CIVIL PROCEDURE - GROUP 4

AY 2020-2021

Prof: Dean Rico Quicho

March 22, 2021

Agustin, Erielle
Cabrito, Cheran
Celino, Rayan
Guevarra, Joshua
Lee, Maxine
Lee, Patricia
Lucban, Liza
Mateo, Rozie
Miraflor, Hanz
Ostaco, Clarice
Pizarro, Ma. Kara
Salazar, Justin
Tuason, Natassia
Yuyek, Gabriel

SUPREME COURT
CASE NAME & LAWS / DOCTRINES / CONCEPTS / CONGRUENCE / INCONSISTENCY COMMENTS / ADDITIONAL
BASIS FOR 2019
NUMBER TERMINOLOGIES WITH 2019 AMENDED RULES INFORMATION
AMENDMENTS

RULE 5 - UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

It is the responsibility of counsels for the parties to raise
issues using the proper procedure at the right time.
Procedural rules are meant to assist the parties and courts
De Lima vs. Gatdula
efficiently deal with the substantive issues pertaining to a
case. When it is the judge himself who disregards the rules
of procedure, delay and confusion result.
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
The 1991 Revised Rules of Summary
Procedure is different from the summary
nature of petition on the Writ of Amparo.
Also, under Section 25 of the same rule [on
the Writ of Amparo], the Rules of Court shall
apply suppletorily only insofar as it is
not inconsistent with the said rule. Aside
n/a from that, the Supreme Court limited the
application of summary procedure to certain
civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is
a special proceeding. It is not a civil nor a
criminal action, hence, the application of the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure on
the petition on the Writ of Amparo is
seriously misplaced.

1

The rules of procedure have been formulated and
promulgated by this Court to ensure the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. Failure to abide by these
rules undermines the wisdom behind them and diminishes
Pascual vs. Jovellanos respect for the rule of law. The Rule on Summary Procedure
was promulgated precisely to achieve an expeditious and
inexpensive determination of cases. Failure to observe the
period within which to render a judgment subjects the
defaulting judge to administrative sanctions.
The motion prohibited by Sec. 19 (c) of the Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure is that which seeks reconsideration
of the judgment rendered by the court after trial on the
merits of the case. An order of dismissal due to failure of a
Lucas vs. Fabros 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.
RULE 6 - KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Where an answer "fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse party's
pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct
judgment on such pleading." The answer would fail to
Mongao vs. Pryce tender an issue, of course, if it does not comply with the
Properties requirements for a specific denial set out in Section 10 (or
Section 8)of Rule 8; and it would admit the material
allegations of the adverse party's pleadings not only where
it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it
omits to deal with them at all.
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
n/a
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
2
Lack of knowledge of the Rules on
Summary Procedure reflects a serious
degree of incompetence. When the law is
so elementary, as in this case, not to be
aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of
the law. A member of the bench must be
constantly abreast of legal and
jurisprudential developments, bearing in
n/a mind that this learning process never
ceases. It is indispensable to the correct
dispensation of justice.
Municipal trial court judges ought to be
familiar with the Rules on Summary
Procedure governing ejectment cases.
Failure to observe them constitutes gross
ignorance of the law.
A motion for reconsideration is a prohibited
pleading under Section 19 of the Revised
Rule on Summary
Procedure. Thus,
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions.
— The following pleadings, motions, or
n/a petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule.
xxxxxxxxx
(c) Motion for new trial, or for
reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial;
xxxxx
Nothing from the allegations in respondent
corporation’s answer makes out a proper
joinder of issues. Petitioners’ cause of
action for rescission is founded mainly on a
perfected contract of sale allegedly entered
into between petitioners and respondent
corporation as embodied in the
Memorandum of Agreement attached to the
complaint. First, the allegations in
respondent corporation’s answer do not
make out a specific denial that a contract of
sale was perfected between the parties.
Second, respondent corporation does not
contest the due execution and/or
genuineness of said Memorandum of
Agreement.

The dismissal of a complaint due to fault of the plaintiff is
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute
any pending counterclaims of whatever nature in the same
or separate action. Any judgment thereon is based on the
Dio vs. SBMA merit of the counterclaim itself and not on the survival of the
main complaint. Stated differently, the jurisdiction of the
court over the counterclaim that appears to be valid on its
face, including the grant of any relief thereunder, is not
abated by the dismissal of the main action
Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly
provided that the dismissal of the complaint due to failure of
Padilla vs. Globe Asiatique the plaintiff to prosecute his case is without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the
same or in a separate action.
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
The dismissal of the complaint resulted from
respondents’ failure to append to the
complaint a copy of the board resolution
authorizing Desmond to sign the certificate
of non-forum shopping on behalf of SBME.
The subsequent dismissal of the
counterclaim, in turn, erroneously
proceeded from the ratio that since the main
action has already been dismissed with
finality by the appellate court, the lower
court has lost its jurisdiction to grant any
relief under the counterclaim.
Whether the compulsory counterclaim may
n/a prosper even if the main complaint had
been dismissed, the Supreme Court ruled in
the affirmative. If the counterclaim is
palpably without merit or suffers
jurisdictional flaws which stand independent
of the complaint, the trial court is not
precluded from dismissing it under the
amended rules, provided that the judgment
or order dismissing the counterclaim is
premised on those defects. At the same
time, if the counterclaim is justified, the
amended rules now unequivocally protect
such counterclaim from peremptory
dismissal by reason of the dismissal of the
complaint.
n/a

The rule in permissive counterclaims is that for the trial

Bungcayao vs. Fort
court to acquire jurisdiction, the counterclaimant is bound to Applicable to the 2019 Amendments n/a
Ilocandia Properties
pay the prescribed docket fees.
Trial court may render a judgment on the pleadings upon
motion of the claiming party when the defending party's
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
Fernando Medical
material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. For that
Enterprises, Inc. vs.
purpose, only the pleadings of the parties in the action are Applicable to the 2019 Amendments n/a
Wesleyan University
considered. It is error for the trial court to deny the motion
Philippines, Inc.
for judgment on the pleadings because the defending
party's pleading in another case supposedly tendered an
issue of fact.
RULE 7 - PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADINGS

3
 As a general rule, a pleading need not be verified, unless
there is a law or rule specifically requiring the same.
Vallacar Transit Inc vs. In contrast, all complaints, petitions, applications, and other
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments n/a
Jocelyn Catubig initiatory pleadings must be accompanied by a certificate
against forum shopping

1.SECTION 5, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 RULES OF COURT,

provides that:
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
Chua vs. Metropolitan Bank that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments n/a
and Trust Company his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed
2.FORUM SHOPPING CAN BE COMMITTED IN THREE
WAYS:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
and with the same prayer, the previous case not having
been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia);
(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally
resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata);
and
(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action,
but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action,
where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia
or res judicata).

4
 Verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional,
requirement intended to secure the assurance that the
matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct. Thus, the
court may simply order the correction of unverified
pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with
the rules. It 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,
The ruling is consistent with
and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in
the 2019 amendements
good faith or are true and correct. As to certification against
particularly Rule 7 Sections
forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect
Zarsona Medical v PHIC Applicable to the 2019 Amendments 4 & 5 since the ruling
therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by
reiterated verification and
its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
certification against forum
there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
shopping
“substantial compliance" of presence of “special
circumstances or compelling reasons.” Rule 7, Section 5 of
the Rules of the Court, requires that the certification should
be signed by the “petitioner principal party" himself. The
rationale behind this is "because only the petitioner himself
has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated
similar actions or proceedings in different courts or
agencies."
Non-compliance with the rules on the
certification against forum shopping
or a defect therein is generally not The ruling is consistent with
curable by its subsequent submission the 2019 amendments since
or correction thereof, unless there is a the Supreme Court ruled in
need to relax the Rule on the ground accordance to Section 5 of
of 'substantial compliance' or Rule 7 particularly the fact
presence of 'special circumstances or that if there are no sufficient
Anderson v HO Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
compelling reasons'. Moreover, the and justifiable grounds to
certificate must be executed by the relax the rules on the
party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, certificate of non-forum
however, for reasonable or justifiable shopping, then such is not
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to curable by subsequent
sign, he must execute a Special Power submission/ correction.
of Attorney designating his counsel of
record to sign on his behalf.

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, The ruling is consistent with
and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in the 2019 Amendment since it
good faith or are true and correct. As to certification against reiterated what was stated in
Vda. De
forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect Applicable to the 2019 Amendments Sections 4 & 5 of Rule 7
Formoso V. PNB
therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its which are the definitions of
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there Verification and Certificate of
is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial Non-Forum Shopping
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons.

5
 The Ruling is consistent with
the 2019 amendments since
the Supreme Court held that
A petition for a writ of possession is neither a complaint nor
since a petition for writ of
an initiatory pleading, a certificate against nonforum
possession is not an
Metrobank v Santos shopping is not required. The certificate that Metrobank Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
initiatory pleading, a
attached to its petition is thus a superfluity that the lower
certificate against non-forum
court should have disregarded.
shopping is not required
which can be found in Rule 7
Section 5

The certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by

all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing
by only one of them is insufficient. The attestation on non-
Argallon-Jocson and forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party
Applicable to the 2019 Amendments
Tusing vs Court of Appeals executing the same, and the lone signing petitioner cannot
be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or
non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the
same as similar to the current petition.
Well-settled is the rule that the certificate of non-forum
shopping is a mandatory requirement. Substantial
compliance applies only with respect to the contents of the
certificate but not as to its presence in the pleading wherein
it is required.

Petitioner's contention that the filing of a motion for

reconsideration with an appended certificate of non forum-
shopping suffices to cure the defect in the pleading is
absolutely specious. It negates the very purpose for which
the certification against forum shopping is required: to
inform the Court of the pendency of any other case which
Maranaw Hotels and may present similar issues and involve similar parties as the
Resort Corp. v. Court of one before it. The requirement applies to both natural and Applicable to the 2019 Amendments n/a
Appeals juridical persons.
Any doubt on the matter has been resolved by the Court's
ruling in BPI Leasing Corp. v. Court of Appeals 17 where
this Court emphasized that the lawyer acting for the
corporation must be specifically authorized to sign
pleadings for the corporation. 18 Specific authorization, the
Court held, could only come in the form of a board
resolution issued by the Board of Directors that specifically
authorizes the counsel to institute the petition and execute
the certification, to make his actions binding on his principal,
i.e., the corporation.

6
 In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the
authority of some corporate officers to sign the verification
and certification against forum shopping. In Mactan-Cebu
International Airport Authority v. CA, we recognized the
authority of a general manager or acting general manager
to sign the verification and certificate against forum
shopping; 9 in Pfizer v. Galan, we upheld the validity of a
verification signed by an "employment specialist" who had
not even presented any proof of her authority to represent
the company; 10 in Novelty Philippines, Inc., v. CA, we ruled
that a personnel officer who signed the petition but did not
attach the authority from the company is authorized to sign
the verification and non-forum shopping certificate; 11 and
in Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC
Resources International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto), we ruled that
the Chairperson of the Board and President of the Company
can sign the verification and certificate against non-forum
shopping even without the submission of the board's
Cagayan Valley v.
authorization. 12
Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
In sum, we have held that the following officials or
employees of the company can sign the verification and
certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the
Chairperson of the Board of Directors, (2) the President of a
corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting General
Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment
Specialist in a labor case.
The new provisions expressly requires that"
the authorization of the affiant to act on
behalf of a party, whether in the form of a
Under Rule 7. Sec 5. it's
secretary’s certificate or a special power of
provided that a new second
attorney, should be attached to the
paragraph was inserted,
pleading." Unlike before wherein the
similar to the requirement
Not consistent with the 2019 Amended authority of some officers and employees of
under verification, that
Rules a corporation can be alleged in the
requires the proof of
pleadings without the attachment of board
authority to execute the
resolution as a corresponding proof, the
certification should be
new provision mandates that such
attached to the pleading.
attachment be certified by the corporate
secretary, or a special power of attorney in
case of an individual.

While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of

authorized signatories to the verification and certification
required by the rules, the determination of the sufficiency of
the authority was done on a case to case basis. The
rationale applied in the foregoing cases is to justify the
authority of corporate officers or representatives of the
corporation to sign the verification or certificate against
forum shopping, being "in a position to verify the
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the
petition."

7
 Rule 7, Sec. 5 of ROC mandates that the petitioner or the
principal party must execute the certification against forum
shopping. This requirement is intended to apply to both
natural and juridical persons as the RoC does not
distinguish between them. 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. Where there are several petitioners, it is insufficient
that only one of them executes the certification, absent a
showing that he was so authorized by the others. A
certification which had been signed without the proper
authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for
the dismissal of the petition. This is true in this case where
Lourdes Pomperada, the Administrative Manager of Despite the addition of a new paragraph in
petitioner corporation, who signed the verification and the said rule, the rule still applies to the said
certificate on non-forum shopping, initially failed to submit a case especially the attachment of proof for
secretary’s certificate or a board resolution confirming her requirement in signing the said certificate
Fuentebella v. Castro Applicable to the 2019 Amendments n/a
authority to sign for the corporation, and a special power of against forum shopping. The new rules still
attorney to sign on behalf of co-petitioner Art Fuentebella, correctly sanctions for indirect contempt the
who was sued jointly and solidarily with the corporation in submission of a falsified certificate against
his capacity as officer of the latter. forum shopping

An omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about

any event that would not constitute res judicata and litis
pendentia, as in the present case, is not fatal as to merit the
dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings
considering that the evils sought to be prevented by the said
certificate are not present.

Hence, in any event, the trial court correctly held that the
submission of a false certification shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal sanctions. This is in accordance

8
 Rule 7. Section 3. Every pleading must be signed by the
party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his
The Supreme Court dismisses petition on
address which should not be a post office box.
ground that it is signed as a party. ASBT
opted to sign its petition and its motion for
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that
reconsideration in its own behalf, through its
he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge,
corporate president, Mildred R. Santos, who
information, and belief there is good ground to support it;
was duly authorized by ASBTs Board of
Sameer Overseas and that it is not interposed for delay.
Directors to represent the company in
Placement Agency, Inc v. An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, Applicable to the 2019 Amendments n/a
prosecuting this case. Therefore, the said
Santos the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be
pleadings cannot be considered unsigned
remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
and without any legal effect. Every pleading
inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who
must be signed by the party or counsel
deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading
representing him, stating in either case his
in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
address which should not be a post office
matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a
box.
change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action.

