A.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES on the application to the trial of his

1. Distinguish: substantive law and remedial law case,
Substantive Law Remedial Law whether civil or criminal, of any other
than
Part of the law which Prescribes the methods of enforcing
the existing rules of procedure (Tan
creates, defines or those rights and obligations created
Jr. v. CA,
regulates rights by substantive law (Ibid.).
G.R. No. 136368, January 16, 2002).
concerning life, liberty
or property (Primicias
XPNs:
v. Ocampo, 81 Phil
1. The statute itself expressly or by
650) or the powers of
necessary implication provides that
agencies or
pending actions are excepted from its
instrumentalities for
operation To apply it to pending
the administration of
proceedings would impair vested
public affairs, which
rights;
when violated gives
rise to a cause of
2. Under appropriate circumstances,
action (Bustos v.
courts may deny the retroactive
Lucero, 81 Phil 640).
application of procedural laws in the
Creates vested rights Does not create vested rights
event that to do so would not be
Generally prospective GR: May be applied retroactively
feasible or would work injustice; or
in application
NOTE: A person has no vested right in
3. If to do so would involve intricate
any
problems of due process or impair
particular remedy, and a litigant
the independence of the courts (Ibid.)
cannot insist
 Enacted by Congress The SC is expressly empowered to
promulgate procedural rules
2. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
a. Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme
Court
1. It shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases;
2. The rules must be uniform for all the courts of the same
grade; and
3. The rules must not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights
Article VIII, Section 5 (5), 1987 Philippine Constitution
- SC shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning:
1. Protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights
2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
3. Admission to the practice of law
4. Integrated bar
5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged
- Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
SC
Note: SC has sole prerogative to amend, repeal, and
establish new rules for speedy disposition of cases and no
longer shared with the congress
b. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend
procedural rules
Power of the SC to amend the Rules of Court
The SC has the power to amend, repeal or even establish
new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process,
and the speedy disposition of cases (Makati Insurance Co.,
Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 167403, August 6, 2008).
Power of the SC to suspend the application of the Rules of
Court and exempt a case from its operation
The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or
procedural rules or to except a case from their operation
when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of
justice requires it (CIR v. Mirant Pagbilao Corporation, G.R.
No. 159593, October 12, 2006).
Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules of conflicting judgments, and confusion between litigants and
Procedure courts (Security Bank Corp. v. Judge Victorio, 468 SCRA 609).
1. The existence of special or compelling circumstances; 3. Nature of Philippine courts
2. The merits of the case; a. Meaning of a court
3. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence Court is an organ of the government, belonging to the
of the party favored by the suspension of rules; judicial department, whose function is the application of
4. A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely laws to controversies brought before it and the public
frivolous and dilatory; and administration of justice (Black’s Law Dictionary, 8thed.)
5. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby
(Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, February 5, 2007) b. Distinguish: court and judge
6. Transcendental matters of life, liberty, or state security Court Judge
(Mindanao Savings and Loan Association v. Vda. De Flores) It is a tribunal officially Simply an officer of such
7. Relieve litigant of injustice commensurate with the failure assembled under authority tribunal (Wagenhorst v.
to comply with prescribed procedure (Cu-Unjieng v. CA) of law. Philadelphia Life Insurance
8. Substantial and important issues await resolution (CIR v. Co., 358 Pa. 55, cited by
Mirant Pagbilao Corp.) Black’s 5th ed.)
Disqualification of a judge May be disqualified.
Power to stay proceedings and control its processes does not affect the court.
- is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control It is a being in imagination Physical person (People ex
the disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its comparable to a rel. Herndon v. Opekl, 188
time and effort, and that of counsel and the litigants. But if corporation. III 194,
proceedings must be stayed, it must be done in order to 58 NE 1996, cited by Blacks
avoid multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigations,
 5th ed.) Courts exercising Superior courts reviewing
Jurisdiction attaches to Jurisdiction does not attach jurisdiction in the first and deciding cases
court to judge instance; where case is previously decided by a
Note: court is an entity possessing separate personality from originally filed lower
the person sitting on it
e. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
c. Classification of Philippine courts Courts of general Courts of special
1. Regular courts: jurisdiction jurisdiction
a. Supreme Court; Those with competence to Those which have only a
b. Court of Appeals; decide on their own special jurisdiction for a
c. Regional Trial Courts; and jurisdiction and to take particular purpose or are
d. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts cognizance of all cases, civil clothed with special powers
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit and criminal, of a particular for the performance of
Trial Courts; nature (21 CJS Courts 3). specified duties beyond
2. Special courts: which they have no
a. Sandiganbayan; authority of any kind (21
b. Court of Tax Appeals; and CJS Courts 3).
c. Shari’a District Courts, Shari’a Circuit Courts;
3. Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies f. Constitutional and statutory courts
Constitutional Court Statutory Court
d. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction Created by the Created by law other than
Courts of Original Courts of Appellate Constitution, e.g. SC. Constitution, e.g. CA,
jurisdiction jurisdiction
 Sandiganbayan, CTA, RTC, positive law, for equity finds no room
MTC, MeTC, MCTC, MTCC. for application where there is law
Cannot be abolished by May be abolished by (Herrera, 2007).
Congress without Congress by just simply Decides a case Adjudicates a controversy according to
amending the Constitution repealing the law which according to the the common precepts of what is right
created those courts promulgated and just without inquiring into the
NOTE: All courts in the Philippines except the SC are law terms of the statutes
statutory courts. They have been created by statutory Courts of law – renders decision based on legislations
enactments (Riano, 2011). passed by the Congress

The Sandiganbayan is only a constitutionally mandated court Courts of equity – renders decision based on principles of
since, although its existence is provided under Constitution, fairness and justice.
its creation was by statutory enactment.
Equity jurisdiction – power of the court to resolve issues
g. Courts of law and equity presented in a case based on fairness and justice in the
Courts of Law Courts of Equity absence of clear positive law
Any tribunal Any tribunal administering justice
duly outside the law, being ethical rather In the Philippines, all courts are both courts of law and of
administering than jural and belonging to the sphere equity.
the laws of the of morals rather than of law. It is
land grounded on the precepts of Limitation: When there is a law that is applicable to a case,
conscience and not on any sanction of principles of equity may not be used as the basis.
h. Principle of judicial hierarchy/ Doctrine of Hierarchy of
Courts
The principle provides that lower courts shall initially decide
a case before it is considered by a higher court. A higher
court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts
(Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993).
The rule on hierarchy of courts determines the venue of
appeals. Such rule is necessary to prevent inordinate
demands upon the Court's precious time and attention
which are better devoted to matters within its exclusive
jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of the
Court's docket (Ang v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27,
2007).
NOTE: The rationale is two-fold:
1. It would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Supreme Court; and
2. It would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in adjudication of
cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court
as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve
the issues because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts (Heirs of Hinog v.
Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005).
-> Thjs jurisprudence was reversed in Gios-Samar v. DOTC
(2019) the Supreme court is mandated by the constitution to
practice strict adherence to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of
Courts because this is a filtering mechanism designed to
enable the court to focus on more fundamental tasks. The
Transcendental Importance Doctrine does not clothe the SC
with the power to tackle factual questions and play the role
of a trial court
The SC is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the duty assigned to it.
Principle of judicial hierarchy is NOT absolute
In several cases, the court has allowed direct invocation of
the SC’s original jurisdiction on the following grounds:
1. Special and important reasons clearly stated in the
petition;
2. When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of
public policy;
3. When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
4. When the challenged orders were patent nullities; or
5. When analogous, exceptional and compelling
circumstances called for and justified the immediate and
direct handling of the case (Republic v. Caguioa, et al., G.R.
No. 174385, February 20, 2013).
6. Where genuine issues of constitutionality must be
immediately addressed
NOTE: The SC may disregard the principle of hierarchy of
courts if warranted by the nature and importance of the
issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid
future litigations (Riano, 2011).
When may the principle of judicial hierarchy be
disregarded?
1. Special and important reasons;
2. Public welfare and public policy;
3. Broader interest of justice;
4. Order is a patent nullity;
5. Analogous circumstances;
6. Issue of constitutionality; and
7. Transcendental importance.
i. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial
stability
GR: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments
or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction/co
equal . Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot
interfere with each other’s orders.
Reason: To provide stability in the judicial system.
XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third-party
claimant is involved (Santos v. Bayhon, G.R. No. 88643, July
23, 1991).
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of
jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case
and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for
its execution and overall its incidents, and to control, in
furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers
acting in connection with this judgment (United Alloy vs
UCPB, G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015, Del Castillo, J.).
Settled is the rule that where the law provides for an appeal
from the decisions of administrative bodies to the Supreme
Court or the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are
co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts in terms of rank and
stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter
(Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric Power And
Light Co. Inc., G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002).
B. JURISDICTION 3)
Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of a court to Original jurisdiction - Actions or proceedings are to be
try, hear, and decide a case and the power to enforce its directly filed before it.
determination. (21 CJS, 9) Appellate jurisdiction - Power to review judgments

NOTE: It is derived from the Latin words “juris” and “dico,” b. Distinguish: general and special
which literally means “I speak of the law.” Courts of General Courts of Special
jurisdiction jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law Those with competence to Those which have only a
decide on their own special jurisdiction for a
Only jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by jurisdiction and to take particular purpose or are
substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties, issues and res cognizance of all cases, civil clothed with special powers
is governed by procedural laws (Riano, 2011). and criminal, of a particular for the performance of
nature (21 CJS Courts 3). specified duties beyond
1. Classification of jurisdiction which
they have no authority of
a. Distinguish: original and appellate any kind (21 CJS Courts 3).
Courts of Original Courts of Appellate
jurisdiction jurisdiction General jurisdiction – Courts which can pass upon all kinds
Courts exercising Superior courts reviewing of cases such as MTCs and RTCs.
jurisdiction in the first and deciding cases
instance previously decided by a
lower court (21 CJS Courts
Special jurisdiction – Courts which can only pass upon
certain types of cases such as the CTA, Commercial courts,
and Family courts.
c. Distinguish: exclusive and concurrent
Exclusive – It means that it is the only court that can take
cognizance of a case. BP 22 cases falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MTC, regardless of the amount involved.
Concurrent – Different courts can take cognizance of a case.
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 can be filed with the
RTC, CA, or SC.
2. Doctrines of hierarchy of courts and continuity of
jurisdiction
Hierarchy of courts – the case must be filed before the
lowest court possible. (see Judicial hierarchy)
Continuity of jurisdiction – once the court acquires
jurisdiction, it retains the same until the case is decided.
DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION (CONTINUITY
OF JURISDICTION)
GR: Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by
subsequent happenings or events although of a character
which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
the first instance, and the court retains jurisdiction until it
finally disposes of the case.
XPNs:
1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the
continued exercise of jurisdiction;
2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is
repealed by a subsequent law;
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such
as where the court fails to provide counsel for the accused
who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently waive
his constitutional right;
4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to
the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending
before its enactment;
5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is
terminated, abandoned or declared void; 6. Once appeal has
been perfected; and
7. Curative statutes (Herrera, 2007)
NOTE: The rule of adherence of jurisdiction until a cause is
finally resolved or adjudicated does not apply when the
change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Abad,et al. v.
RTC, G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987).
Effect of retroactivity of laws on jurisdiction
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the
established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines jurisdiction
(Herrera, 2007).
3. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts
a. Supreme Court
- GR: SC is not a trier of facts
- XPN:
1. Conclusion grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises, and conjectures
2. Inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible
3. Grave abuse of discretion
4. Judgment based on misapprehension of facts
5. Findings of fact are conflicting
6. CA, in making findings, went beyond issues
7. Findings are contrary to those of trial court
8. Findings did not cite specific evidence relied upon
9. Facts set forth in the petition are not disputed by
the respondents
10. Findings of CA premised on absence of evidence
and contradicted by evidence on record
Cases to be decided by SC En Banc
1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law;
2. Cases involving the constitutionality, application or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances and other regulations;
3. A case where the required number of votes in a division is
not obtained;
4. A doctrine or principle laid down in a decision rendered
en banc or by division is modified, or reversed; and
5. All other cases required to be heard en banc under the
Rules of Court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
b. Court of Appeals

- Note: appellate jurisdiction may be by:

1. ordinary appeal
2. petition for review
c. Court of Tax Appeals
d. Sandiganbayan f. RA 7659 – Heinous Crime Law
g. RA 9160 – Anti Money Laundering Law committed by a public
RA 10660 officer
Section 4. Jurisdiction h. PD 46 – Gift Giving Decree
c. Provided, that the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive i. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with
original jurisdiction· where the information: other crimes committed in relation to their office by the covered
(a) does not allege any damage to the government or any public officials or employees
bribery; or j. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A issued in 1986
same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not k. Petitions for issuance of Writ of certiorari, prohibition,
exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00). mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction, and other ancillary writs
Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided,
falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under this jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme Court
section shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the l. Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that may arise in cases
official holds office. filed or that may be filed under EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A series of
a. RA 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 1986
b. RA 1379 – Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth EO 1 – Presidential Commission on Good Government
c. Revised Penal Code – Crimes committed by public officers (SG EO 2 – Regarding the assets illegally acquired by former Pres.
27?): Marcos
i. Direct Bribery – Art. 210 EO 14 – Defining jurisdiction over cases involving ill-gotten
ii. Indirect Bribery – Art. 211 wealth of former Pres. Marcos
iii. Qualified Bribery – Art. 211-A EO 14-A – Amended EO 14
iv. Corruption of Public Officials – Art. 212
d. RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Concurrent original jurisdiction:With SC, CA, and RTC: for petitions
e. RA 7080 – Plunder Law of Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data
Appellate jurisdiction : Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions, orders of the RTC whether in its exercise
of original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction
e. Regional Trial Court
Test to determine whether an action is capable of
pecuniary estimation
- The criterion is the nature of the principal action or the
remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the MTCs or in the
RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim.
- However, where the basic issue is something other than
the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim
is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought like specific performance suits and in actions
for support, or for annulment of a judgment or foreclosure
of mortgage, such actions are incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTCs
(Barangay Piapi v. Talip, G.R. No. 138248, September 7,
2005).
- Note: Home Guaranty v. R-II Builders: action to nullify deed
of assignment and conveyance is capable of pecuniary
estimation but action to cancel a contract to sell where
defendant has already taken possession of the property,
involves a determination of whether the suspensive
condition has been fulfilled and is therefore incapable of
pecuniary estimation (Olivarez Realty v. Castillo)
- Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo: action to redeem land subject
of a free patent is incapable of pecuniary estimation
- Brgy. San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor: Expropriation suit is
incapable of pecuniary estimation
Intra-corporate controversies that are within the
jurisdiction of the RTC
1. Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of, the board
of directors, business associates, officers or partners,
amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which may be
detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the
stockholders, partners, or members of any corporation,
partnership, or association;
2. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate, partnership,
or association relations, between and among stockholders,
members, or associates; and between, any or all of them
and the corporation, partnership, or association of which
they are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively;
3. Controversies in the election or appointment of directors,
trustees, officers, or managers of corporations, partnerships,
or associations;
4. Derivative suits; and
5. Inspection of corporate book (Rule 1, IRR of RA 8799)
f. Family Court
Family Court
a. Guardianship, custody, habeas corpus involving
children (not involving children – Regular RTC)
b. Adoption
c. Marriage – Annulment, nullity, property relations,
dissolution of CPG.
d. Support and Acknowledgment
e. Summary Proceedings under the Family Code
f. Declaration of Status of Children
g. Cases involving Family Home
h. Drugs cases against minors
i. Cases under RA 7610 (Law on Special Protection of
Children)
j. Cases under RA 9262 (VAWC)
g. MTC, MeTC, MCTC
MeTC – Metropolitan area particularly Metro Manila
MTC – In municipalities, in city or not Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter Jurisdiction
MCTC – in each circuit comprising of cities and of court over the class of cases to which a particular case
municipalities belongs. [Geronimo v. Calderon, 744 SCRA 564 (2014)]
D. Aspects of Jurisdiction It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general
a. Jurisdiction over the parties (Jurisdiction in personam) class to which the proceedings in question belong (Herrera,
It is the power of the court to make decisions that are 2007).
binding on persons. [De Pedro v. Romasan Development
Corporation, 743 SCRA 52 (2014)] Distinguish: jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction
a. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired –
upon filing of the complaint: presupposes payment
of docket fees
b. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
1. by voluntary appearance
2. by valid service of summons
3. by other coercive process (in criminal
cases)
Note: Jurisdiction over defendant is not necessary in cases in
rem or quasi in rem as long as court has jurisdiction over the
res

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. [Arranza
v. B.F. Homes, Inc., 333 SCRA 799, 812 (2000)]
The exercise of this power or authority is called the exercise
of jurisdiction and where there is jurisdiction over the
person and the subject matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that
jurisdiction. [Republic v. “G.” Holdings, Inc., 475 SCRA 608,
619(2005)]`
How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
It is conferred by law, that is, BP 129, otherwise known as
“Judiciary Reorganization Act.” It does not depend on the
objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or anyone
of them (Republic v. Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515; PNB v.
Florendo, 206 SCRA 582).
Instances when jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot
be conferred
1. By the administrative policy of any court;
2. A court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction;
3. An erroneous belief by the court that it has jurisdiction;
4. By the parties through a stipulation, e.g. contract;
5. The voluntary act/agreement of the parties acquired
through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or
omission of the parties; or
6. Parties’ silence, acquiescence or consent (Riano, 2011).
Determination of jurisdiction over the subject matter
It is determined by the allegations of the complaint
(Baltazar v. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74) regardless of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims asserted
therein
- Not affected by pleas set up by defendant in answer or
MTD
Distinguish: doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction
and doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
Doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction
 The court cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where
the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring special knowledge,
experience and services in determining technical and
intricate matters of fact (Omictin v. CA, G.R. No. 148004,
January 22, 2007).

 A remedy within the administrative office must be
resorted to give the administrative officers every
opportunity to decide a matter within his jurisdiction. Such
remedy must be exhausted first before the court's power of
judicial review can be sought. [Garcia v. Tolentino, 12
August, 766 SCRA 277 (2015)]
 If the determination of the case requires the expertise,
specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative
body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before resort to the court is made even if the
matter may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction
[ Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Uniwide Sales , Inc., 634 SCRA
232, 240, (2010)]
Objective of Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
The objective is to guide the court in determining whether it
should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an
administrative agency has determined some question or
some aspects of some question arising in the proceeding
before the court. [ Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Uniwide Sales,
Inc., 634 SCRA 232, 240 (2010)]
NOTE: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the
courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction
has initially been lodged with an administrative body of
special competence. For instance, in agrarian reform cases,
jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform;
more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) (Spouses Fajardo v.Flores, G.R.
No. 167891, January 15, 2010).
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
It states that recourse through court action cannot prosper
until after all such administrative remedies have first been
exhausted. The non-observance of the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies
results in lack of cause of action (National Electrification
Administration v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 168203, March 9,
2010).
NOTE: The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies
and doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only when the
administrative agency exercises quasijudicial or adjudicatory 3. When the controverted act is patently illegal or was
function (Associate Communications and Wireless Services v. performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction;
Dumalao, G.R. No. 136762, November21, 2002). 4. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency concerned;
RATIONALE: The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow 5. When its application may cause great and irreparable
administrative agencies to carry out their functions and damage;
discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas 6. When the respondent is a Department Secretary, whose
of their respective competence (Caballes v. Perez-Sison, G.R. acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied or
No. 131759, March 23, 2004). assumed approval of the latter unless actually disapproved
by him;
It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier 7. When to require administrative remedies would be
resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also unreasonable;
impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the 8. When the insistence in its observance would result in the
system of administrative nullification of the claim being asserted;
redress has been completed (Universal Robina Corporation 9. When the subject matter is a private land in land case
v. Laguna Lake Authority, G.R. No. 191427, May 30, 2011). proceedings;
10. When it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy;
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative 11. Where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of
Remedies judicial intervention (Paat v. CA, G.R. No. 111107, January
1. When respondent official acted in utter disregard of due 10, 1997);
process; 12. Exhaustion of administrative remedies may also be
2. When the questions involved are purely judicial or legal; considered waived if there is a failure to assert it for an
unreasonable length of time (Rep. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 112708-09, March 29, 1996);
13. A civil action for damages may, however, proceed
notwithstanding the pendency of an administrative action
(Escuerte v. CA, G.R. No. L-53485, February 6, 1991);
14. When the claim involved is small;
15. When strong public interest is involved; and
16. In quo warranto proceedings (Castro v. Gloria, G.R. No.
132174, August 20, 2001)
Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies
The ground should not be lack of jurisdiction but lack of
cause of action as it renders the action
premature (Carale v. Abarintos, G.R. No. 120704, March 3,
1997; Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574).
e. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (Continuity of
Jurisdiction)
GR:
Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events although of a character which would
have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance, and the court retains jurisdiction until it finally
disposes of the case.
XPNs:
1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the
continued exercise of jurisdiction;
2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is
repealed by a subsequent law;
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such
as where the court fails to provide counsel for the accused
who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently waive
his constitutional right;
4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to
the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending
before its enactment;
5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is
terminated, abandoned or declared void;
6. Once appeal has been perfected; and
7. Curative statutes (Herrera, 2007)
NOTE: The rule of adherence of jurisdiction until a cause is Jurisdiction does not depend on the amount ultimately
finally resolved or adjudicated does not apply when the substantiated and awarded by the trial court [Dionisio v.
change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Abad, et al. v. Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471, 477, (1974)]
RTC, G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987).
Effect of retroactivity of laws on jurisdiction
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the
established rule is that the statute in force at the time
of the commencement of the action determines jurisdiction
(Herrera, 2007).

H. How jurisdiction is determined

It is determined by the allegations of the complaint
(Baltazar v. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74) regardless of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims asserted
therein (Gocotano v. Gocotano, 469 SCRA 328).
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the
complaint, as well as by the character of the relief sought.
Jurisdiction does not depend on the complaint's caption.
Hence, a complaint merely bearing the caption, “recovery of
possession,” is actually an unlawful detainer case if it
contains jurisdictional facts of said action.
f. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter as an adjudication, but because it cannot be tolerated by
GR: reason of public policy
The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject (Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Dumlao, G.R. No. L44888,
matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings and February 7, 1992); and
even for the first time on appeal (Riano, 2011).
3. A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to secure
XPNs: affirmative relief against his opponents cannot repudiate or
1. Estoppel by laches – SC barred a belated objection to question the same after failing to obtain such relief
jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, G.R. Nos. L-48907& 49035, January
was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue 19, 1982).
of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from the
court and after participating in all stages of the proceedingsNOTE: Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, a motion attacking
(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968); a pleading like a motion to dismiss shall include all grounds
then available and all objections not so included shall be
NOTE: There is laches when a party is aware, even in deemed waived (Sec. 8, Rule 115).
the early stages of the proceedings, of a possible
jurisdictional objection, and has every opportunity Even in the absence of lack of jurisdiction raised in a motion
to raise said objection, but failed to do so, even on to dismiss, a party may, when he files an answer, still raise
appeal (Lamsis v. Dong-e, G.R. No. 173021, October the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because
20, 2010, Del Castillo, J.). such defense is not barred under the omnibus motion rule.

2. Public policy – One cannot question the jurisdiction which

he invoked, not because the decision is valid and conclusive
g. Effect of estoppel on objection to jurisdiction
Doctrine of Estoppel by laches
It refers to the belated objection to jurisdiction that was
raised by a party only when an adverse decision was
rendered by the lower court. [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23
SCRA 29 (1968)]
The active participation of a party in a case and seeking of
affirmative reliefs is tantamount to recognition of that
court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the
court’s jurisdiction. This only applies to exceptional
circumstances (Concepcion v. Regalado, G.R. No. 167988,
February 6, 2007).
The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party
submitting his case for decision and then accepting the
judgment only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of
jurisdiction, when adverse. [ United Church of Christ in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc., 674
SCRA 92, 104 (2012)]
The Doctrine in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy on estoppel by laches
is NOT the general rule
The ruling in Tijam that a party is estopped from questioning
the jurisdiction applies only to exceptional circumstances.
What is still controlling is that jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be
conferred by consent or agreement of the parties (Calimlim
v. Ramirez, G.R. No. L34362, November 19, 1982).
3. Jurisdiction over the issue
The power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the
(1) pleadings of the parties; or (2) by their agreement in a
pre-trial order or those tried by the implied consent of the
parties (Sec. 5, Rule 10).
It may also be conferred by (3) waiver or failure to object to
the presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the
pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respect as if
they had been raised in the pleadings (Ibid.).
The issue in a case may be either one of law or of fact
Question of law – when the doubt or difference arises as to of the parties or suits involving the property in the
what the law is on a certain set of facts Philippines of non-resident defendants (Riano, 2011).
Question of fact – when the doubt or difference arises as to
the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts [Sps. Santos v.
Court of Appeals, 337 SCRA 67, 74 (2000)]

4. Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation

The jurisdiction of the court over the thing or the property
which is the subject of the action. It is necessary when the
action is one in rem or quasi in rem. 5. Jurisdiction over the remedies
The jurisdiction of the court over the remedies prayed for,
How jurisdiction over the res is acquired e.g. jurisdictional amount.
It is acquired either by:
1. The seizure of the property under legal process; Provisional remedies
2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which Once the court has jurisdiction over the main case, ancillary
the power of the court is recognized and made effective or provisional remedies are included, e.g.
(Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291); support, receivership, and replevin.
3. The court by placing the property of thing under its
custody (custodia legis), e.g. attachment of property; or E. Distinguish: error of jurisdiction and error of judgment
4. The court through statutory authority conferring upon it
the power to deal with the property or thing within the
court’s territorial jurisdiction, e.g. suits involving the status
F. Distinguish: jurisdiction and venue
Venue
The place, or geographical
area where an action is to
be filed and tried (Manila
Railroad Company v.
Attorney General, 20 Phil
523).
Can only be objected to
before the other party files
a (Hrs. of Lopez v. de Castro, 324 SCRA 591).
responsive pleading
(Answer)
May be waived by:
1. Failure to object through
a motion to dismiss or
through an affirmative
defense; or
2. Stipulation of the parties.
Matter of procedural law
May be stipulated by the
parties
parties
Establishes a relation Establishes a relation
Jurisdiction between the plaintiff and between the court and the
Power of the court to hear defendant, or petitioner subject matter
and decide a case and respondent.
GR: Not a ground for a It is a ground for a motu
motu proprio dismissal proprio dismissal in case of
(Riano, 2014) lack of jurisdiction over the
XPN: In cases subject to subject matter (Riano,
Can be brought up at any summary procedure (Ibid.) 2014; Sec. 1, Rule 9)
stage of the proceedings NOTE: In civil cases, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction
Venue becomes jurisdictional only in a criminal case. Where
Cannot be waived the Information is not filed in the place where the offense
was committed, the information may be quashed for lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged (Sec. 3, Rule 117).
Matter of substantive law
Cannot be the subject of
the agreement of the
Purpose of rules on fixing venue
They are designed to insure a just and orderly
administration of justice, or the impartial and evenhanded
determination of every action and proceeding (Esuerte v.
CA, G.R. No. 53485, February 6, 1991; Saludo, Jr. v. American
Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006).

The situs for bringing real and personal actions are fixed by
the rules to attain the greatest convenience possible to the
party litigants by taking into consideration the maximum
accessibility to them of the courts of justice (Bartiua v. CA,
G.R. No. 100748, February 3, 1997).

G. Jurisdiction over small claims, cases covered by the rules

on Summary Procedure and Barangay
Conciliation
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Applicability Commencement of Civil Action

-ROC shall apply in all the courts The filing of the original complaint in court signifies the
-except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. [Sec. commencement of the civil action. [Sec. 5, Rule 1]
2, Rule 1]
Construction
Actions or Proceedings Governed by the ROC The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote a
1. Civil actions just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and
2. Criminal actions proceeding. [Sec. 6, Rule 1]
3. Special Proceedings
A strict and rigid application of the rules of procedure,
Actions or Proceedings Not Governed by ROC especially on technical matters, which tend to frustrate
1. Election cases rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.
2. Land registration cases [Tiorosio- Espinosa v. Hofileña-Europa, G.R. No. 185746
3. Cadastral cases (2016)]
4. Naturalization cases
5. Insolvency proceedings However, compliance with the procedural rules is still the
general rule, and abandonment thereof should only be done
However, the Rules may still apply to the cases above by in the most exceptional circumstances. [Pilapil v. Heirs of
analogy or in suppletory character and whenever practicable Briones, 514 SCRA 197 (2007)]
and convenient. [Sec. 4, Rule 1]
B. ACTIONS

1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions

It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement
or protection of a right or the prevention or A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
redress of a wrong [Sec. 3(a), Rule 1]. establish a status, a right, or a particular fact
[Sec. 3 (c), Rule 1].
2. Meaning of special civil actions
It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement 5. Personal actions and real actions
or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a
wrong wherein it has special features not found in ordinary
civil actions. It is governed by ordinary rules but subject to
specific rules prescribed under Rules 62-71 (Riano, 2011).
6. Local and transitory actions
3. Meaning of criminal actions
It is one by which the state prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law [Sec. 3(b), Rule
1].

4. Distinguish: civil actions and special proceedings

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong [Sec. 3 (a), Rule 1].
7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem

NOTE: The distinction between actions in rem, in personam

and quasi in rem is important in determining the following:

1. Whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant is required; and
2. The type of summons to be employed (Gomez v. CA, G.R.
No. 127692, March 10, 2004)
C. CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Meaning of cause of action

It is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of 2. Distinguish: right of action and cause of action
another (Sec. 2, Rule 2).

The question as to whether a plaintiff has a cause of action is

determined by the averments in the pleadings pertaining to
the acts of the defendant. Whether such acts give him a
right of action is determined by substantive law (Herrera,
2007).

Elements of a cause of action

a. legal right in favor of the plaintiff
b. correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such
right; and
c. act or omission by the defendant in violation of the right
of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the
recovery of relief from the defendant. [Metropolitan Bank v.
Ley Construction and Development Corporation, 743 SCRA
618 (2014)]
3. Distinguish: failure to state a cause of action and lack of
cause of action
The Court had emphasized, on various occasions, that failure
to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are
distinct grounds to dismiss a particular action. The former
[i.e., failure to state cause of action] refers to the
insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while the
latter [i.e., lack of cause of action] to the insufficiency of the
factual basis for the action. [Westmont Bank v. Funai
Philippines Corporation, 762 SCRA 82 (2015)]
4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action
Whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could
render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the
complaint (Misamis Occidental II Coop., Inc. v. David, G.R.
No. 129928, August 25, 2005).
The sufficiency of the statement of cause of action must
appear on the face of the complaint and its existence is only
determined by the allegations of the complaint (Viewmaster
Construction Corp. v. Roxas, G.R. No. 133576, 13 July 2000).
Admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the court render
a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer? To be taken
into account are only the material allegations in the
complaint. Extraneous facts and circumstances or other
matters aliunde are not considered. [Zepeda v. China
Banking Corporation, 504 SCRA 126, 131- 132, (2006)]
NOTE: The truth or falsity of the allegations is beside the
point because the allegations in the complaint are
hypothetically admitted. Thus, a motion to dismiss on the
ground of failure to state a cause of action hypothetically
admits the matters alleged in the complaint (Riano 2014,
citing PNB v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121251, June 26,
1998; Sta. Clara Homeowner’s Association v. Gaston,G.R.
No. 141961, January 23, 2002)
5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
It is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of
the same cause of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is the act of
dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several
parts or claims and bringing several actions thereon (Riano
2014, citing Quadra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147593,
July 31, 2006). This practice, which applies not only to
complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims, is
discouraged.
A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs but only one terminated.
action can be filed, not one action for each relief. (Riviera
Golf, Inc. v. CCA Holdings B.V., 758 SCRA 691 [2015])
RATIO:
1. Breeds multiplicity of suits;
2. Clogs the court dockets;
3. Leads to vexatious litigation;
4. Operates as an instrument of harassment; and
5. Generates unnecessary expenses to the parties (Riano,
2014) (1999, 2005 Bar)
Effect of splitting a cause of action
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of
the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2).
Remedies against splitting cause of action
The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on either
of the following grounds:
1. Litis pendentia; or
2. Res judicata, if the first action has already been
NOTE: Litis pendentia and forum shopping have similar
elements, so it is best for the counsel to move for the
dismissal based on forum shopping under Sec. 5, Rule 7
instead, and show that the party or his counsel willfully and
deliberately resorted to forum shopping. This is because the
effect is a dismissal with prejudice, in addition to the
sanction for direct contempt as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.

6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action

Joinder of causes of action
It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party may
have against another in one pleading alone (Sec. 5, Rule 2).

Requisites of joinder of causes of action
1. The party shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties
(Sec. 6, Rule 3):
a. Right to relief exists in favor of or against several
persons;
b. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction
or series of transaction; and
c. There is common question of law of law or fact.
2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed
by special rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder
may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and venue
lies therein; and
4. Totality Test - Where claims in all causes of action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test for jurisdiction (Sec. 5, Rule 2)
(2002Bar).
NOTE: A joinder of causes of action is only permissive, not
compulsory; hence, a party may desire to file a single suit for
each of his claims (Riano, 2014).
Misjoinder of causes of action
There is a misjoinder when two or more causes of action
were joined in one complaint when they should not be so
joined.
This is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined
cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative
of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately by
filing a motion in relation thereto (Sec. 6, Rule 2). There is no
sanction against non joinder of separate causes of action.
D. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTION
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action. (Rule 3,
Section 1)
1. Natural persons;
2. Juridical persons:
a. The State and its political subdivisions;
b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for
public interest or purpose, created by law; and
c. Corporations, partnerships and associations for
private interest or purpose to which the law grants a
juridical personality, separate and distinct from that
of each shareholder, partner or member (Art. 44,
NCC);
3. Entities authorized by law:
a. Corporation by estoppel is precluded from
denying its existence and the members thereof can
be sued and be held liable as general partners (Sec.
21, Corporation Code);
b. A contract of partnership having a capital of three
thousand pesos or more but which fails to comply
with the registration requirements is nevertheless
liable as a partnership to third persons (Art. 1772 in
relation to Art. 1768, NCC);
c. Estate of a deceased person (Limjoco v. Intestate
Estate of Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, April 27, 1948);
d. A legitimate labor organization may sue and be
sued in its registered name (Art. 242[e], Labor Code
of the Philippines);
e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as
to its properties, the archbishop or diocese to which
they belong (Versoza v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-
25264, November 22, 1926); and
f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and
defend suits by or against it provided that the suits:
a. Occur within three years after its
dissolution; and
b. The suits are in connection with the
settlement and closure of its affairs (Sec.
112, Corporation Code).
1. Real parties in interest; indispensable parties;
representatives as parties; necessary parties;
indigent Parties; alternative defendants
Kinds of parties in a civil action (RIR-NIP)
1. Real parties in interest
He is the party who stands to be: (BIE)
1. Benefited;
2. Injured by the judgment in the suit; or
3. The party entitled to the avails of the suit (Sec. 2,
Rule 3)
NOTE: The interest must be ‘real,’ which is a present
substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy
or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential
interest (Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142, December 10,
2007). It is an interest that is material and direct, as
distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question
(Samaniego v. Aguila, G.R. No. 125567, June 27, 2000).
2. Indispensable parties
Those without whom no final determination can be had of
an action (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
NOTE: The absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even
as to those present (Riano, 2014). Tests to determine
whether a party is an indispensable party
1. Can relief be afforded to the plaintiff without the
presence of the other party?
2. Can the case be decided on its merits without
prejudicing the rights of the other party? (Rep. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003)
Effect of failure to join an indispensable party
The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the
exercise of juridical power and when an indispensable party
is not before the court, the action should be dismissed
(Riano, 2014, citing Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. No. 159794,
December 19, 2006).
However, an outright dismissal is not the immediate
remedy authorized because, under the Rules,
misjoinder/non-joinder of parties is NOT a ground for
dismissal. It is when the order of the court to implead an
indispensable party goes unheeded may the case be
dismissed. In such case, the court may dismiss the complaint
due to the fault of the plaintiff as when he does not comply
with any order of the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17) ¸ such as an
order to join indispensable parties (Riano, 2014, citing
Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009).
3. Representatives as parties
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended
by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the
case. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust,
a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
authorized by law or these Rules.
4. Necessary parties
Those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as
parties:
1. If complete relief is to be accorded to those
already parties; or
2. For a complete determination or settlement of
the claim subject of the action (Sec. 8, Rule 3).
NOTE: Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted
a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted
5. Indigent parties
He is one:
1. Whose gross income and that of his immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the monthly
minimum wage of an employee; and
2. Who does not own real property with a fair
market value as stated in the current tax declaration
of more than Php 300,000.00 (Sec. 19, Rule 141 as
amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04- SC).
He is one who has no money or property sufficient and
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family (Sec. 21, Rule 3).
NOTE: He shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees
Rule on indigent litigants
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property
requirements under Sec. 19, Rule 141, then the grant of the
application is mandatory.
However, if the trial court finds that one or both
requirements have not been met, then it would set a
hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant
has “no money or property sufficient and available for food,
shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family”, as
provided in Sec. 21, Rule 3. In that hearing, the adverse
party may adduce countervailing evidence to disprove the
evidence presented by the applicant; after which the trial
court will rule on the application depending on the evidence
adduced.
In addition, Sec. 21, Rule 3 also provides that the adverse
party may later still contest the grant of such authority at
any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court,
possibly based on newly discovered evidence not obtained
at the time the application was heard (Algura v. LGU of
Naga, G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006).
Exemption from fees
Authority as an indigent party includes an exemption from
the payment of:
1. Docket fees and other lawful fees; and
2. Transcript of stenographic notes (Sec. 21, Rule 3)
NOTE: The amount of the docket and other lawful fees
which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien
on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the
indigent, unless otherwise provided (Sec. 21, Rule 3).
6. Pro-forma parties
One who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because
such party has any real interest in the subject matter or
because any relief is demanded, but merely because the
technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such
party on the record (Samaniego v. Agulia, G.R. No. 125567,
June 27, 2000).
2. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties
Compulsory joinder of parties (2009 Bar)
The joinder of parties becomes compulsory when the one
involved is an indispensable party (Riano, 2014)
The plaintiff is mandated to implead all the indispensable
parties, considering that the absence of one such party
renders all subsequent action of the court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties
but even as to those present. One who is a party to a case is
not bound by any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be
deprived of his right to due process (Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez,
G.R. No. 152195, January 31, 2005).
Permissive joinder of Parties
All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or
in the alternative, may join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or
fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants
may arise in the action.
Requisites of permissive joinder of parties (2002 Bar)
1. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or
series of transactions (connected with the same subject
matter of the suit); and
2. There is a question of law or fact common to all the
plaintiffs or defendants.
NOTE: There is a question of law in a given case when the
doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts; there is a question of fact when doubt arises
as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts (Manila Bay
Club Corp. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 110015, January 11, 1995).
Rationale of permissive joinder of parties
The purpose and aim of the principle is to have
controversies and the matters directly related thereto
settled once and for all once they are brought to the courts
for determination. Litigation is costly both to litigants and to
the State, and the objective of procedure is to limit its
number or extent. In consonance with the above principle,
we have the rules against multiplicity of suits, the rule of
estoppel by judgment (Sec. 44, Rule 39), and the rule of res
judicata (Sec. 45, Rule 39; Fajardo v. Bayano, G.R. No. L-
8314, March 23, 1956
Q: When may the court order the joinder of a necessary
party? (1998 Bar)
A: If the reason given for the non-joinder of the necessary
party is found by the court to be unmeritorious, it may order
the pleader to join the omitted party if jurisdiction over his
person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the
order of the court to include a necessary party, without
justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim
against such party (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
3. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
The Rules of Court prohibit the dismissal of a suit on the
ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows
the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the
proceedings, through motion or on orderof the court on its
own initiative (Sec. 11, Rule 3; Rep. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 152154, July 15, 2003).
However, when the order of the court to implead an
indispensable party goes unheeded, the court may order the
dismissal of the case. The court is fully clothed with the
authority to dismiss a complaint due to the fault of the
plaintiff as when, among others, he does not comply with
the order of the court (Riano, 2014, citing Sec. 3, Rule 17;
Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March 21, 2009).
4. Class Suit
It is an action where one or some of the parties may sue for
the benefit of all if the requisites for said action are
complied with (Riano, 2014)
Requisites of class suit (2005 Bar)
1. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or
general interest to many persons;
2. Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable
to bring them all before the court;
3. Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or
representative of the class and can fully protect the interests
of all concerned; and 4. Representatives sue or defend for
the benefit of all (Sec. 12, Rule 3; Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta,
G.R. No. L 31061, August 17, 1976).
A civil case instituted for the cancellation of existing timber
license agreements in the country by petitioners in behalf of
themselves and others who are equally concerned about the
preservation of the country’s resources is indeed a class suit.
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and
general
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the
Philippines (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083,
Juy 30, 1993).
NOTE: Even if the parties are numerous, there must be a
community of interest for a class suit because the subject
matter of the controversy must be of common interest
among all of them. If the class suit is not proper, the remedy
of the parties is either to bring suit individually, or join them
all as parties under the rule on permissive joinder of parties.
5. Suits against entities without juridical personality When
two or more persons not organized as an entity with
juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be
sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the
names and addresses of the persons composing said entity
must all be revealed (Sec. 15, Rule 3).
NOTE: Persons associated in an entity without juridical
personality, however, cannot sue under such
name, because, as stated in the Rules, its authority to be a
party is confined only to being a defendant, as is evident
from the words “they may be sued” (Riano, 2014).
6. Effect of death of party litigant
Effect of the death of a party upon a pending action (1999
Bar)
1. Purely personal action – the death of either of the
parties extinguishes the claim and the action is
dismissed.
2. Action that is not purely personal – claim is not
extinguished and the party should be substituted by
his heirs, executor or administrator. In case of minor
heirs, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for
them.
3. Action for recovery of money arising from
contract and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgment – it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the
 plaintiff shall be enforced in the manner provided in
the rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of
a deceased person (Sec. 20, Rule 3).

NOTE: A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall

be enforced under Rule 86. Relative thereto, since the
complaint action survives the death of defendant, the case
shall not be dismissed and the Court shall merely order the
substitution of the deceased defendant (Atty. Sarsaba
v.Vda. De Te, G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009) (2014 Bar). NOTE: The question as to whether an action survives or not
depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued
The substitute defendant need not be summoned. The order for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong
of substitution shall be served upon the parties substituted complained [of] affects primarily and principally property
for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely
(Riano, 2014). If there is notice of death, the court should incidental, while in the causes of action which do not
await the appointment of legal representative; otherwise, survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the
subsequent proceedings are void (1999Bar). property and rights of property affected being incidental
(Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010)

Purpose of non-survival of claims

Claims that survive vs. claims that do not survive The reason for the dismissal of the case is that upon the
death of the defendant a testate or
intestate proceeding shall be instituted in the proper court
wherein all his creditors must appear
and file their claims which shall be paid proportionately out
of the property left by the deceased
(1 Moran, 1979).
Purpose and importance of substitution of the deceased
The purpose behind the rule on substitution of parties is the
protection of the right of every party to due process. It is to
ensure that the deceased would continue to be properly
represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal
representative of the estate (Torres v. CA, G.R. No. 120138,
September 5, 1997; Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510
November 23, 1995)
Effect of non-compliance with the rules on substitution
GR: It renders the proceedings of the trial court infirm
because the court acquired no jurisdiction over the person
of the legal representative (Brioso v. Rili-Mariano,G.R. No.
132765, January 31, 2003).
Non-compliance therewith results in the undeniable
violation of the right to due process of those who, though
not duly notified of the proceedings, are substantially
affected by the decision rendered therein (Vda. De Salazar
v. CA, G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995).
XPNs: (Where the non-compliance does NOT deprive the
court of jurisdiction)
1. When the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared,
participated in the case and presented evidence in
defense of deceased defendant (Vda. De Salazar v.
CA, G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995); or
2. In ejectment cases where the counsel fails to
inform the court of the death of his client and
thereby results to the non-substitution of the
deceased by his legal representatives.
NOTE: The decision of the court is binding upon the
successors-in-interest of the deceased. A judgment in an
ejectment case may be enforced not only against
defendants but also against the members of their family,
their relatives, or privies who derived their right of
possession from the deceased defendant (Vda. De Salazar v.
CA, G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995 citing Florendo Jr.
v. Coloma, G.R. No. L60544, May 19, 1984).
E. VENUE
1. Venue of real actions
The venue is local; hence the venue is the place where the
real property involved or, any portion thereof, is situated
(Sec. 1, Rule 4) (2008 Bar).
Forcible entry and detainer actions – in the MTC of the
municipality or city where the real property involved, or
portion thereof, is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4)
NOTE: An action for annulment of mortgage is a real action
if there has already been a foreclosure sale (Chua v. Total
Office Products and Services, G.R. No. 152808, September
30, 2005) (2016 Bar).
2. Venue of personal actions
At the election of the plaintiff:
a. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or
b. Where the defendant or any of the defendants
resides, or
c. In case of non-resident defendant, where he may
be found. (Sec. 2, Rule 4)
4. When the rules on venue do not apply
1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise
(e.g. an action for damages arising from libel); or
2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before
the filing of the action on the exclusive venue (Sec. 4, Rule
4).
5. Effects of stipulations on venue
Venue stipulations are considered merely as an agreement
for additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified
place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the
intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must
be accompanying language clearly and categorically
expressing their purpose and design that actions between
them be litigated only at the place named by them. [Pacific
Consultants v. Schonfeld, 516 SCRA 209,229 (2007)]
3. Venue of actions against non-residents
Defendan 1. Personal actions – the venue is where the
t plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
does not resides, or where the nonresident defendant
reside but may be found, at the election of the plaintiff
is (Riano, 2014, citing Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules of
found in Court).
the
Philippine 2. Real actions – shall be commenced and
s tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof, is
situated (Id. Citing Sec. 1, Rule 4, Rules of
Court).
Defendan The action may be commenced and tried in
t the court of the place where the plaintiff
does not resides
reside and or where the property or any portion thereof
is not is situated or found (Sec. 3, Rule 4).
found in
the NOTE: Unless the Court declares otherwise,
Philippine it is submitted that a liberal interpretation of
s Sec. 3, Rule 4 – giving the plaintiff a choice of
venue in actions affecting any property of a
nonresident defendant who is not found in
the Philippines – would well serve the
interest of a resident plaintiff rather than of
the possible absconding nonresident
defendant (Riano, 2014).
RATIONALE: A more liberal interpretation of
the rule would save the plaintiff from going
through the rigors of travelling to a distant
place to file and prosecute the action. A
contrary interpretation would lead to an
unfortunate situation wherein the defendant
who refuses to
pay a just debt would have the capacity to
cause so much inconvenience to an
aggrieved plaintiff (Riano, 2014).
Stipulations on venue (WEB)
The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the
agreement is:
1. In writing;
2. Exclusive as to the venue; and
 3. Made before the filing of the action (Sec. 4 (b),
Rule 4)
The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in
a place where neither of them resides (Universal Robina
Corp. v. Lim, G.R. No. 154338, October 5, 2007).
NOTE: A stipulation on venue is void and unenforceable
when it is contrary to public policy (Sweet Lines v. Teves,
G.R. No. 28324, November 19, 1978).
Written stipulations as to venue are either mandatory or
permissive
In interpreting stipulations, an inquiry must be made
as to whether or not the agreement is restrictive in
the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place
agreed upon, or permissive in that the parties may
file their suits not only in the place agreed upon, but
also in the places fixed by the Rules (Supena v. De la
Rosa, A.M. No. RTJ-93 1031, January 28, 1997).
When exclusive
Venue is exclusive when the stipulation clearly
indicates, through qualifying and restrictive words
that the parties deliberately exclude causes of
actions from the operation of the ordinary
permissive rules on venue and that they intended
contractually to designate a specific venue to the
exclusion of any other court also competent and
accessible to the parties under the ordinary rules on
venue of actions (Philippine Banking Corp. v.
Tensuan, G.R. No. 106920, December 10, 1993).
In the absence of restrictive words, the stipulation
should be deemed as merely an agreement on an
additional forum, not as limiting venue. While they
are considered valid and enforceable, venue
stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede
the general rule set forth in Rule 4 in the absence of
qualifying or restrictive words. If the language is
restrictive, the suit may be filed only in the place
agreed upon by the parties (Spouses Lantin v.
Lantion, G.R. No. 160053, August 28, 2006).
NOTE: Although venue may be changed or
transferred from one province to another by
agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to Rule
4, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, such an
 agreement will not be held valid where it practically It is the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of
negates the action of the claimants (Sweet Lines, action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without
Inc. v. Hon. Bernardo Teves, GR. No. L-37750, May leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. A
19, 1978). pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the
rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from
F. PLEADINGS mere conclusion of fact, or conclusion of law. An allegation
that a contract is valid, or void, as in the instant case, is a
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective mere conclusion of law (Remitere v. Yulo, G.R. No. L-19751,
claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for February 28, 1966).
appropriate judgment (Sec.1, Rule 60) (2007 Bar).
b. Answer
1. Kinds of pleadings and when they should be filed It is the pleading where the defendant sets forth his
affirmative or negative defenses (Sec. 4, Rule 6).
a. Complaint
It is a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting It may likewise be the response to a counterclaim or a cross-
the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action, with a specification claim. It may be an answer to the complaint, an answer to a
of the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such counter-claim, or an answer to a cross claim (Riano, 2014).
further relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
i. Negative defenses
NOTE: The names and residences of the plaintiff and A negative defense is the specific denial of the
defendant, if known, must be stated (Sec. 3, Rule 6). material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of
Ultimate facts action (Sec. 5 (a), Rule 6).

