Rule 12: Bill of Particulars

VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (May 27, 1997)

Facts:
The complaint against the defendants was amended three times. The last amended complaint filed with the
Sandiganbayan, known as the expanded Second Amended Complaint, states the following relevant allegations against
petitioner Virata “that Defendants Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez and Juliette Gomez Romualdez, in unlawful concert with
Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of plaintiff and the
Filipino people. Asserting that the foregoing allegations are vague and are not averred with sufficient definiteness as to
enable him to effectively prepare his responsive pleading, petitioner Virata filed a motion for a bill of particulars.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grace abuse of discretion in admitting the Bill of Particulars
submitted by the Republic.

Held:
Yes. The rule is that a complaint must contain the ultimate facts constituting plaintiff's cause of action. As long as
a cause of action exists even though the allegations therein are vague, and dismissal of the action is not the proper
remedy when the pleading is ambiguous because the defendant may ask for more particulars. A bill of particulars is a
complementary procedural document consisting of an amplification or more particularized outline of a pleading, and being
in the nature of a more specific allegation of the facts recited in the pleading.