RULE 8 - MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Under the Revised Rules of Court, it does

A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the
Eliza Zuñiga-Santos v.
rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from
Santos Gran
mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of law.
Inconsistent with Rule 8, Sec. 1 of the
n/a
Revised Rules of Court.
not only include direct statement and
ultimate facts, it also added the phrase: "...
including the evidence on which the party
pleading relies for his or her claim or
defense, as the case may be..."

Ultimate facts mean the important and substantial facts

which either directly form the basis of the plaintiff's primary
right and duty or directly make up the wrongful acts or
omissions of the defendant. They refer to the principal,
Lazaro v. Brewmaster Consistent with Rule 8, Sec. 1 n/a
determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which
the cause of action rests. The term does not refer to details
of probative matter or particulars of evidence which
establish the material elements.

The rules of procedure require that the complaint must

make a concise statement of the ultimate facts or the
Vda. De Daffon v. CA essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A Consistent with Rule 8, Sec. 1 n/a
fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving
the statement of the cause of action inadequate.

9

The basic rules of proper pleading and procedure require
that every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical
form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate
Cañete v. Genuino Ice
facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or
defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of
mere evidentiary facts.
Section 12 of Rule 8, like Section 5(b) of Rule 6, provides
for additional grounds for an affirmative defense, such as: a)
That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the
Amendments, replacing the old Section 12
Steelcase vs. Design defending party; b) That venue is improperly laid; c) That
International the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; d) That the
pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
which is now moved to Section 13, Rule 8
e) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not
been complied with.
Section 5, Rule 8 provides that in all averments of fraud or
mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake
must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, Section 5, Rule 8 is still applicable after the
Luistro vs. Court of Appeals
or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred
generally. Here, the petitioner fell short of the requirement
that fraud must be stated with particularity.
Inconsistent with Rule 8, Sec. 1
This is a new provision from the 2019
which provided for the Striking Out of
Pleading or Matter Contained Therein,
2019 Amendments, it did not change.
10
The Supreme Court omitted the phrase
"...as the
case may be, omitting the statement of
mere evidentiary facts." under Rule 8, Sec.
n/a
1 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The case suggests that Rule 8, Sec. 1
should be read along with Rule 8, Sec. 5,
The amendment also provides that the
failure to
raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest
opportunity shall be a waiver thereof,
without prejudice to the nonwaivable
grounds.
Courts are required to rule on the
affirmative defenses within the prescribed
period. There may be a summary hearing
n/a on the affirmative defenses within 15
calendar days from the filing of answer, if
based on the grounds in Section 5 (b), Rule
6. If there is a summary hearing, the
affirmative defenses shall be resolved within
30 calendar days from the termination of
said hearing. Here, the defendant
contended that the plaintiff had no legal
capacity to sue for being a foreign
corporation unlicensed to do business.
Petitioner failed to allege with particularity
the fraud allegedly committed by the
respondent in the contract. Thus, there is no
n/a
basis for the allegation that petitioner only
signed the contract of easement because of
the fraud perpetrated by the respondent.
 In this case Titan claimed that because
Section 7, Rule 8 provides that whenever an action or Manuel failed to specifically deny the
defense is based upon a written instrument or document, genuineness and due execution of the SPA
the substance of such instrument or odcument shall be set in his Reply, he is deemed to have admitted
forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall the veracity of the said document in
be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be accordance to Rule 8, Sections 7 and 8.
Section 8, Rule 8 is still applicable with
deemed to be a part of the pleading. Section 8, Rule 8 While a notarized document enjoys a prima
minimal amendments pertaining only to be
Provides that when an action or defense is founded upon a facie presumption of authenticity and due
more gender-sensitive; Section 7, Rule 8
Titan Construction vs. written instrument, or attached to the corresponding execution, and only clear and convincing
deleted the final portion of the provision n/a
David pleading as provided in the preceding section, the evidence will overcome such legal
but is still applicable after the 2019
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be presumption. However, such evidence is
Amendments, so copying the instrument in
deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, present here because of the defects in the
the pleading will no longer suffice.
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he or she notarization and the absence of some of
claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does Manuel's details while Martha's were
not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a complete. Manuel's testimony also indicate
party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for that he never signed the SPA and that the
an inspection of the original instrument is refused. expert testimony stated that the signature
was not his true signature.
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 Section 8, Rule 8 largely remained the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be Section 8, Rule 8 is still applicable after the same. The respondents in the case were
Consolidated Bank vs. Del deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, 2019 Amendments; it only has minimal not able to deny the allegations in the
n/a
Monter Motor Works specifically denies them and sets forth what he claims to be amendments pertaining to gender- complaint as required by the rules. Thus,
the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply sensitivity they are deemed to have admitted the
when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the genuineness and due execution of the note.
instrument or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused.

For a proper specific denial, a defendant must specify each

material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does
ot admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
There are only minor amendments to
substance of the matters upon which he or she relies to
section 10, which made the provision more
support his or her denial. Where a defendant desires to Section 10, Rule 8 is still applicable after
gender-sensitive. Here, former Atty. Eala
Guevarra vs. Eala deny only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so the 2019 Amendments, with only minor n/a
provided in his answers and replies his
much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the changes.
specific denial to the allegations of the
remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or
complainant.
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a
material averment made to the complaint, he or she shall so
state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.

11
 When it appears on the face of the complaint that the
plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under the facts alleged,
the defendant may file a motion to dismiss hypothetically
admitting the facts alleged in the complaint. By filing such a
motion, the defendant in effect says that even assuming the
facts to be as alleged by the plaintiff, the latter has failed to
prove that he has a right which the former has violated. The
rule does not unqualifiedly apply to a case where the
defendant files a motion to dismiss based on lack of
jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over the person of the
defendant or over the subject matter or over the nature of
the action; or on improper venue; or on lack of capacity to
sue of the plaintiff or on litis pendentia, res judicata,
prescription, unenforceability, or on the allegation that the
suit is between members of the same family and no earnest
Halimao vs. Villanueva Consistent with Rule 8 n/a
efforts towards a compromise have been made. In such
cases, the hypothetical admission is limited to the facts
alleged in the complaint which relate to and are necessary
for the resolution of these grounds as preliminary matters
involving substantive or procedural laws, but not to the other
facts of the case. On the other hand, when a motion to
dismiss is based on payment, waiver, abandonment,
release, compromise, or other form of extinguishment, the
motion to dismiss does not hypothetically, but actually,
admits the facts alleged in the complaint, i.e., the existence
of the obligation or debt, only that the plaintiff claims that the
obligation has been satisfied. So that when a motion to
dismiss on these grounds is denied, what is left to be
proven in the trial is no longer the existence of the debt but
the fact vel non of payment by the defendant.

Consistent with the 2019 amendments. A

Pacsport Inc Phils vs. When the elements of litis pendentia exist, the action filed party may file a motion to dismiss on the
n/a
Niccolo Sports later should be abated to avoid multiplicity of suits. ground of litis pendentia and that such is
not waivable.

Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action

refers to that situation wherein another action is pending
between thesame parties for the same cause of actions and
that the second action becomes unnecessary and
vexatious.
The mere fact that the action for declaratory
We have set the relevant factors that a court must consider Consistent with the 2019 amendments. A
relief was filedearlier than the case for
Panganiban vs. Pilipinas when it has to determine which case should be dismissed party may file a motion to dismiss on the
n/a unlawful detainer does not necessarily
Shell Corp. given the pendency of two actions. These are: (1) the date ground of litis pendentia and that such is
meanthat the first case will be given
of filing, with preference generally given tothe first action not waivable.
preference.
filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be
dismissed was filed merely to preempt the latter action or to
anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and (3)
whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the
issues between the parties.

12
 there are a number of instances when the
doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies may be dispensed with and
judicial action validly resorted to
immediately.

Among these exceptional cases are:

1) when the question raised is purely legal;

2) when the administrative body is in

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls estoppel;
for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in
the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction 3) when the act complained of is patently
before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for illegal;
Consistent with 2019 amendments.
review. Non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a
Sunville Timber Products A party may file a motion to dismiss on the
cause of action, which is one of the grounds allowed in the n/a 4) when there is urgent need for judicial
Inc vs. Abad ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
Rules of Court for the dismissal of the complaint. The intervention;
subject matter.
deficiency is not jurisdictional. Failure to invoke it operates
as a waiver of the objection as a ground for a motion to 5) when the claim involved is small;
dismiss and the court may then proceed with the case as if
the doctrine had been observed. 6) when irreparable damage will be
suffered;

7) when there is no other plain, speedy and

adequate remedy;

8) when strong public interest is involved;

9) when the subject of the controversy is

private land; and

10) in quo warranto proceedings.

13
 Rule 8, Section 1 provides that every pleading shall contain
in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on
which the party pleading relies for his or her claim or
defense, as the case may be
Rule 8 Section 2 provides for alternative causes of action or
defenses. Accordingly, a party may set forth two or more
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in
separate causes of action or defenses. When two or more
statements are made in the alternative and one of them if
The aforementioned case comprehends two
made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not
distinct concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by
made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the
former judgment and (2) conclusiveness of
alternative statements.
judgment. Under the first concept, res
Rule 8, Section 12 delineates provisionary clauses on
judicata absolutely bars any subsequent
affirmative defenses which are as follows:
action when the following requisites concur:
(a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in
(a) the former judgment or order was final;
his or her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set Congruent/ consistent with the 2019
(b) it adjudged the pertinent issue or issues
forth under Section 5 (b), Rule 6, and the following grounds: Amended Rules on Civil Procedure
on their merits; (c) it was rendered by a
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the pertaining to the manner of making
court that had jurisdiction over the subject
defending party; allegations in pleadings.
matter and the parties; and (d) between the
2. That venue is improperly laid; Rule 8 Sections 1 and 2 implemented and
first and the second actions, there was
Hacienda Bigaa, Inc. v. 3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; complied with in the current case makes
n/a identity of parties, of subject matter, and of
Chavez 4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of such case consistent with the aforesaid
causes of action.
action; and rules.
In the present case, the Supreme Court
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not Rule 8 Section 12, which was to be read
ruled against Hacienda Biggaa because the
been complied with. and construed with Rule 6 Section 5 which
present suit was fo forcible entry while the
provided that res judicata was an
antecedent cases avertered were for
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest affirmative defense
various other causes of action - pertaining
opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.
to quieting of title, accion reinvidicatoria, et
al. This is because under the concept of
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above
conclusiveness of judgment, res judicata
affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar days from
operates by mere indentity of issues and
the filing of the answer.
even without the absolute identity or causes
of action.
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first
paragraph of Section 5 (b), Rule 6, the court may conduct
a summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from
the filing of the answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be
resolved by the court within thirty (30) calendar days from
the termination of the summary hearing.

