~ \/

MEM--Q~YAID
Sun Boda Univo1sitycoue·ge of l9w ~ HG,: f 8ar Ope;auons Center

2. If applying the Rule to pending proceedings

RULE1 would impair vested rights;
3. When to do so would not be feasible or would
GENERAL PROVISIONS work injustice; or
4. If doing so would involve intricate problems of
due process or impair the independence of the
SECTION 1. TITLE OF THE RULES courts (Tan v. CA, G.R. No. 136368, January 16,
2002).
ThP.sP.Rules shall be known and cited as the Rules Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
of Court. The Supreme Court shall have the power to
promulgate rules conc_erning the protection and
The Rules of Court, as a whole, has reference to the enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
body of Rules governing pleading, practice and practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
pursuant to its Rule-making powers under the assistance to the underprivileged, Such rules shall
Constitution (1 RIANO, supra at 30). provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
Force and Effect of Rules of Court all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
Rules of court, promulgated by authority of law, have increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
the force and effect of law. if not in conflict with procodurc of r,pcci;il courts ;ind qucisi jud,cicil bodies
positive law. The rule is subordinate to the statute, shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
and. in case of conflict, the statute will prevail (Shioji Supreme Court. (CONST, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)) . •
v. Hon. Harvey, citing lnchausti & Co. vs. De Leon,
G.R No. 18940, April 27, 1922). The .1987 Constitution molded an even stronger
and more independent judiciary. Among others, it
Rules of procedure may be made applicable to enhanced the rule making power of this Court.
actions pending and undetermined at the time of
their passage and are deemed retroactive in that The Rule making power of the Supreme Court was
sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the expanded. The SC for the first time was given the
retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be power to promulgate Rules concerrnng. l11e
violative of any personal rights because no vested protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
right may attach to nor rise therefrom (In the Matter The SC was also granted for the first time the power
to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon to disapprove Rules of procedure of special courts
Oatumanong, G.R. No. 15027 4, August 4, 2006). and quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the
1987 Constitution took away the power of
When Procedural Rules do not apply to pending Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement Rules
actions: concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In
1. Where the statute itself or by necessary fine. the power to promulgate Rules of pleading,
implication provides that pending actions are practice and procedure is no longer, shared by
excepted from its operation; this Court with Congress, more so with the

~!lf~~~~11ff:Tl.f!.!I.ii!t~e;;tJ2Imt'.:f~~~~i!lZIW~~.fill'ftifflffitt
IJOIIN Al.flU'D E. AQIJIUZ1\N. rJver-A/1 Ch,1i1person ! /\ilCHOI.E V1\NF B. SANTOS. ("/1,,i,paso11 _t;u· A«"ll'mic.s ! RONA LYN;\_
CA CUI.A 1\d /Jo,· J)ir,·ctur }t•r fJw \/,111ers / MARILLLE ClF.l.O JI. BELCrn,\. V,«· < 'hc,11puwn :,,,. finance Jl IAN !NJCiO S. ~11GUEL.
her i"/;nirp<·r,:on for Uperal"'"·' Al.lSSA MAIUL D.C. DELOS S,'\NTOS, i'iet· <"1,,,,,,,,-,wn for ,\111/,1 I COHINA R. TAMPUS, 1·1«·
01<1tr11,-,wr1 fi>r Secr,·tariat j ARVY KEITH N. Cl·lll/',;(;_ Vice C/111irp,·rs,rn /;-,, f.ogi·.11,, A/\:TONIO JUN,_JUi'i C. .\-IA"IALI(;()J) IV.\,,-,.
Chan j.'ffkl/1 }1)t Alemher.,;hip 1JOH.IJ/\:"--i N. CHA VFZ. Vice ('hai1pcr.s(m ji,r 1:/1:c"Lnm,, /)u:c~ l'11.1cn!:.1ng.

f~ll}Jfalt{Aith~~~~itfJf}~fl~'f~i~11fiJtt~1?lZ{:}~·~ri11T:~,\t:~.).~~)~:f:~1!~.f%tf~r~ifff~~it\tff~~~i~~..JW.fli~fitf.
1IANNAII KIIAMII. 11. ,\lllV\ND,\ :rn<l REST!\:!-: JOY r\WH1\D1\ . .,ll/•p·d , '/1<;11 l;U\,\ EDW,\RD E. /\Ql!INO and MI\RIA
HOS,\IUO EllREO, ,\"istunt S11/>1,·,
t C/1c1ir D0',1\A V .. \·!Et\DOZA and AN.-\ 'i!COI.I·. ·rA:\. ,ubj,,.-r Ucc tn1111c1),:,,1 J',-,,,·c>ssin:;
,',_I_THJl:C:[LJFAflS_:JOSI IUA l.J\tiONEllJ\, i ·nm111,,//'1·,""('(/w,· IM \'JD JER0:\11. liO\-!INCl<IJ. l ,,.,//',,,,-,,fore; l'/\01.A lll:i\TRI/
ESUlB,'\H, Special l'1,;,wd1n:;s ,\ \J,,-rnd Ci,·1/ i\, !111rn JOSEPH ANDRFW .\lO~TEl.1.,\1'0 l·vidrncc: R/\NI!\ l't\N;\:-SDJGJ\'I

