outside the country
 against non-residents, only personal service within the state can
confer jurisdiction over the defendant
 For actions in rem or quasi in rem
 against residents, same as above
 against non-residents, personal service outside the country, with
leave of court, or publication with leave of court
 For actions against domestic juridical persons, service only on those
enumerated in the statute is allowed
 For actions against foreign juridical entity, service must be on resident
agent, government regulator, or any of officers, agents within the country

 Venturanza v CA 156 S 305

 Samartino v Raon 383 S 664
 Valmonte v CA 252 S 92
 Asiavest v CA 296 S 539
 Philam Gen vs Breva 442 S 217
 BPI v Santiago 519 S 389
 San Pedro v Willy Ong and Normita Caballes GR 177598 October 17,
2008
 Santos v PNOC Exploration GR 170943 September 23, 2008
 Kawasaki Port Services vs Amores GR 58340 July 16, 1991

6
  Sansio Phils v Mogol GR 177007, July 14, 2009
 Guiguinto Credit v Torres GR 170926, September 15, 2006
 Potenciano v Barnes GR 159421, August 20, 2008

3.8. Dismissal of action (Rule 16)

 Grounds
 lack of jurisdiction over person
 Read Amigo v CA, 253 S 382

 lack of jurisdiction over subject matter

 Read La Naval v CA, 236 S 78
 Ilocos Sur Electric v NLRC 241 S 36
 Andaya v Abadia 228 S 705
 Republic v Bantigue Point Development Corp 668 S 158
 pendentia litis
 Read Andersons Group v CA. 266 S 423
 Ramos v Peralta, 203 S 412
 Yap v Chua 672 S 411
 res judicata
 Read Vda de Cruzo v Cariaga, 174 S 330
 Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Chavez 618 S 559
 no cause of action
 Read San Lorenzo v CA, 288 S 115
 Calalang v IAC, 194 S 514
 Perpetual v Fajardo, 233 S 720
 City of Cebu v CA, 258 S 175
 Remedy in case of granting/denial of motion to dismiss
 Order denying motion to dismiss is interlocutory, hence proper remedy is
to appeal after a decision has been rendered
 Read: Indiana Aerospace University v Commission On Higher
Education, 356 S 367
 Bangko Silangan v CA, 360 S 322
 Yutingco v CA, 386 S 85
 Order granting motion to dismiss disposes of the case hence, appeal under
Rule 41 is applicable.

3.9. Dismissal of Action (Rule 17)

Pinga v Heirs of Santiago GR 170354 June 30, 2006
Filinvest v CA GR 142439 December 6, 2006

7
 Heirs of Gaudiane v CA GR 119879 March 11, 2004
Cruz v CA GR 164797 February 13, 2006
Dael v Sps Beltran GR 156470 April 30, 2008
Mendoza v Paule GR 175885 February 31, 2009
Benedicto v Lacson GR 142508 May 5, 2010

3.10. Pre-trial
 Definition
 Anson Trade Center v Pacific Banking, GR No. 179999 17 Mar 2009
 Interlining Corp. v Philippine Trust Co. 428 S 583 (2002)
 Setting for Pre-Trial
 Espiritu v Lazaro, GR. No.181020 20 Nov 2009
 Polanco v Cruz, GR. No. 182426 13 Feb 2009
 A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
 Failure to have Pre-trial
 Madrid v Spouses Mapoy, GR. 150887 14 Aug 2009

 Failure of defendant to appear

 Will result in plaintiff presenting his evidence ex parte and for the court to
render judgment thereon.
 This is dissimilar to default from failure to plead where the sanction is for the
court to render judgment based on the complaint
 Summary judgment or judgment on pleadings possible if facts are discovered in pre-
trial to warrant such action
 Effect of Pre-trial Order
 General Rule: Binding on all parties, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
 Exception: Read Heirs of Reyes v CA, 519 S 250 (2007)

3.11. Intervention (Rule 19)

Nordic Asia v CA 403 S 390
Salandanan v Sps Mendoza GR 160280 (2009)
Mactan Cebu Intl Airpot v Heirs of Minoza GR 186045 February 2, 2011
GSIS v Nocom GR 175989 February 4, 2008
Ombudsman v Maximo Sison GR 185954 February 16, 2010

3.12. Discovery
 Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders, to
disgorge private information to adverse party

8
  Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the
knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties; obtain admissions from
adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents, objects and property.
 What are discoverable?
 Limitations on discoverability
 Modes of discovery
 Deposition
 function
 when may be availed of
 Pajarilla v CA 570 S 347 (2008)
 de bene esse (pending action)
 perpetuam rei memoriam (prior to action)
 who do you depose
 Interrogatories to parties
 effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
 Requests for admission
 Sime Darby Employees Association v NLRC 510 S 204
 Production and inspection of things
 Examination of persons