Specific denials that must be made under oath
1. A denial of an actionable document (Sec. 8, Rule
8); and
2. A denial of allegation of usury in a complaint to
recover usurious interest (Sec. 11, Rule 8).
NOTE: Whenever an action or defense is based or founded
upon a written instrument or document, said instrument or
document is deemed an actionable document.
ii. Negative pregnant
It is a negative implying also an affirmative and
which, although is stated in negative form, really
admits the allegations to which it relates. It does not
qualify as a specific denial. It is conceded to be
actually an admission. Otherwise stated, it refers to
a denial which implies its affirmative opposite by
seeming to deny only a qualification or an incidental
aspect of the allegation but not the main allegation
itself (Riano, 2014).
A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an
ambiguous pleading, since it cannot be ascertained
whether it is the fact, or only the qualification that is
intended to be denied (Galofa v. Nee Bon Sing, G.R.
No. L-22018, January 17, 1968).
Example: An assertion of a defendant which
questions the amount of money involved in a bank
account but does not deny its existence, when such
is the issue in the case, is said to have admitted the
existence of such bank account. The denial of the
amount of money deposited is pregnant with an
admission of the existence of the bank account
(Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 152154, July 15, 2003).
c. Counterclaims It is any claim which a defending party may
have against an opposing party. (Sec. 6, Rule 6) It partakes of
a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff (Pro-Line
Sports Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 118192, October 23, 1997) (1999
Bar).
i. Compulsory counterclaim
One which arises out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
opposing party’s claim (Sec.7, Rule 6) (1999, 2004 Bar).
It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties
of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction (Sec. 4, Rule 6).
Barred if not set up in the action (Sec. 2, Rule 9).
Need not be answered; No default (Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No.
L26768, October 30, 1970).
Not an initiatory pleading
Need not be accompanied by a certification against forum
shopping and certificate to file action by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa.
Need not be accompanied by a certification against forum
shopping and certificate to file action by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa.
ii. Permissive counterclaim
It does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected with the
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. There is an absence
of a logical connection with the subject matter of the complaint.
It may require for its adjudication the presence of third parties
over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Not barred even if not set up in the action
Must be answered; Otherwise, default (Sarmiento v.
Juan, G.R. No. L-56605, January 28, 1983)
Initiatory pleading.
Must be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping
and whenever required by law, also a certificate to file action by
the Lupong Tagapamayapa (Santo Tomas University v. Surla, G.R.
No. 129718, August 17, 1998).
Must be accompanied by a certification against forum
shopping and whenever required by law, also a
certificate to file action by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa (Santo Tomas University v. Surla, counterclaim in a separate action unless within 15 days from
G.R. No. 129718, August 17, 1998). notice of the motion, manifests his preference to have his
counterclaim resolved in the same action (Sec. 2, Rule 17).
NOTE: In an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may
be considered compulsory
3. When the complaint is dismissed through the fault of the
regardless of the amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6).
plaintiff and at a time when a counterclaim has already been
iii. Effect on the counterclaim when the complaint is set up, the dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the
dismissed defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or
separate action (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Riano, 2014).
1. If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds
for dismissal under Rule 16 may be pleaded as an affirmative d. Cross-claims
defense in the answer, and in the discretion of the court, a A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co party
preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
dismiss has been filed (Sec. 6, Rule 16) After hearing, when subject matter of either the original action, or a
the complaint is dismissed, the counterclaim, compulsory or counterclaim therein. It may include a claim that the party
permissive is not dismissed. against whom it is asserted is liable, or may be liable to the
cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action
2. When the plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his against the cross-claimant (Sec. 8, Rule 6).
complaint after the defendant has pleaded his answer with a
counterclaim. If the court grants the motion, the dismissal Requisites of cross-claim (1999 Bar)
shall be limited to the complaint. It shall be without 1. A claim by one party against a co-party;
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his 2. It must arise out of the subject matter of the complaint or
of the counterclaim; and
3. The cross-claimant is prejudiced by the claim against him
by the opposing party (Sec. 8, Rule 6). Effect if a cross-claim
was not set up
GR: Barred if not set up (Sec.2, Rule 9)
XPN: If it is not asserted due to oversight, inadvertence, or
excusable negligence, it may still be set up with leave of
court by amendment of the pleadings (Sec.10, Rule 11).
e. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints
A third (fourth, etc.) party complaint is a claim that a
defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party to the action, called the third
(fourth, etc.) party defendant, for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's
claim (Sec.11, Rule 6).
NOTE: Leave of court is necessary in third (fourth, etc.) –
party complaint in order to obviate delay in the resolution of
the complaint, such as when the third party defendant
cannot be located, or when unnecessary issues may be
introduced, or when a new and separate controversy is
introduced (Herrera, 2007).
Tests to determine whether the third-party complaint is in
respect of plaintiff’s claim
1. Whether it arises out of the same transaction on which
the plaintiff’s claim is based, or, although arising out of
another or different transaction, is connected with the
plaintiff’s claim;
2. Whether the third-party defendant would be liable to the
plaintiff or to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s
claim against the original defendant; and
3. Whether the third-party defendant may assert any
defenses which the third-party plaintiff has or may have to
the plaintiff’s claim (Capayas v. CFI of Albay, G.R. No. L-475,
August 31, 1946).
NOTE: Where the trial court has jurisdiction over the main
case, it also has jurisdiction over the thirdparty complaint,
regardless of the amount involved as a third-party complaint
is merely auxiliary to and is a continuation of the main action
(Republic v. Central Surety & Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-
27802, October 26, 1968).

f. Complaint-in-intervention
It is a pleading filed for the purpose of asserting a claim
against either or all of the original parties (Sec. 3, Rule 19).
Requisites for an Intervention by a Non-party in an action
pending in court (2000 Bar)
The requisites for intervention are:
1. Legal interest in the matter in controversy;
2. Legal interest in the success of either of the
parties; or
3. Legal interest against both; or
4. So situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof.
5. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of original parties; and
6. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a
separate proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 19).
Reply
- Pleading with function of denying or alleging facts in
denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in actionable
documents attached to an answer
- Actionable document: written document that is basis of
one’s cause of action or defense
- Reply cannot interpose new causes of action. This
should be done by the plaintiff through an amended or
supplemental complaint
1. Amended complaint – must be with leave of
court
2. Supplemental complaint – allowed only if it
pertains to transactions, occurrences or events
which have happened since the date of the
complaint
- If actionable document is attached to the reply,
defendant may file a rejoinder which must only deny or
allege facts in denial and avoidance of new matters
alleged in the new document attached to the reply
- GR: no need to file reply since all new matters alleged
in the answer are deemed controverted
- XPT: when actionable document is attached to the
answer, plaintiff must file reply to question genuineness
and due execution of document attached

Extensions of time to file
- GR: Motion for extension is prohibited and considered
mere scrap of paper
- XPN: May be allowed if:
1. Meritorious reasons
2. Period not more than 30 calendar days
3. A party may only avail one motion for extension
- Court may still allow in its discretion any other pleading
after the time fixed by the rules
Parts and contents of a pleading
1. Caption:
a. Name of the court
b. Title of the action
c. Docket number
d. Body - sets forth pleading’s designation and
allegations for party’s claims and defenses,
reliefs prayed for and date
e. Paragraphs – allegations in the pleading should
be divided into paragraphs with numbers so as
to readily identify; should contain single set of
circumstances
f. Headings - When two or more cause of actions
are joined, statement of the first shall be
prefaced by the words “first cause of action”
and so on
- When one or more paragraphs are addressed to
one of the causes of action, they shall be
prefaced with the words “answer to the first
cause of action” and so on
g. Relief – may include a general prayer for such
further or other relief as may be deemed just or
equitable
- GR: court cannot grand relief not prayed for or
in excess of that which is sought
- XPT: because rules allow general prayer, court
may grant reliefs not specifically prayed for
h. Date – all pleadings should be dated
2. Signature and address – Signed by party or counsel
a. Signature of counsel - constitute a certificate that
he or she has read the pleading and that such
pleading,
i. Not presented for any improper purpose to
harass, delay, or increase cost of litigation
 ii. Has claims defenses and other legal iv. Cannot be passed on by the lawyer to
contentions that are warranted by law or the client
jurisprudence and not merely based on Note: under old rules, unsigned pleading may be remedied if
frivolous arguments due to inadvertence, under 2019 Amendments, unsigned
iii. Has factual contentions that have evidentiary pleading may no longer be remedied since the provision has
basis or most likely be supported by evidence been deleted from the Amendments. Unsigned pleading is
after the modes of discovery treated to be a mere scrap of paper and without legal effect.
iv. Denials of facts are based on evidence or 3. Verification
based on lack of information if so identified a. GR: pleadings need not be under oath or verified
b. Effect of violation: b. XPN: when required by law or rule
i. Court may on motion or motu proprio impose i. Filed in lower courts under Rules on Summary
appropriate sanction or refer to the proper Procedure
office for disciplinary action unless exceptional ii. Petition for relief from judgment or order
circumstances are present iii. Petition for review from RTC to CA
c. On home sanction is imposed: iv. Petition for review from QJA to CA
i. Atty, law firm, or party that violated the v. Appeal by certiorari from CTA to SC
rule vi. Appeal by certiorari from CA to SC
d. Sanctions: vii. Petition for annulment of judgment
viii. Complaint for injunction
i. Non monetary directive
ix. Application for appointment of receiver
ii. Order to pay penalty
x. Application for support pendente lite
iii. Order directing payment of attorney’s
xi. Petition for certiorari against judgment, final
fees and other expenses orders of ConCom
 xii. Petition for CPM, QW, HC i. Note: this overturns old rule that authority of
xiii. Complaint for expropriation person may be proven during trial
xiv. Complaint for FEUD e. Effect of non-compliance or defective verification:
xv. Petition for indirect contempt i. GR: shall be treated as unsigned pleading such
xvi. Petition for appointment of general guardian as when verification is only based on
xvii. Petition for leave to sell or encumber property of “information and belief” or upon “knowledge
ward information and belief” or lacks proper
xviii. Petition for declaration of competency of ward verification
xix. Petition for change of name
ii. Exceptions: may be corrected or court may
xx. Petition for voluntary judicial dissolution
order subsequent submission of verification to
xxi. Cancellation or correction in entries in the civil
serve the ends of justice because lack of
registry
verification is a mere formal and jurisdictional
c. How verified: by affidavit under oath with the following
4. Certification Against Forum Shopping
allegations
a. Forum Shopping – repeated availment of several
i. Allegations are true and correct based on
judicial remedies in different courts simultaneously
personal knowledge or authentic records
or successively in the same transaction and same
ii. Not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay or
facts and circumstances and raising the same issues
needlessly increase cost of litigation
either pending or already resolved
iii. Factual allegations therein have evidentiary
b. Test to determine existence of forum shopping –
support or will have evidence after discovery
same:
d. Authorization of affiant to act on behalf of party like a
i. Parties
secretary’s certificate or SPA should be attached to the
ii. Rights or causes of action
pleading
iii. Reliefs sought
 c. Certification of Non Forum Shopping (CNFS) – Failure to comply with Not curable by mere amendment of
Plaintiff to certify under oath in complaint or other requirements the complaint or initiatory pleading
initiatory pleading:
i. He has not commenced any action involving Cause for dismissal of the case,
without prejudice, unless otherwise
same issues and to the best of his knowledge
provided upon motion and after
no such action is pending hearing
ii. If there is such pending action, complete False certification Constitutes indirect contempt of
statement of present status Non-compliance with court, without prejudice to
iii. If he or she should learn a similar action or any of the undertakings administrative and criminal actions
claim, he shall report the fact within 5 calendar therein
days to the court where complaint is filed
d. Initiatory pleadings: Where there is willful Ground for summary dismissal, with
i. Complaint and deliberate forum prejudice
ii. Permissive counterclaim shopping Direct contempt of court
iii. Cross-claim Cause for administrative sanctions
iv. Third or fourth party complaint
v. Complaint in intervention
e. GR: signed by plaintiff
f. XPN: by an authorized person such as the
counsel but must have an SPA