:-,:f-(- ·_,.~\::;~;;//fiii4Wl•a-+~~fit}i~¾:4~l-2.:.-.;~fu~~&.-~.J%l~~~;;f;i~:
-~·.;:
,:_;~~~-~~.:.
2..-~-,:~,
-.~:,;~-:~:: :f2~~~;
.~;~,tZl.'rE~fJ~~41l~;,,~~:4£;;-:~~/4-;JJ"!¾:.;,.~}J,ii 12~;,liT}~~I~
J\Ri\llEI.I.!\ ADHIA'\!0, MARY JOY H. Ci\NIJEl.,\IUO, .Vl;\Y\!'\ll KAI/I·: 11.\lllREZ.'\. !W/\·l,\H .\10'\'"JTS,\, ,\l\El.1/./\
T/\:-;CO'-iA\:. JERDIY AlI,\-11:'\! ,\I. .\IIJIIFM, !El.I/. /\?\'NL CAHCL-'\, l·l<A"'iCJ-:S 1.0:{J\INE V,\Ll>E/, RION ,Yl1\JU;An:.
l':\'I RI Ck IOSJ-:Pl l ITOl'J-:N(;co. :\,\lAIJU.J.E ,\·J.-\NICIO. ,\I;\ Y C:\HCI:\. fl 10.\!El. llF.l.OS !{!-.YES, l!Lrs.h\l!AI I FJ\!TI I
l)\J\\A( ;1 :J( ;, ,\IJ\HY lllANC,\ l',\H()I.,\:\, .««I ,\lL-\ /\,\ V:\ :mo
...• ."
KH',SITI (;H,\(T <; A"i(;, KU.VJ'\ Jl·!ONI·.~ (;_ ,\ l.!Ci\, V ,\ H 1.ERY J. ,\1:\llUl, J l!\,,.\/.·\l l Kl IA\\11. 11. ">IIIL\NDA, CJ\.\IIU.E IJ.
HH ,\[Ill
 :
... ~.
' ', } ' ,,,, -~ ' ~ '

,,\s .< - . -·" CIVIL PROCEDURE

>

!:r ,•' ,-
.
: t
',

, ,
.
,, , .
Remedial Law

Executive (In Re: Petition for Recognition of the commensurate with the degree of his
Exemption of the Government Service Insurance thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
System fmm Payment of Legal Fees, A.M No. 08- prescribed.
2-01-0, February 11, 2010).
The reasu11for rules of this nature is because the
I
I I he constitutional faculty of the Suprcmt~ Court to dispatch of business _bycouils wuulu be impossible,
promulgntr. Rules of practice and procedure and to ..-mdintolerable delays would result, without rules
amend or repec1Ilh!:l smne necessarily carries with it governing practice. Such rules are a necessary
the power to overturn judicial precedents on points incident lo the proper, efficient and orderly discharge
of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of judicial functions. Indeed, in no uncertain terms,
of Court (Pinga v. Heirs of Tinga and Santiago, G.R. the Court held that the said rules may be relaxed
No. 170354, June 30, 2006). only in exceptionally meritorious cases (Malixi v.
Baltazar, GR. No_ 208224, November 22, 2017).
Power of the Supreme Court to Relax or Susp·end
Procedural Rules Limitations on the Rule-making power of the
The co[Jrts have the power to relax or suspend Supreme Court: (SUD)
technical or procedural Rules or to except a .case 1. The Rules shall provide a ~implified and
from their operation when compelling reasons so • inexpensive procedure for the speedy
warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it disposition of cases;
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant 2, The Rules shall be !:!_niform for courts of the
Pagbilao Corp., GR. No. 159593, October 1'2,2006). • same grade; and
3.. The Rules shall not Qiminish, increase, or
Causes Which may Warrant the Suspei\si.09 of modify substantive rights (CONST Art. VIII, Sec.
the Strict Application of the Rules: ·- • • 5(5)).
1. Most persuasive and weighty reasons;
2. To relieve a litigant from' an ,injustice not SECTION 2. IN WHAT COURTS
commensurate with his fc1ilureto comply with the APPLICABLE
prescribed procedure;
3. Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
These Rules shall also ·apply i11all t:uurls, exi;epl as
pr.1yingwithin a reasonable time from the time of
otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
the default;
4. The existence of special or coinpeUing
circumstances; • SECTION 3. CASES GOVERNED
5. The merits of the case; , _
6. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or These Rules s.hall govern the procedure to be
negligence of a party favored by !tie suspension observed in:
of Rules; ' 1. Civil actions (ordinary or special);
7. A lack of any showing that the review sought, is 2. Criminal actions; and
merely frivolous and dilatory; _._ 3, !:>pecialProceedings.
8. Tl1e ou·,01 fJi.11ly will 11ulLie u11jusllyµrtiJUulced
thereby; , ACTION ANO CLAIM, DISTINGUISHED
9. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusa_ble
negligence without appellant's fault;
10 Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances An ordinary suit in a A right possessed by
attend::rnt to each case; court ot Justice_ one against another.
11. In the name of substantial justice and fair play;
12. Importance of the issues_involved; and One party prosecutes The moment said claim
13. Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided another for the is filed before a court,
by all the attendant circumstances (Labao v_ enforcement or the claim is converted
Flores, GR. No. 187984, November 15, 2010). protection of a right or into an action or suit.
the prevention or
Rules of Procedure are necessary Incident to the redress of a wrong_
proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial
functions
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed
simply because their non-observance may have
resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights.
Like all rules, they are required to be followed except
only for the most persuasive of reasons when they
may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
 ~ \I

MEM✓Q~Y AID.
Sci.nBeda Ur>f\lers1ty
College of Lnw HGCT Bar OPerations Center

A. Civil Action taken strictly against property, without

One by which a party sues another_ for the
enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention
or redress ofa wrong (ROC. Rule 1. Sec. 3(a)).
A civil action may either be
1. Ordinary; or
2. Special.
..
reference to the title of individual claimants
(Lopez v. Director oflands, G.R. No. 22136.
December 17, 1924).
b. It is an act[on against the thing itself. instead
of against the person (Regner v. Lagana.
G.R. No. 168747, October 19, 2007) •

Both are governed by the Ruies for ordinary civil 3. