Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2020 Remedial Law Reviewer PDF Free
2020 Remedial Law Reviewer PDF Free
REMEDIAL LAW
Notes: All Bar candidates should be guided that only laws with their respective amendments and canonical
doctrines pertinent to these topics as of June 30, 2019 will be covered in the 2020 Bar Examinations, except
when provided in this syllabus. The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M No. 19-10-20-SC promulgated on
October 15, 2019) and the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M No. 19-08-15-SC promulgated on October 8, 2019)
are included. Principles of law are not covered by the cut-off period.
This syllabus is only a guide for the bar examinations. It should not be mistaken for a course syllabus.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
XPNs:
1. The statute itself expressly or by necessary
implication provides that pending actions are
excepted from its operation To apply it to
pending proceedings would impair vested
rights;
2. Under appropriate circumstances, courts
may deny the retroactive application of
procedural laws in the event that to do so
would not be feasible or would work
injustice; or
3. If to do so would involve intricate
problems of due process or impair the
independence of the courts (Ibid.)
Enacted by Congress The SC is expressly empowered to
promulgate procedural rules
B. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
1. Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
(Article VIII, Section 5 (5), 1987 Philippine Constitution)
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
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
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao Corporation, G.R. No. 159593, October
12, 2006).
1. Meaning of a court
Court is an organ of the government, belonging to the judicial department, whose function is the
application of laws to controversies brought before it and the public administration of justice (Black’s
Law Dictionary, 8thed.).
2. Distinguish: court and judge
Court Judge
It is a tribunal officially assembled under Simply an officer of such tribunal (Wagenhorst v. Philadelphia
authority of law. Life Insurance Co., 358 Pa. 55, cited by Black’s 5th ed.)
Disqualification of a judge does not affect May be disqualified.
the court.
It is a being in imagination comparable to a Physical person (People ex rel. Herndon v. Opekl, 188 III 194,
corporation. 58 NE 1996, cited by Blacks 5th ed.)
Jurisdiction attaches to court Jurisdiction does not attach to judge
1. Regular courts:
a. Supreme Court;
b. Court of Appeals;
c. Regional Trial Courts; and
d. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
2. Special courts:
a. Sandiganbayan;
b. Court of Tax Appeals; and
c. Shari’a District Courts, Shari’a Circuit Courts;
NOTE: All courts in the Philippines except the SC are statutory courts. They have been created by
statutory enactments (Riano, 2011).
The Sandiganbayan is only a constitutionally mandated court since, although its existence is provided
under Constitution, its creation was by statutory enactment.
In the Philippines, all courts are both courts of law and of equity.
Limitation: When there is a law that is applicable to a case, principles of equity may not be used as the
basis.
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).
The SC is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the duty assigned to
it.
In several cases, the court has allowed direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction on the
following grounds:
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).
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an ironclad dictum. Endowed with a broad perspective that
spans the legal interest of virtually the entire government officialdom, the OSG may transcend the
parochial concerns of a particular client agency and instead, promote and protect the public wealth
(COMELEC v. JudgeQuijano-Padilla, G. R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002).
GR: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction (Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindog,
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225, September 6, 2011).
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).
II. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of a court to try, hear, and decide a case and the power to
enforce its determination. (21 CJS, 9)
NOTE: It is derived from the Latin words “juris” and “dico,” which literally means “I speak of the law.”
Only jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties,
issues and res is governed by procedural laws (Riano, 2011).
A. Classification of jurisdiction
General jurisdiction – Courts which can pass upon all kinds of cases such as MTCs and RTCs.
Special jurisdiction – Courts which can only pass upon certain types of cases such as the CTA,
Commercial courts, and Family courts.
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.
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.
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:
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).
1. Supreme Court
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).
Civil Criminal
Exclusive Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
Original prohibition and mandamus against the prohibition and mandamus against the
following: following:
1. CA; 1. CA;
2. Court of Tax Appeals; 2. Sandiganbayan
3. Commission on Elections En Banc;
4. Commission on Audit;
5. Sandiganbayan.
Appellate 1. Petitions for review on certiorari against: 1. In cases where the CA imposes reclusion
a. CA; perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser
b. CTA en banc (Sec. 11, R.A.9282) (2006 penalty, the judgment may be appealed to
Bar); the SC by notice of appeal filed with the CA
c. SB; (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, September 28,
d. RTC, in cases involving: 2004);
2. Automatic review for cases of death
i. If no question of fact is involved and penalty rendered by the CA (A.M. No. 00-5-
the case involves: 03-SC, September 84, 2004);
2. Court of Appeals
Civil Criminal
Exclusive Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC 1. Actions for annulment of judgments of
and Original based upon extrinsic fraud or lack of RTC (Sec. 9, BP 129);
jurisdiction (Sec. 9, BP 129; Rule 47, 1997 2. Crimes of Terrorism under the Human
Rules of Civil Procedure). Security Act of 2007 or RA 9372.