 Republic v Sandiganbayan, 204 S 212

 Dasmarinas Garments v Reyes 225 S 622
 Ayala Land vs Tagle 466 S 521
 Hyatt Industrial v Ley Construction GR 147143 Mar 10, 2006
 Sime Darby v CA 510 S 204
 Security Bank v CA 323 S 330
 Solidbank v Gateway GR 164805 April 30, 2008
 Rosete v Lim GR 136051 June 8, 2006
 Jowel Sales v Sabin GR 133154 December 9, 2005

 Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)

3.13. Trial
 Order of trial
 Reverse trial when complaint is admitted
 Read Yu v Magpayo 44 S 163
 Reverse trial also in criminal cases
 When trial dispensed with; Absence of Party

9
 o Republic v Vda de Neri GR 139588 March 4, 2008
o Sps Calo v Sps Tan GR 151266 November 29, 2005

3.14. Consolidation
 Test is common questions of fact or of law
 Active v CA, 181 S 774
 Superlines v Victor, 124 S 939
 Steel Corporation of the Philippines v Equitable PCI Bank 635 S 403
 Deutsche Bank AG vs Court of Appeals 667 S 82
 Producers Bank of the Philippines v Excelsa Industries 669 S 470
 Teston v DBP GR 144374 November 11, 2005
 Gregorio Espinoza v UOB GR 175380 March 22, 2010
 consolidation of civil and criminal cases
 consolidation of cases on appeal

3.15. Demurrer to Evidence

 Concept of demurrer
 Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence
 Nepomuceno v Comelec, 126 S 472
 Radiowealth v Sps Del Rosario GR 138739 July 6, 2000
 Casent Realty v Phil Banking GR 150731 September 14, 2007

3.16. Judgment on the pleadings

 Generally applicable when there is no tender of issue
 Denial in answer may not amount to tender of issue
 Manufacturers v Diversified, 173 S 357
 Pacific Rehouse Corporation v EIB Securities 633 S 214
 Reilo v San Jose GR 166393 June 18, 2009
 Sps Song v Roban Lending GR 172592 July 9, 2008
 Doris Sunbanum v Aurora Go GR 163280 February 2, 2010

3.17. Summary Judgments

 Distinguished from judgment on the pleadings
 Vergara v Suelto 156 S 753
 Diman v Alumbres, 299 S 459
 Nocom v Camerino GR 182984 February 10, 2009
 Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410
 Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627

10
  How motion for summary judgment is considered
 Hearing on motion is only for determining whether issues are genuine or
not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings
 motion is proven through affidavits, depositions and admissions submitted
by movant
 Propriety of summary judgment
 Natalia v Vallez, 173 S 536
 Grand Farms v CA, 193 S 748
 Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627
 Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410
 Movant may be either party

3.18. Judgments
 Requirements
 written and signed by judge
 must contain findings of facts and law applied
 must contain a dispositive portion
 filed with the clerk of court
 rendition reckoned from filing with clerk
 must be served on parties
 may be amended before finality upon motion or motu proprio
 entry upon finality
 entry determines prescriptive periods
 final judgment not subject to amendment
 separability of judgments

Velarde v SJS GR 159357 April 28, 2004

Miranda v CA 71 S 295
Republic v Nolasco 457 S 400
Briones-Vasquez v CA GR 144882 february 4, 2005
Navarro v Metropolitan Bank GR 165697/166484 August 4, 2009

3.19. Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)

 New Trial or Reconsideration
 FAMEN
 Fraud as a ground must be extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is intrinsic when
done by a party during trial (use of forged documents etc), extrinsic
when employed outside the court (concealing a witness or colluding
with a party)

11
  accident and mistake as ground must be based on well-engendered
belief ordinary prudence could not guard against
 excusable negligence as ground will depend on circumstance
 Newly discovered evidence
 must be material and not discoverable during trial

 Banco Filipino v Campos 63 S 180

 Bernaldez v Francia 398 S 488
 Capuz v CA 233 S 471
 Libudan v Gil 45 S 17
 Delos Santos v Elizalde GR 141810, 141812, February 2, 2007
 Motion for reconsideration
 NT distinguished from reconsideration
 grounds
 results when granted
 remedy when denied (appeal from the judgment)
 Relief from judgment
 not available for lost remedy
 Tuazon v CA, 256 S 158
 Sps Que v CA GR 1507397 August 18, 2005
 Monzon v Sps Relova GR 171827 September 17, 2008
 available only versus final judgment
 distinguished from NT or reconsideration
 grounds
 when/how invoked
 result when granted
 remedy when denied (no more appeal)

 Annulment of Judgment (not same court, not same case)

 Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v Court of Appeals 681 S 580
 Sps Arenas v Quezon City Development Bank GR 166819 June 16,
2010

3.20. Execution of judgments

 Only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution
 Final judgment versus final and executory judgment
 Investment v CA 147 S 334

12
  Test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court to do with
respect to the merits of the case?
 Execution a matter of right when judgment final and executory, but only upon
motion
 judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e., when no appeal has been
taken within the period provided by law
 enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it
becomes final, subject to certain exceptions
 execution before finality of judgment, only upon good reasons
 BF Corp v Edsa Shangrila, 294 S 109
 discretionary executions, when stayed
 City of Manila v CA, 72 S 98
 Valencia v CA, 184 S 561
 execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the nature
of the judgment, i.e. recovery of property v money judgments

