 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.