The Supreme Court recently issued amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the

Revised Rules on Evidence (collectively, the Revised Rules). The Revised Rules will take
effect on 1 May 2020. Like the earlier released Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases, the Revised Rules are intended to expedite civil and criminal litigations
and, to this end, streamline the litigation process.
Why this affects you
The Revised Rules introduce substantial changes to the litigation process, and will have a
significant effect on how companies approach, avoid or prepare for, litigations.
The Revised Rules will apply to newly-filed cases (i.e. filed after 1 May 2020). It will also
apply to those already pending as of the effectivity date, except to the extent that in the
opinion of the court, application of the Revised Rules would not be feasible or would work
injustice. In such case, the old rules will be applied.
10 Notable Changes Introduced by the Revised Rules
1. New rule on originals of documents
The Revised Rules allow the presentation of a "duplicate" of an original, and such duplicate
is deemed admissible as an original unless (a) a genuine question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original, or (b) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the original. The practical effect is that, as a general rule, photocopies
will be admissible into evidence, unless a genuine issue on its authenticity is raised, or it is
shown that its admission is unjust or inequitable. The burden to show that the photocopies
are not admissible is on the party opposing its admission.
2. A party must be ready to submit evidence upon filing of the Complaint or Answer
The Revised Rules require a Complaint and an Answer (or any other pleading containing a
party's claims and defenses) to already contain or append the (a) names of the witnesses,
(b) a summary of their intended testimonies, (c) judicial affidavits of the witnesses, and (d)
the documentary and object evidence in support of a party's allegations. This means that
anyone wishing to file a complaint or who finds itself being a respondent in a case, must
immediately prepare the evidence in support of the Complaint or Answer. This is a
significant change from the present practice where these information/documents are
submitted in the course of pre-trial which usually takes place many months after the filing of
the Complaint or Answer.
3. Counsel's signature
Under the present rules, signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him/her that he/she
has read the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is
good ground to support it and it is not interposed for delay.
The Revised Rules expands this certification to include the following: (a) the document is
not being presented for any improper purpose, (b) the claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence or by non-frivolous argument for
modifying or reversing existing jurisprudence, (c) the factual contentions have evidentiary
support or will have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery, and (d)
denials of factual contentions are warranted by evidence, or reasonably based on belief or
lack of information.
Violation of the above warranties exposes the responsible attorney, law firm, or party to
court sanctions. This provision applies to "every pleading and other written submissions to
the court", and thus arguably applies not only to signatures by external counsel but also by
in-house counsels who sign and submit papers in the course of the proceedings to the
court. These may be construed as extending to submissions such as judicial affidavits, and
documents verified by in-house counsel.
4. New ways to serve summons on a defendant
Under the present rules, summons are generally served on defendants by the court's
sheriffs. Under the Revised Rules, a party, who is a complainant, may be authorized by the
court to serve summons.
In addition, service of summons may be done through electronic mail to the defendant's
electronic mail address, with the court's permission. Service may also be made not only on
the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in
house counsel of the said corporations, but also on their respective secretaries, in their
absence or unavailability. If service cannot be made upon such secretary, it shall be made
upon the person who "customarily receives correspondence for the defendant at its principal
office." If there is a refusal on the aforementioned persons to receive the summons despite
at least 3 attempts on 2 different dates, service may be made to the corporation via e-mail,
if allowed by the court.
The Revised Rules now make it clear that the rule on extraterritorial service of summons on
foreign corporations not registered in the Philippines or without a resident agent, apply if
such corporation "has transacted or is doing business in the Philippines". For reference, the
rule on extraterritorial service of summons is that foreign corporations not registered in the
Philippines or without a resident agent may be served summons by (a) personal service
coursed through the foreign court with the assistance of the department of foreign affairs;
(b) publication; (c) facsimile; (d) electronically; or (e) such other means as the court may
direct.
More importantly, if a party, who claims that summon was not properly served on it, sends a
lawyer to make a special appearance in its behalf to question the validity of the service of
summons, the said counsel shall be deputized by the court to serve summons on his or her
client. This will discourage the present practice wherein parties have their counsels enter
special appearance for the sole purpose of challenging the validity of the service of
summons, which often delays court proceedings.
5. Motions to Dismiss generally not allowed but shorter periods within which to
resolve grounds for dismissal