 Session Delights Ice Cream v CA GR 172149, February 8, 2010

 Cayana v CA GR 125607, March 18, 2004
 Stronghold v Felix GR 148090, November 28, 2006
 Yau v Silverio GR 158848, February 4, 2008
 Jerome Solco v Provido GR 138978, February 11, 2008
 Hi Yield Realty v CA GR 138978, February 12, 2002
 Honrado v CA GR 166333, November 25, 2005
 Repubic v Antonio GR 166866, March 27, 2008
 Corpuz v Sto tomas and OSG GR 186571, August 11, 2010
 Republic v Gingoyon GR 166429, February 1, 2006

4. APPEALS

4.1. Nature of appeal as a remedy

 guard against judgments of unskilled and unfair judges
 prevention as much as correction of mistakes
 not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost
 Dacuital v LM Engineering Corporation 629 S 702

4.2. Who may appeal

4.3. What are appealable

13
  what are final judgments
 when does a judgment or order become final
 final judgments vs judgments that are final and executory
 what are not appealable and why are they not?
 test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case
 Exception Sec 1, Rule 41 (a-g) in which cases remedy is by Rule 65
 D.M. Ferrer & Associates v UST GR 189496 February 1, 2012

4.4. Modes of appeal

 ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment)
 MTC to RTC
 RTC to CA
 no extension of period to file notice of appeal
 interrupted by motion for NT or recon
 if NT or recon denied, fresh period to appeal
 Neypes vs CA GR 141524 Sept 14, 2005
 payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal
 petition for review (by filing petition with CA under rule 42)
 second level of review
 review of judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
 RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA
 not a matter of right; discretionary on part of CA
 Ong v Tating. 149 SCRA 265
 appeal by certiorari (filing petition with SC)
 appeal to the SC
 from RTC on questions of law only (Rule 41)
 UMC v Velasco 98 S 545
 may be remanded to CA if involving questionof fact
(rule 56, sec 6), not dismissed
 from final order or resolution of CA or SB (rule 45) but only on
questions of law
 appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, sec 6)
 Cheesman v IAC, 193 S 93
 Sumbingco v CA, 155 S 24
 What is a question of law?
 See Macawiwili and Land Bank cases below
 petition for review on certiorari vs petition for certiorari

14
  New York Marine v CA, 249 S 416
 Ybanez v CA, 253 S 540
Rule on appeals summarized
Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt Co v CA 297 S 602
Land Bank of the Philippines v Ramos 685 S 540

4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal
 May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by court?
 duty of court when notice of appeal filed
 dilatory appeals

4.6. Improper appeals

 to CA from RTC on questions of law
 to SC via notice of appeal
 to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in appellate jurisdiction
 the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be
allowed
(Exception is when appeal to SC on questions of law and fact in which case, the
case will be remanded to CA)

5. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

5.1. Preliminary Attachment

 Kinds of attachment
 preliminary
 garnishment
 levy on execution
 At what stage is preliminary attachment granted?
 grounds for attachment exclusive
 may be granted ex parte
 Onate v Abrogar, 241 S 659
 Davao Light & Water v CA, 204 S 343
 Sievert v CA, 168 S 692
 Carlos v Sandoval 471 S 266
 Spouses Yu v Ngo Yee Te GR 155868

5.2. Preliminary Injunction

 preceded by a 72-hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA)

15
  within TRO, hearing must be conducted
 may be granted at any stage of the proceeding
 requirements for issuance
 coordinate body may not be enjoined
 may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself

Bacolod City Water District v Labayen 446 S 110

China Banking Corp v Co GR 174569
Estares v CA GR 144755
Buyco v Baraquia GR 177486 (December 21, 2009)
Heirs of the late JBL Reyes v CA 338 S 282
Brocka v Enrile 192 S 182
Medina v Greenfield Development GR 140228

5.3. Receivership
 When is receiver appointed?
 object is preservation of property subject matter of litigation
 powers of a receiver

National Investment and Development Corp v Judge Aquino 163 S 153

Traders Royal Bank v IAC 273 S 521

5.4. Replevin
 nature of a replevin suit
 question involved is one of possession but ownership may be resolved if raised
 plaintiff (claim) and defendant (counterclaim) can petition for replevin

Yang v Valdez 177 S 141

Adoma v Gatcheco 448 S 299
Paat v CA 266 S 167
Citibank v CA 304 S 679
Smart Communications v Regina Astorga GR 148132 January 28, 2008

5.5. Support pendete lite

 concept of support is that the applicant is entitled to it by reason of some
relationship (say, marital or filial) with the adverse party
 judgment of support is never final, it can be amended at any time as long as the
obligation to support subsists
 Arts 194, 195, 201, 202 of Family Code

16
Reyes v Ines-Luciano GR 48219
Lam v Chua GR 131286

17