Appellate 1. Final judgments, decisions, resolutions, Judgments or decisions of RTC via notice of
orders, awards of: appeal (except those appealable to the SC or
a. RTC (original jurisdiction or appellate SB):
jurisdiction); 1. Exercising its original jurisdiction;
b. Family Courts; RTC on the questions of 2. Exercising its appellate jurisdiction; and
constitutionality, validity of tax, jurisdiction 3. Where the imposable penalty is:
involving questions of fact, which should be a. Life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua;
appealed first to the CA; or
c. Appeals from RTC in cases appealed from b. A lesser penalty for offenses committed
MTCs which are not a matter of right; on the same occasion or which arose from
the same occurrence that gave rise to the
2. Appeal from MTC in the exercise of its offense punishable reclusion perpetua or life
delegated jurisdiction (land registration or imprisonment (Sec. 3, Rule 122).
cadastral cases) (RA 7691);
3. Appeals from Civil Service Commission; Automatic review in cases of death penalty
4. Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies under rendered by the RTC, in which case, it may
Rule 43; decide on whether or not to affirm the
5. Appeals from the National Commission on penalty of death. If it affirms the penalty of
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); and death, it will render a decision but will not
6. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman enter the judgment because it will then be
in administrative disciplinary cases forwarded to the SC.
(Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman,
G.R. No. 149148, April 5, 2002) (2006 Bar). NOTE: Death penalty imposed by the RTC
is elevated to the CA by automatic review
while death penalty imposed by the
Sandiganbayan whether in its original or
appellate jurisdiction is elevated to the SC
for automatic review.
Concurrent
With SC 1. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the prohibition and mandamus against the RTCs
following: and lower courts
4. Sandiganbayan
RA 10660
Section 4. Jurisdiction
c. Provided, that the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction· where the
information:
(a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official
holds office.
GN 2018 + updates in GN 2019 (but scanned)
(ChanRobles)
a. RA 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
b. RA 1379 – Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth
c. Revised Penal Code – Crimes committed by public officers (SG 27?):
i. Direct Bribery – Art. 210
ii. Indirect Bribery – Art. 211
iii. Qualified Bribery – Art. 211-A
iv. Corruption of Public Officials – Art. 212
d. RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
e. RA 7080 – Plunder Law
f. RA 7659 – Heinous Crime Law
g. RA 9160 – Anti Money Laundering Law committed by a public officer
h. PD 46 – Gift Giving Decree
i. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed in relation to
their office by the covered public officials or employees
j. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A issued in
1986
k. Petitions for issuance of Writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction, and
other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not
exclusive of the Supreme Court
l. Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or that may be filed under EO 1, 2,
14, and 14-A series of 1986
EO 1 – Presidential Commission on Good Government
EO 2 – Regarding the assets illegally acquired by former Pres. Marcos
EO 14 – Defining jurisdiction over cases involving ill-gotten wealth of former Pres. Marcos
EO 14-A – Amended EO 14
5. Regional Trial Court
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).
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;
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)
7. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
Exclusive 1. Actions involving personal property where 1. All offenses punishable with
Original the value of the property does not exceed imprisonment not exceeding 6 years
Php 300,000 or, in Metro Manila Php irrespective of the amount of fine and
400,000; regardless of other imposable accessory or
2. Actions for claim of money where the other penalties;
demand does not exceed Php 300,000 or, in 2. In offenses involving damage to property
Metro Manila Php 400,000; through criminal negligence where the
3. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, imposable fine does not exceed Php 10,000
where the (gross) value of the estate does (Sec. 32, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691);
not exceed Php 300,000 or, in Metro 3. Where the only penalty provided by law is
Manila Php 400,000; a fine not exceeding Php 4,000 (Admin.
Circular No. 09-94, June 14, 1994);
NOTE: In the foregoing, claim must be 4. Those covered by the Rules on Summary
exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s Procedure, i.e.:
fees, litigation expense, and cost (Sec. 33,
BP 129 as amended by RA 7691). a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations;
4. Actions involving title to or possession of b. Violations of the rental law;
real property or any interest therein where c. Violations of municipal or city
the value or amount does not exceed Php ordinances;
20,000 or, in Metro Manila Php 50,000 d. Violations of BP 22 (A.M. No. 00-
exclusive of interest damages, attorney’s 1101-SC); and
fees, litigation expense, and costs (2008 e. All other criminal cases where the
Bar); penalty is imprisonment not exceeding
5. Maritime claims where the demand or 6 months and/or a fine of Php 1,000
claim does not exceed Php 300,000 or, in irrespective of other penalties or civil
Metro Manila Php 400,000 (Sec. 33, BP liabilities arising therefrom;
129, as amended by RA 7691);
6. Inclusion or exclusion of voters (Sec. 138, 5. All offenses committed by public officers
BP 881); and employees in relation to their office,
7. Those covered by the Rules on Summary including government-owned or –
Procedure: controlled corporations, and by private
8. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer; individuals charged as co-principals,
9. Those covered by the Rules on Small accomplices or accessories, punishable
Claims, i.e. actions for payment of money with imprisonment not more than 6 years
where the claim does not exceed Two or where none of the accused holds a
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) position classified as “Grade 27” and
exclusive of interest and costs (A.M. No. higher (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by
08-8-7-SC, as amended, effective February RA 8249).
1, 2016). Delegated
D. Aspects of Jurisdiction
Plaintiff Defendant
Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing 1. By his voluntary appearance in court and his
of the complaint. This presupposes payment of the submission to its authority;
docket fees. 2. By valid service of summon; or
3. By other coercive process upon him (arrest in
criminal cases)
Jurisdiction of court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs. [Geronimo v. Calderon,
744 SCRA 564 (2014)]
It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question
belong (Herrera, 2007).
Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. 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)]
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).
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. [Geronimo v. Calderon, 744 SCRA 564 (2014)]
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)]
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).
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 function (Associate
Communications and Wireless Services v. Dumalao, G.R. No. 136762, November21, 2002).
RATIONALE: The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their
functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence
(Caballes v. Perez-Sison, G.R. No. 131759, March 23, 2004).
It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and
convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative
redress has been completed (Universal Robina Corporation v. Laguna Lake Authority, G.R. No. 191427,
May 30, 2011).
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).
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:
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).
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).
GR:
The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings and even for the first time on appeal (Riano, 2011).
XPNs:
1. Estoppel by laches – SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse
decision was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking
affirmative relief from the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings (Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968);
NOTE: There is laches when a party is aware, even in the early stages of the proceedings, of a
possible jurisdictional objection, and has every opportunity to raise said objection, but failed to
do so, even on appeal (Lamsis v. Dong-e, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010, Del Castillo, J.).
2. Public policy – One cannot question the jurisdiction which he invoked, not because the decision is
valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but because it cannot be tolerated by reason of public policy
(Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Dumlao, G.R. No. L44888, February 7, 1992); and
3. A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponents
cannot repudiate or question the same after failing to obtain such relief (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, G.R.
Nos. L-48907& 49035, January 19, 1982).
NOTE: Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss shall
include all grounds then available and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8,
Rule 115).
Even in the absence of lack of jurisdiction raised in a motion to dismiss, a party may, when he files an
answer, still raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because such defense is not barred
under the omnibus motion rule.
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).
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.).
Question of law – when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts
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)]
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.
How jurisdiction over the res is acquired
The jurisdiction of the court over the remedies prayed for, e.g. jurisdictional amount.
Provisional remedies
Once the court has jurisdiction over the main case, ancillary or provisional remedies are included, e.g.
support, receivership, and replevin.
Venue Jurisdiction
The place, or geographical area where an action is to Power of the court to hear and decide a case
be filed and tried (Manila Railroad Company v.
Attorney General, 20 Phil 523).
Can only be objected to before the other party files a Can be brought up at any stage of the proceedings
responsive pleading (Answer)
May be waived by: Cannot be waived
1. Failure to object through a motion to dismiss or
through an affirmative defense; or
2. Stipulation of the parties.
Matter of procedural law Matter of substantive law
May be stipulated by the parties Cannot be the subject of the agreement of the parties
Establishes a relation between the plaintiff and Establishes a relation between the court and the
defendant, or petitioner and respondent. subject matter
GR: Not a ground for a motu proprio dismissal It is a ground for a motu proprio dismissal in case of
(Riano, 2014) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Riano,
XPN: In cases subject to summary procedure (Ibid.) 2014; Sec. 1, Rule 9)
NOTE: In civil cases, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction (Hrs. of Lopez v. de Castro, 324 SCRA 591).
Venue becomes jurisdictional only in a criminal case. Where 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).
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
3. For disputes
involving real property or
any interest when the
parties thereto agree to
submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon therein
shall be brought in the
barangay where the real
property or larger portion
thereof is situated; and
The enforcement by
execution of the amicable
settlement in the barangay
conciliation proceedings is
only applicable if the
contracting parties have not
repudiated such settlement.
If the amicable settlement is
repudiated by one party,
either expressly or impliedly,
the other party has two
options, namely, to enforce
the compromise or to
consider it rescinded and
insist upon his original
demand (Miguel v.
Montanez, G.R. No. 191336,
January 25, 2012).
Criminal Cases When punishable by None 1. Violations of traffic laws,
imprisonment of not more rules and regulations;
than 1 year or fine of not 2. Violations of the rental
more than Php 5,000 (Sec. law;
408, LGC). 3. Violations of municipal or
city ordinances;
4. Violations of B.P. 22 or
the Bouncing Checks Law
(A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC,
April 15, 2003);
5. All other criminal cases
where the penalty is
imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months
and/or a fine of Php 1,000
irrespective of other
penalties or civil liabilities
arising therefrom; and
6. Offenses involving
damage to property
through criminal
negligence where the
imposable fine is not
exceeding Php 10,000.
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. [Geronimo v. Calderon, 744 SCRA 564 (2014)]
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. [Spouses Erorita v. Spouses Dumlao, 781 SCRA 551 (2016)]
Jurisdiction does not depend on the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial court
[Dionisio v. Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471, 477, (1974)]
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
B. ACTIONS
It is one in 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].
It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement 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).
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].
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact
[Sec. 3 (c), Rule 1].
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
It is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of 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).
NOTE: The rule is “there is no right of action where there is no cause of action” (Ibid.).
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)]
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)
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 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)
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).
The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on either of the following grounds:
1. Litis pendentia; or
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.
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):
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).
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.
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:
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);
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:
b. The suits are in connection with the settlement and closure of its affairs (Sec. 112,
Corporation Code).
1. Benefited;
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).
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)
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
4. Necessary parties
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 (Sec 9, Rule 3).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
1. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions (connected with the
same subject matter of the suit); and
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).
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).
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 order
of 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).
However, even if neither is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to
drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint based on the failure of the plaintiff to
comply with a court order (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Riano, 2014).
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)
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.
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).
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).
The substitute defendant need not be summoned. The order of substitution shall be served upon the
parties substituted for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party (Riano, 2014). If there is
notice of death, the court should await the appointment of legal representative; otherwise, subsequent
proceedings are void (1999Bar).
NOTE: The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the
damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and
principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the
causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights
of property affected being incidental (Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010)
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).
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).
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
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).
Defendant 1. Personal actions – the venue is where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides,
does not or where the nonresident defendant may be found, at the election of the plaintiff (Riano,
reside but is 2014, citing Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court).
found in the
Philippines 2. Real actions – shall be commenced and 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).
Defendant The action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides
does not or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found (Sec. 3, Rule 4).
reside and is
not found in
the NOTE: Unless the Court declares otherwise, it is submitted that a liberal interpretation of
Philippines 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).
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).
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)]
The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is:
1. In writing;
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).
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 negates the action of the claimants (Sweet
Lines, Inc. v. Hon. Bernardo Teves, GR. No. L-37750, May 19, 1978).
F. PLEADINGS
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the
court for appropriate judgment (Sec.1, Rule 60) (2007 Bar).
a. Complaint
It is a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action, with a
specification of the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such further relief as may be
deemed just or equitable.
NOTE: The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant, if known, must be stated (Sec. 3, Rule
6).
Ultimate facts
It is the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be
stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. A pleading should
state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from
mere conclusion of fact, or conclusion of law. An allegation that a contract is valid, or void, as in
the instant case, is a mere conclusion of law (Remitere v. Yulo, G.R. No. L-19751, February 28,
1966).
b. Answer
It is the pleading where the defendant sets forth his affirmative or negative defenses (Sec. 4, Rule 6).
It may likewise be the response to a counterclaim or a cross-claim. It may be an answer to the complaint,
an answer to a counter-claim, or an answer to a cross-claim (Riano, 2014).
i. Negative defenses
A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of
the claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action (Sec. 5 (a), Rule 6).
2. A denial of allegation of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest (Sec. 11, Rule 8).
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).
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
ii. Permissive counterclaim
NOTE: In an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6).
1. If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal under Rule 16 may be pleaded
as an affirmative defense in the answer, and in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be
had thereon as if a motion to dismiss has been filed (Sec. 6, Rule 16) After hearing, when the complaint
is dismissed, the counterclaim, compulsory or permissive is not dismissed.
2. When the plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after the defendant has pleaded his
answer with a counterclaim. If the court grants the motion, the dismissal shall be limited to the
complaint. It shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a
separate action unless within 15 days from notice of the motion, manifests his preference to have his
counterclaim resolved in the same action (Sec. 2, Rule 17).
3. When the complaint is dismissed through the fault of the plaintiff and at a time when a counterclaim
has already been set up, the dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or separate action (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Riano, 2014).
d. Cross-claims
A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence
that is the subject matter of either the original action, or a counterclaim therein. It may include a claim
that the party 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 against the cross-claimant (Sec. 8, Rule 6).
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).
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).
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).
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)
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).