The present rules allow the filing of a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of (a) lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant; (b) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(c) improper venue; (d) lack of capacity to sue; (e) pendency of action between the same
parties for the same cause; (f) cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the
statute of limitations; (g) complaint states no cause of action; (h) claim has been paid,
waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; (i) unenforceable due to statute of frauds;
and (j) failure to comply with a condition precedent.
Under the Revised Rules, only the following grounds may be raised as grounds for a Motion
to Dismiss: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) pendency of action between
the same parties for the same cause; and (c) cause of action is barred by prior judgment or
by the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, any other grounds for dismissal available under
the present rules must, under the Revised Rules, be pleaded as an affirmative defense in
the Answer which the court will have to resolve within 30 calendar days.
If a Motion to Dismiss is allowed, the same shall be resolved within 15 calendar days from
the court's receipt of the opposition or upon expiration of the period within which to file such
opposition (i.e., 5 calendar days from receipt of the Motion to Dismiss). While the Revised
Rules generally prohibit a Motion to Dismiss, the changes will have a positive effect as they
will expedite the resolution of the issue of whether the complaint should be dismissed.
6. New rules on motions to prevent delays in the proceedings
The Revised Rules now define motions which are to be considered litigious (i.e., motion for
bill of particulars, motion to dismiss, motion for reconsideration) and non-litigious (i.e.,
motion for postponement, motion for extension to file Answer).
Non-litigious motions are resolved by the court within 5 calendar days from receipt, without
having to wait for the other party's comment or opposition. The other party is not even given
a period to file any comment or opposition.
Litigious motions, on the other hand, are no longer to be set for hearing by the moving
party, unlike how it is done at present. It is up to the court if it considers a hearing
necessary. The other party should file an opposition to the litigious motion within 5 calendar
days from receipt thereof, without waiting for the court to order it to do so. No other
submissions shall be considered by the court.
The Revised Rules also enumerate motions that are no longer allowed, including motions
for extension of time, save in very limited exceptions.
7. Electronic Service and Filing
Electronic filing may, under the Revised Rules, be made where the court agrees and such
court is equipped to handle such filings. Electronic service of documents upon a party may
be done if the other party consents to such mode of service.
Some documents may not be filed or served electronically, without express permission from
the Court. These documents are: (a) initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings,
such as an answer; (b) subpoena, protection orders, and writs; (c) appendices and exhibits
to motions or other documents that are not readily amenable to electronic scanning; and (d)
sealed and confidential documents or records.
8. New periods to be observed in filing responsive pleadings
Under the Revised Rules, an Answer is to be filed within 30 calendar days after service of
summons. A 30-day extension to file the Answer may be allowed for meritorious reasons.
The longer period is necessary in view of the additional requirements that must accompany
the Answer, as discussed above.
It is important to note that any motion for extension to file any other pleading, other than
with respect to an Answer, is prohibited.
A Reply may be filed within 15 calendar days from service of the Answer. However, a Reply
may only be filed if an actionable document is attached to the Answer. A Rejoinder may
also be filed only if an actionable document is attached to the Reply and the Rejoinder is
limited to the said actionable document.
9. Pre-trial / court-annexed mediation (CAM) / judicial dispute resolution (JDR)
process
Marking of evidence, stipulations and comparisons with originals, are to be done during the
pre-trial hearing under the Revised Rules. The Pre-Trial Order will contain tentative
schedules for CAM and JDR.
Once the court refers the parties to CAM, it should be finished within a non-extendible
period of 30 calendar days. If CAM fails, the court will determine if JDR is still necessary.
If JDR is deemed necessary, the case will be raffled to another court who will conduct the
JDR. JDR is to be conducted within a non-extendible 15 calendar days. If JDR fails, the
case will be returned to the court where the case originated, for trial as scheduled in the
Pre-Trial Order. This is a shift from the present practice of JDR being generally conducted
by the court where the case was filed, and passed on to another court if the JDR fails.
10. Judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment
The court can, under the Revised Rules, make its own determination as to whether or not to
render judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment (and thereby dispense with further
trial). A party is not allowed to appeal the court's determination to the Court of Appeals.
To facilitate and expedite the resolution of IP rights cases in the Philippines, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines recently promulgated the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights
Cases ("Revised Rules"), which shall take effect on 16 November 2020. The Revised Rules took into
account the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence, and the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. The salient
portions of the Revised Rules are as follows:

 The Supreme Court has increased the number of Special Commercial Courts that have the
authority to act on applications for the issuance of writs of search and seizure in civil actions for
violations of intellectual property rights, which writs shall be enforceable nationwide. Aside
from the Special Commercial Courts in the City of Manila, Quezon City, Makati City, and Pasig
City, the Special Commercial Courts in Baguio City, Iloilo City, Cebu City, Cagayan de Oro City,
and Davao City can now issue writs of search and seizure that can be enforced nationwide.

 The complaint must now include the evidence of the complainant. Before, only a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action and the reliefs sought were
required.

 Similar to the complaint, the answer must now include the evidence of the defendant.

 Judicial affidavits are now required in lieu of affidavits, which shall constitute the direct
testimonies of the witnesses.

 The defendant now has thirty (30) calendar days from the service of summons to file his or her
answer to the complaint. Before, the defendant only had fifteen (15) days from the service of
summons to file his or her answer.

 The answer to the counterclaims or cross-claims shall now be filed and served within fifteen (15)
calendar days from the service of the answer in which they are pleaded. Before, the period to
file and serve the answer was only ten (10) days.

 A motion to dismiss can now be filed based on the following grounds:

1. the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2. there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; or

3. the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations.

 A reply can now be filed when an actionable document is attached to the answer.

 A motion for postponement can now be filed if it is based on acts of God, force majeure, or
physical inability of the witness to appear and testify.

 The Revised Rules now allows for substituted services of summons, orders, and other court
processes. Thus, if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally after at
least three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be effected by:

1. leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a person at least

eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein;
 2. leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof;

3. leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her authority and
purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners' association or
condominium corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the
building where the defendant may be found; or

4. sending an electronic mail to the defendant's electronic mail address, if allowed by the
court.

 Service of summons to a foreign private juridical entity that is not registered in the Philippines,
or has no resident agent but has transacted or is doing business in the Philippines may, with
leave of court, be effected outside of the Philippines by electronic means with the prescribed
proof of service.

 Extraterritorial service of summons, as provided for in international conventions to which the

Philippines is a party, is now allowed.

 For depositions, the court may allow a deponent to give his or her deposition through electronic
means, such as teleconferencing or videoconferencing.

 Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) now take place after the
termination of the pre-trial.

 Where the case is submitted for decision immediately after pre-trial, the court shall now render
judgment within sixty (60) calendar days after pre-trial. Before, the court only had forty-five (45)
days to render such judgment.

 Where the parties are required to submit position papers, the court shall now render judgment
within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt of the last position paper or upon the expiration of
the period to file the same. Before, the court only had forty-five (45) days to render such
judgment.

 Where a clarification hearing is conducted, the court shall now render judgment within sixty (60)
calendar days from the termination of the last clarification hearing. Before, the court only had
forty-five (45) days to render such judgment.

 The following are now prohibited motions in criminal cases:

o Motion for judicial determination of probable cause;

o Unmeritorious motion for reinvestigation of the prosecutor recommending the filing of

information once the information has been filed before the court or if the motion is filed
without prior leave of court;

o Motion for bill of particulars that does not conform to Section 9, Rule 116 of the Rules of
Court; and
 o Motion to suspend the arraignment based on grounds not stated under Section 11, Rule
116 of the Rules of Court.

 Once the court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the arraignment of the
accused and the pre-trial are now set simultaneously within ten (10) calendar days from the
date of the court's receipt of the case for a detained accused, and within thirty (30) calendar
days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over a non-detained accused, unless a shorter
period is provided by special law or a Supreme Court circular. In the old rules, the pre-trial was
scheduled after the arraignment.

 An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility

under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

 Aside from ordering the creation of a committee of three (3) experts in patent infringement
cases, the court can now appoint one (1) expert to provide advice on the technical aspects of
the patent.

 Rule 17 (evidence in patent cases) shall apply to infringement cases involving utility models and
industrial designs with corresponding registrability reports.

 The following shall be accepted as evidence of actual use of the mark in trademark infringement
and unfair competition cases:

o Labels of the mark as used;

o Downloaded pages from the website of the applicant or registrant clearly showing that
the goods are being sold or the services are being rendered in the Philippines;

o Photographs, including digital photographs printed on ordinary paper, of goods bearing

the marks as how they are actually used or of the stamped or marked container of
goods and of the establishment/s where the services are being rendered;

o Brochures or advertising materials showing the actual use of the mark on the goods
being sold or services being rendered in the Philippines;

o For online sale, receipts of sale of the goods or services rendered or other similar
evidence of use, showing that the goods are placed on the market or the services are
available in the Philippines or that the transaction took place in the Philippines;

o Copies of contracts for services showing the use of the mark.

o Computer printouts of the drawing or reproduction of marks will not be accepted as

evidence of use; and

o Such other proof that the court may deem acceptable.

 A market survey can be recognized as evidence to prove the following:

o the primary significance of a mark to the relevant public, including its distinctiveness, its
descriptive or generic status, its strength or well-known status; and/or
 o likelihood of confusion.

 Aside from filing a motion for the destruction of the seized infringing goods, the right-holder can
now file a motion for the disposal of the seized infringing goods. There is disposal when the
infringing goods are effectively prohibited from re-entry into the channels of commerce but may
be reused for some other lawful purpose. However, hazardous goods, related objects, and
devices should only be subject to destruction.

 The court can now issue an order disposing of the seized infringing goods, related objects, or
devices by way of donation for humanitarian use, subject to the following conditions:

1. The infringing goods will not cause harm to the donees;

2. All infringing marks or features identifying the complainant, plaintiff, or right-holder as

the source of the goods shall be removed to the most possible extent; and

3. The government entities or charitable institutions to which the infringing goods are to
be donated must be properly identified.

The promulgation of the Revised Rules is a step towards progress as the Supreme Court finds ways to
expedite the resolution of IPR cases and to effectively unclog the heavy dockets of the courts. It is also
noteworthy that the Supreme Court is embracing new technology and is coping with the changing times.
This is a welcome development in the landscape of protecting IP rights in the Philippines, especially in
the midst of a pandemic.