Effects of non compliance with CNFS

Defect Effect
Modes of commission of forum shopping
- Based on new jurisprudence: alliance of Non Life
Insurance Workers Of The Philippines v. Mendoza (2020)
1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action with the same prayer with the previous
case not yet resolved (ground for dismissal is
litis pendentia)
2. Previous cased having been resolved (ground for
dismissal is res judicata)
3. Filing multiple cases in same cause of action but
with different prayers (ground for dismissal is
either litis pendentia or res judicata)
Allegations in a pleading
- Every pleading shall contain in methodical and logical
form:
1. Plain, concise, and direct statement of facts
2. Evidence on which party pleading relies for his
or her claim or defense
3. Law and applicability used as basis of cause of
action
Contents of a pleading
1. Claims and defenses
2. Names of witnesses
3. Summary of intended testimonies provided that judicial
affidavits are attached to the pleading
- GR: only witnesses whose JAs are attached to
the pleading may be presented during trial
- XPN: may be allowed by court for meritorious
reasons
4. Documentary and object evidence
- Rationale: to ensure that persons filing a
pleading already have evidentiary basis to avoid
delay
5. Professional Tax Receipt Number
6. IBP Official Receipt Number
7. Roll of Attorneys Number
8. MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of
Exemption
Note: Failure to comply with PTR number, IBP OR number,
Roll of attorneys number would allow the court to not take
action but failure to comply with the last will be cause for
dismissal of the case and expunction of pleadings from
record
Alternative causes of action
- Party may set forth two or more claims or defenses
alternatively in one cause of action
- When a party is not certain which cause of action would
squarely fit the set of facts
- EX: plaintiff unsure whether or not to file based on
breach of contract or quasi delict
Manner of making allegations
1. Capacity to sue or be sued
a. Aver facts that show capacity
b. Authority in a representative capacity
c. Legal existence of association represented
d. Note: person raising an issue as to
representative capacity must state specific
denial
2. Judgments – Aver the judgment or decision; under
Amended Rules, authenticated copy of judgment must
be attached to the pleading
3. Official documents or acts – Aver document was done in
compliance with law
Condition precedent
- In any pleading a general averment of performance of
conditions precedent shall be sufficient
- EX:
1. Tender of payment before making consignation
2. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
3. Resort to Lupon
4. Earnest efforts towards a compromise
5. Arbitration
- Failure to comply with condition precedent is not a
ground for MTD but may be an affirmative defense set
out in the answer or else deemed waived
Fraud, Mistake, Malice, Intent, Knowledge and other
condition of the mind
- fraud, mistake: Must be stated with particularity
- Malice, Intent, Knowledge and other condition of the
mind: may be averred generally
Pleading an actionable document
- An action of defense based on a written instrument or
document (actionable document)
- How to plead:
1. Substance of the document set forth in the
pleading
2. Original or copy attached to the pleading as an
exhibit
- Note: 2019 Amendments remove from the provisions
the copying of actionable documents hence, setting
forth the substance and attaching a copy is the only
means to plead actionable document
- Effect of variance between substance set forth in the
pleading and actual document attached – Does not
warrant dismissal
- Contesting actionable document:
1. GR: adverse party under oath specifically denies
and sets forth what he claims to be the facts
2. XPN: oath will not be required when adverse
party is not a party to the document,
compliance with order for inspection of original
document is refused
3. Effect of failure to deny under oath:
genuineness in due execution of actionable
document deemed admitted
- Due execution and genuineness: that the party whose
signature it bears admits that he signed it or signed by
another with authority that it was in words and figures
as set out in the pleading; that document was delivered
and any formal requisite by law are complied
Specific denials
- Purpose to make him disclose matters alleged in the
complaint which he intends to disprove at trial
- Does not become specific because of the word “specific”
or “specifically”
- Material averments asserting a claim shall be deemed
admitted if not specifically denied
- Note: in old rules, only material averments in complaint
may be deemed admitted if not specifically denied. 2019
Amendments expanded the Rule to any other pleading
asserting a claim such as counterclaims, cross-claims,
- Exceptions to material averment deemed admitted:
 1. Amount of unliquidated damages
2. Conclusions in a pleading
3. Non material allegations or averment
- Specific denials requiring oath: denial of genuineness
and due execution of actionable document
Affirmative defenses - Grounds that may be resolved motu proprio within 30
- Defendant shall raise affirmative defenses in the answer days from filing answer:
- Affirmative defenses: 1. Lack of jurisdiction over person of defendant
1. Fraud 2. Improper venue
2. Statute of limitations 3. Lack of legal capacity to sue plaintiff
3. Release 4. Failure to state cause of action
4. Payment 5. Failure to comply with condition precedent
5. Illegality - Effect of failure to raise affirmative defense
6. Statute of frauds 1. GR: deemed waived
7. Estoppel 2. Exceptions: non waivable grounds
8. Former recovery a. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter
9. Discharge in bankruptcy b. Litis pendentia
10. Any other matter by way of confession and c. Res judicata
avoidance d. Statute of Limitations (prescription)
- Court shall conduct summary hearing on affirmative 3. Non waivable grounds are proper grounds for a
defenses within 15 days from allegation in the answer motion to dismiss if not raised in the answer
and resolve within 30 calendar days from end of - Remedy in case of denial of affirmative defenses: MR,
summary hearing CPM, or on appeal of judgment on the merits
- Grounds with no period:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter Striking out a pleading
2. Litis pendentia - Court may order striking out if pleading sham, false,
3. Res judicata redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or particular
scandalous matter can be stricken out
- How done:
1. Upon motion by a party responding to a pleading
2. Upon motion by a party within 20 calendar days from
service of pleading
3. Motu proprio
Effect of failure to plead
- Failure to plead defenses and objections
1. GR: deemed waived
2. Exceptions: if based on non waivable grounds
(LLRP)
- Failure to plead compulsory counterclaim and
crossclaim
1. GR: barred
2. Exceptions:
a. If failure is due to oversight,
inadvertence, excusable neglect or
when justice requires, amendment may
be done to set up counter claim or cross
claim with leave of court
b. Counter claim or cross claim acquired by
a party after serving a pleading may be
included in a supplemental pleading
before judgment
Default
- Failure of party to answer within time allowed
- Order of default: issued by court on plaintiff’s motion
due to failure of defendant to file responsive pleading
- Judgment by default rendered by court after order of
default after receiving plaintiff’s defense ex parte
- When declaration of default proper: failure to answer
within time allowed
- Failure to attend pre trial does not result in default
- Requisites for a default order:
1. Court validly acquired jurisdiction over
defending party through service of summons or
by voluntary appearance
2. Failure of party to file answer within time
allowed
 3. Motion to declare defendant in default
4. Proving that defendant failed to answer within
period under ROC
5. Notice of motion to defendant
6. Hearing on the motion
- Effect of order of default: party in default entitled to
notices but cannot take part in trial but may still
participate as witness
- Court may proceed to render judgment granting
claimant based on pleading or require claimant to
submit evidence
- Declaration of default /= admission
- Party declared in default still has right to appeal
judgment by default based on following grounds
1. Failure of plaintiff to prove material allegations
2. Decision is contrary to law
3. Amount of judgment is excessive or different in
kind from prayer
- Relief from an order of default before judgment: motion
under oath to set aside order of default upon showing
1. Failure to answer was due to FAMEN
2. Meritorious defense
- Relief after judgment but before final and executory:
1. Motion for new trial under Rule 37
2. Appeal from judgment being contrary to law and
evidence
- Relief after judgment is final and executory: Petition for
relief under Rule 38
- Certiorari is always available as a remedy when party is
improperly declared in default
- Partial default: complaint states common cause of
action against several defendants some filed answer,
some filed in default
- Effect of partial default
1. Court should declare defaulting defendants in
default and proceed to trial based on answer of
others
2. Defense is personal only to those who answered
and will not benefit those in default
- Judgment against party in default should neither:
1. Exceed the amount
2. Be different from prayer
3. Unliquidated damages
- Actions where default is not allowed
1. Annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage
2. Legal separation
- For the two forgoing actions court shall order SolGen or
deputized public prosecutor to investigate WON
collusion exists and to intervene for the state to ensure
evidence is not fabricated
- Other instances where default not allowed
1. Special civil actions of CPM where a comment is
required instead of an answer
2. Cases under rules on summary procedure
3. Expropriation proceedings
Filing and service of pleadings
Note: 2019 Amendments now contemplates filing by
electronic means Payment of docket fees
- Papers required to be filed and served - Vests trial court with jurisdiction along with filing the
1. Judgment complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading
2. Resolution - Mandatory and jurisdictional
3. Order - Failure:
4. Pleading subsequent to complaint 1. Manchester Rule – Automatic dismissal; defect
5. Written motion resulting in underpayment cannot be cured
6. Notice 2. Relaxation of Manchester Rule: ( Sun Insurance
7. Appearance Doctrine) – not automatic dismissal; court
8. Demand allows payment of fees within reasonable time
9. Offer of judgment 3. Exception to Sun Insurance Doctrine -
10. Similar papers Relaxation does not apply when plaintiff never
demonstrated any willingness to pay docket fee
Filing and insisted that case is for specific performance
- Submitting pleading or other paper to the court 4. Further modification – docket fees constitute as
lien; if judgment awards a claim not specified in
Service the pleading or cannot be estimated or left for
- Act of providing the party with a copy of the pleading or the determination of the court, then it shall
any other court submission constitute as a lien on judgment
5. Limitation on claims that may be lien – limited
to damages that may arise after filing of
 complaint or similar pleading such that claimant matter of right admitting
cannot speculate as to the amount amended
complaint
Answer to amended Same as answer Same as
Periods of filing pleadings counterclaim, to amended answer to
Responsive pleadings Period Reckoning amended crossclaim, complaint amended
point third fourth party complaint
Answer 30 calendar Upon service claim, complaint in
days unless of summons intervention
different period Answer to 20 calendar From service
fixed by court counterclaim or cross days
Answer of defendant 60 calendar Receipt of claim
foreign private days summons Answer to third fourth Same as answer Same as
juridical entity whose party complaint to amended answer to
summon was served complaint amended
on government official complaint
designated by law Reply Within 15 Service of
Answer to amended 30 calendar Service of calendar days pleading
complaint as a matter days copy of responded to
of right amended Answer to Within 20 Notice of
complaint supplemental calendar days order
Answer to amended 15 calendar Notice of complaint unless different admitting the
complaint not a days order period fixed by same
 court  When one counsel appears for several parties,
Note: rules allow motion to extend time to file answer as counsel entitled to one copy
long for meritorious reasons  When several counsels appear for one party, only
one copy to be served upon lead counsel or upon
Manner of filing any counsel if there is no lead counsel
Manner of filing Date of filing
1. Submitting personally Clerk of court shall endorse
the original to the court on the pleading date and Modes of service
hour of filing 1. Personally
2. Filing by registered mail Date of mailing based on 2. By registered mail
3. Filing by accredited post office stamp on the 3. By accredited courier
courier envelope or registry receipt 4. By electronic mail, fax, other electronic means as may
4. Transmittal by Date of electronic be authorized by court
electronic mail or other transmission 5. Service as provided in international convention to which
electronic means Philippines is a party
6. Substituted service
To whom service made
- GR: party himself Presumptive Service of notice of court setting
 XPN: if party appeared by counsel, upon counsel 1. If addressee is in the same judicial region of the court
 XPN to XPN: if court orders service to both party and where case is pending: if notice appears on records to
counsel have been mailed at least 20 days prior to scheduled
date of hearing
2. If addressee is from outside judicial region: notice
appears to have been mailed at least 13 calendar days
prior to hearing
Note: as a presumption, subject to proof of contrary as
when counsel adduces evidence that notice of court setting
was not served
Personal Service
1. Personal delivery of copy to party, counsel, authorized
representative
2. Leaving copy in office with clerk or with person having
charged thereof
a. If no person found in office, or office not known,
or has no office: leave copy at party or counsel’s
residence if known with person of sufficient age
and discretion residing therein between 8am to
6pm
Service by registered mail
1. Depositing copy in post office in sealed envelope
2. Copy must be plainly addressed to party or counsel to
his office if known or residence if office not known
3. Postage must be fully prepaid
4. Copy must come with instructions to postmaster to
return mail to sender after 10 calendar days if copy
remains undelivered
Note: ordinary mail if there is no registry service is available
in the locality of either the sender or addressee
Service by accredited courier
- No provision under the 2019 Amendments outlining
how this is done
Service by electronic mail, fax, or any other electronic means
- Allowed if party concerned consents
- Service by electronic means:
1. Sending e-mail to party’s or counsel’s email address
2. Other electronic means of transmission
- Service by fax: to the party or counsel’s given fax
number
- Subject format for electronically sent documents and
faxes
1. Case number followed by
2. Case title followed by
3. Pleading or document title – the title must contain
sufficient info to enable the court to ascertain the
following
a. Parties filing or serving the paper
b. Nature of the paper
c. Party or parties against whom relief is sought
d. Nature of relief sought
- Change of email or fax number: party must file within 5
calendar days notice of change and serve on all other
parties
- Service to registered email presumed valid unless party - Judgments, final orders or resolutions cannot be served
notifies of any change by substituted service
- Any actual change will not bind the court unless party
gives notice
Service under international conventions
- Example: Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial Service of JFOR
and Extra-judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial 1. Personally
Matters 2. By registered mail
3. Accredited courier upon ex parte motion by any party
Substituted Service 4. Publication, when party summoned by publication has
- Allowed when service cannot be made personally or by failed to appear. Expenses of publication must be borne
mail. Because office and residence are unknown by prevailing party
- How made:
1. Delivering copy to clerk of court Service of court issued orders and other documents
2. With proof of failure of both personal service - Court may electronically serve orders and other
and service by mail documents to all parties in the case
- Papers that may be served through substituted service - Paper copy of order served shall be retained and
1. Pleadings attached to the record of the case
2. Motions - Electronic service may be done only in addition to the
3. Notices four modes of service for JFOR. Electronic service cannot
4. Resolutions replace these four modes
5. Other papers

When service is deemed complete
Mode of service Completeness of service
Personal delivery Upon actual delivery
Ordinary mail Expiration of 10 calendar days after
mailing unless court otherwise
provides
Registered mail Actual receipt by recipient or 5
calendar days from notice of
postmaster whichever is earlier
Accredited Actual receipt by addressee or after
courier at least 2 attempts to deliver or upon
expiration of 5 calendar days after
first delivery attempt whichever is
earlier
Electronic service At the time of electronic transmission
or at the time that electronic
notification of service is sent
Note: not effective or complete if
party serving learns it did not reach
person to be served
Facts Upon receipt by other party based on
facts printout
Substituted Delivery of the copy to clerk of court
service
Proof of filing and service
- GR: by its existence in the record of the case
- XPN: if not in the record, but claimed to have been filed
based on the following proofs:
Conventional service or filing of orders, pleadings, and other
documents
- GR: the following may not be served and filed
electronically but should be filed and served personally
or by registered mail
1. Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings
(answer)
2. Subpoena, protection orders, and writs
3. Appendices and exhibits to motions or other documents
that are not readily amenable to electronic scanning
4. Sealed and confidential documents or records
- XPN: court gives express permission for them to filed
electronically
Proof of filing means
Mode of Proof
filing Proof of Service
Personal Written or stamped acknowledgement by Mode of Service Proof
filing clerk of court on a copy of the pleading Personal Service Written admission of party served
Registered Registry receipt and affidavit of person who
mail mailed containing full statement of date and Official return of server
place of deposit in a sealed envelop
addressed to court with postage fully Or affidavit of party serving with
prepaid and with the corresponding date, place, manner of service
instructions to the postmaster Ordinary mail Affidavit of person mailing stating
Accredited Affidavit of service of person who brought (when no registry facts showing compliance with
courier pleading to courier and courier’s official service in the Section 7 Rule 13
receipt and tracking number locality)
Electronic Affidavit of electronic filing and paper copy Registered Mail Affidavit of person mailing with facts
filing of pleading or document transmitted or showing compliance and registry
receipt issued by mailing office
Written or stamped acknowledgement by Accredited Affidavit of service executed by
clerk of court courier person who brought the pleading to
Other Affidavit of electronic filing and copy of service provider and courier’s official
authorized electronic acknowledgement by the court receipt or tracking number
electronic Electronic mail or Affidavit of service by person who
other electronic sent email, facts, or other electronic
means transmission and printed proof of
transmittal
Amendment
How To Amend Pleading
1. adding an allegation
2. adding the name of any party
3. striking out an allegation
4. striking out a name of a party
5. correcting a mistake in the name of a party
6. correcting a mistake in the allegation or in the
description

Purpose Of Amendments To A Pleading

- to avoid a multiplicity of suits
- real controversies between the parties are presented,
their rights determined, and the case decided on the
merits without unnecessary delay