(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject

of a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus, but may be among the matters to
be raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits. (n)

14
 Rule 8, Section 10 provides that a defendant must specify
each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she
does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth
the substance of the matters upon which he or she relies to
support his or her denial.
Rule 8, Section 12 delineates provisionary clauses on
affirmative defenses and such defenses which are to be
read and construed with Section 5 (b), Rule 6. Affirmative
defenses are subject to certain grounds, in this case, "that
the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action".
It is also important to note the applicability of res judicata
Cause of Action - the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. Congruent/ consistent with the 2019 There was res judicata by barring by former
Compromise Agreement - a contract whereby the parties, Amended Rules on Civil Procedure judgement, which bars any subsequent
by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put pertaining to the manner of making action when the requisites as herewith
an end to one already commenced. It encompasses the allegations in pleadings. elucidated, concur. The requirement of the
objects specifically stated therein, although it may include Rule 8 Sections 1 and 10 implemented identity of parties was fully met, because
other objects by necessary implication and is binding on the and complied with in the current case the Chus, on the one hand, and the
Chu vs. Sps. Cunanan n/a
contracting parties, being expressly acknowledged as a makes such case consistent with the Cunanans, on the other hand, were the
juridical agreement between them. It has the effect and aforesaid rules. parties in both cases along with their
authority of res judicata upon the parties. In the construction Rule 8 Section 12, which was to be read respective privies. Identity of the causes of
or interpretation of a compromise agreement, the intention and construed with Rule 6 Section 5 which action was also met, because Case No.
of the parties is to be ascertained from the agreement itself, provided that res judicata was an G-1936 and Civil Case No. 12251 were
and effect should be given to that intention. Thus, the affirmative defense rooted in one and the same cause of action.
compromise agreement must be read as a whole.
Res Judicata - refers to the rule that a final judgment or
decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all
later suits on all points and matters determined in the former
s u i t
Splitting A Cause of Action - the act of dividing a single or
indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and
instituting two or more actions upon them. A single cause of
action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or
divided in order to be made the subject of two or more
different actions

15

Rule 8 Section 4 stipulates the provisions on capacity of a
party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or
be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence
of an organized association of persons that is made a party,
Galindo vs. Heirs of Roxas must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the
legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by
specific denial, which shall include such supporting
particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.
Congruent/ consistent with the 2019
Amended Rules on Civil Procedure
pertaining to the manner of making
allegations in pleadings. No applicable
changes.
16
In order to maintain an action in a court of
justice, the plaintiff must have an actual
legal existence, that is, he or she or it must
be a person in law and possessed of a legal
entity as either a natural or an artificial
person, and no suit can lawfully be
prosecuted in the name of that person. The
party bringing suit has the burden of proving
the sufficiency of the representative
character that he claims. If a complaint is
filed by one who claims to represent a party
as plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized
n/a
to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed
and the court does not acquire jurisdiction
over the complaint. The RTC committed a
grave abuse of its discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying their
motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground of the respondents failure, as
plaintiffs, to sufficiently allege in their
complaint and prove that Reginald Roxas
had the representative capacity to sue as
such representative of all the heirs of the
deceased Marciano Roxas.
 Rule 8 Section 1 Every pleading shall contain in a
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on
which the party pleading relies for his or her claim or
defense, as the case may be. If a cause of action or
defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions
thereof and their applicability to him or her shall be clearly
and concisely stated.
Rule 8 Section 7 stipulates on the 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 Congruent/ consistent with the 2019
deemed to be a part of the pleading. Amended Rules on Civil Procedure
Swedish Match vs. CA Rule 8 Section 8 discusses how to contest such documents. pertaining to the manner of making n/a
When an action or defense is founded upon a written allegations in pleadings. No applicable
instrumen or attached to the corresponding pleading as changes.
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 or she 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.
Rule 8 Section 12 stipulates on the affirmative defense
pertaining to the Statute of Frauds
Cause of Action
Specific Performance
Perfection of Contract

RULE 9 - EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the

Heirs of Favis Sr. vs. court may motu proprio dismiss the claim, namely: (a) lack
consistent with the 2019 amendments n/a
Gonzales of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c)
res judicata; and (d) prescription of action.

17
 EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD.Rule 9 Section 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 A "final" judgment or order is one that finally
Carniyan vs. Home
defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall consistent with the 2019 amendments n/a disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to
Guaranty Corporation
proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such be done by the Court in respect thereto.
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.

A defendant who fails to file an answer may, upon motion,

be declared bA party in default loses his right to present his
defense, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-
examine witnesses. He has no right to expect that his
pleadings would be acted upon by the court nor may be
object to or refute evidence or motions filed against him.
Otero vs. Tan
Nonetheless, the fact that a defendant has lost his standing
in court for having been declared in default does not mean
that he is left sans any recourse whatsoever.y the court in
default. Loss of standing in court, the forfeiture of one’s right
as a party litigant, contestant or legal adversary, is the
consequence of an order of default.
consistent with the 2019 amendments
A defending party declared in default retains
the right to appeal from the judgment by
default. However, the grounds that may be
raised in such an appeal are restricted to
any of the following: a. The failure of the
n/a
plaintiff to prove the material allegations of
the complaint; b. The decision is contrary to
law; and c. The amount of judgment is
excessive or different in kind from that
prayed for.

Default orders are not viewed with favor and relief from
order of default may be set aside provided that the party
David vs. Gutierrez-Fruelda consistent with the 2019 amendments n/a
shall comply with the basic requirements of Section 3(b),
Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.

Cause of action is the act or omission by which a party

violates the right of another. Course of action exist if
the elements are present: 1. Right in favor of plaintiff
by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created.
Monzon vs. Spouses
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to consistent with the 2019 amendments n/a
Relova
respect or not to violate such right.
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant
violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting breach of the
obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an absent for recovery of damages.

18
 Being declared in default does not constitute a waiver of
Nothing more remains to be done by the
rights except that of being heard and of presenting evidence
Court except to await the parties' next move
in the trial court. A defaulted defendant is not actually
(which among others, may consist of the
thrown out of court. While in a sense it may be said that by
filing of a motion for new trial or
Gajudo vs Traders Royal defaulting he leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the
Consistent with the 2019 Amendments n/a reconsideration, or the taking of an appeal)
Bank rules see to it that any judgment against him must be in
and ultimately, of course, to cause the
accordance with law. The evidence to support the plaintiff's
execution of the judgment once it becomes
cause is, of course, presented in his absence, but the court
"final" or, to use the established and more
is not supposed to admit that which is basically
distinctive term, "final and executory."
incompetent.

According to Sec. 3a of Rule 9, party in default shall be

entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings but shall not
take part in the trial.
Moreover, the remedies provided for in the case of Lina v.
Indiana Aerospace v. CA are only applicable to a defendant validly declared in
Consistent with the 2019 Amendments n/a
CHED default, and such defendant loses the right to participate in
the trial. On the other hand, a defendant improvidently
declared in default, may retain and exercise such right after
the order of default and the subsequent judgment by default
are annulled and remanded to the case of origin.

Before being declared non-suited or considered in default,

An “interlocutory” order is an order that
parties and their counsel must be shown to have been
does not finally dispose of the case, and
served with notice of the pretrial conference. Moreover, if
does not end the Court's task of
served only on the counsel, the notice must expressly direct
adjudicating the parties' contentions and
De Guia v. De Guia him or her to inform the client of the date, the time and the Consistent with the 2019 Amendments n/a
determining their rights and liabilities as
place of the pretrial conference. The absence of such notice
regards each other, but obviously indicates
renders the proceedings void, and the judgment rendered
that other things remain to be done by the
therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly
Court
or collaterally.

Section 6 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

provides that failure of the defendant to answer the
complaint within the period provided, the court, motu
proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment
Luna v. Mirafuente Consistent with the 2019 Amendments n/a
as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint
and limited to what is prayed for therein. The word “shall” in
the above-quoted sections underscores their mandatory
character.

19
 Administrative Circular No. 04-94 was issued by thhe Court
in order to prevent the undesirable practice of forum-
shopping, which exists when, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion
(other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he This is consistent with Section 5 Rule 7 of
Ponciano v. Parentela
institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on
the same cause, on the chance that one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition. Parties need not file
certification of non-forum shopping if their claims are not
initiatory in character.
Unlike a "final" judgment or order, which is
appealable, as above pointed out, an
"interlocutory" order may not be questioned
n/a
the Amended Rules of Court. on appeal except only as part of an appeal
that may eventually be taken from the final
judgment rendered in the case

In this case the Rules provides 15 days after the service of
summons to file an answer and serve a copy thereof upon
the plaintiff, unless a different period is filed by the court.
Moreover, as to the extension of time to plead, it shall be
upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the court
may extend the time to plead. The case also mentioned that
Sps. Barraza v. Campos Jr. under Section 3, Rule 16, the court after hearing may deny
or grant the motion or allow amendment of pleading, or may
defer the hearing and determination of the motion until the
trial if the ground alleged therein does not appear to be
indubitable. It is only from the time of receipt of notice of
denial of the motion to dismiss that the period within which
he shall file his answer is computed.
This is inconsistent with the 2019
Amendment. The new rule provides for the
following: (1) the period for filing an answer
was extended to 30 days from the original
15 days, (2) the period for answering a
supplmental complaint was also extended
to 20 calendar days from the original which n/a
is 10 days, (3) Motion to Dismiss under the
present rules is now a prohibited pleading,
(4) It is within the authority of the clerk of
court to issue the notice of pre-trial within 5
days from the filing of the last responsive
pleading.

RULE 10 - AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause

of action, the test is whether such amendment now requires
Spouses Dionisio vs
the defendant to answer for liability or obligation which is Consistent with the 2019 amendments n/a
Linsangan
completely different from that stated in the original
complaint.

It cannot be argued that the filing of the Amended Complaint

should retroact to the date of the filing of the original
complaint. As an exception, the Court held that an
amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts
Wallem Philippines
originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of
Shipping, Inc. vs S.R. Consistent with the 2019 amendments n/a
the commencement of the action and is not barred by the
Farms, Inc.,
statute of limitations which expired after the service of the
original complaint. However, this exception would not apply
to the party impleaded for the first time in the amended
complaint.

20
 Rule 10, Section 3 was
amended to make it not
Amendments may substantially alter the cause of action or merely directory but
defense when despite a substantial change or alteration in mandatory for the court to
the cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to deny leave if the motion was
Philippine Ports Authority
be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial Inconsistent with the 2019 amendments made with intent to delay,
vs Gothong
justice, prevent delay, and equally promote the laudable confer jurisdiction on the
objective of the rules which is to secure a just, speedy and court, or the pleading stated
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. no cause of action from the
beginning which could be
amended.

A supplemental complaint must be consistent with, and in

aid of, the cause of action set forth in the original complaint.
Sps. Lambino vs Presiding A new and independent cause of action cannot be set up. It
Consistent with the 2019 amendments n/a
Judge must be based on matters arising subsequent to the original
complaint related to the claim or defense presented therein,
and founded on the same cause of action.

A motion to dismiss is not an answer nor a responsive

Section 10, Rule 2 qualifies
pleading for purposes of Section 2, Rule 10. As no
the period within which
responsive pleading had been filed, respondent could
Alpine Lending Investors vs amendments may be a
amend her complaint as a matter of right. Considering that Inconsistent with the 2019 amendments
Corpuz matter of right from ten (10)
respondent has the right to amend her complaint, it is the
days to ten (10) calendar
correlative duty of the trial court to accept the amended
days.
complaint; otherwise, mandamus would lie against it.

If the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that
asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary,
especially where defendant had himself raised the point on
which recovery was based.
Azolla Farms vs Court of
The appellate court could treat the pleading as amended to
Appeals
conform to the evidence although the pleadings were
actually not amended. Amendment is also unnecessary
when only clerical error or non-substantial matters are
involved.
Consistent with the 2019 Amendments
The rule on amendment need not be
applied rigidly, particularly where no
surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting
party. Where there is a variance in the
n/a defendant's pleadings and the evidence
adduced by it at the trial, the Court may
treat the pleading as amended to conform
to the evidence.(National Power
Corporation vs Court of Appeals).

A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued

cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or
supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a
cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is
Swagman Hotels and
prematurely brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit,
travel, Inc vs Court of Consistent with the 2019 Amendments n/a
which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion
Appeals
seasonably filed by the defendant. The underlying reason
for this rule is that a person should not be summoned
before the public tribunals to answer for complaints which
are immature.

RULE 12 - BILL OF PARTICULARS

21
 A bill of particulars may be ordered as to a defense of fraud
No changes due to the 2019 Consistent with Rule 12, Sec
Guy vs Guy or mistake if the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake
amendments 2
are not stated with the particularity required by the rule

a motion for bill of particulars will not be granted if the

No changes due to the 2019
Salita vs Magtolis complaint, while not very definite, nonetheless already consistent with rule 12, sec 1
amendments
states a sufficient cause of action.

The rules of court expressly provides under Section 1 of

Rule 12 that "Section 1. When applied for; purpose. --
Before responding to a pleading, a party may move for a
more definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any
matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity to enable him properly to prepare his No changes due to the 2019 Consistent with rule 12, Sec
Baritua vs. Mercader
responsive pleading. If the pleading is a reply, the motion amendments 1
must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof. Such
motion shall point out the defects complained of, the
paragraphs wherein they are contained, and the details
desired." The period given is 10 days and any motion filed
beyond that is beyong the prescription given by law

While the Bill of Particulars should not be the basis for

No changes due to the 2019
ESTANDARTE vs. People determining what specific criminal charges should be filed Consistent with rule 12 sec 2
amendments
against any party

22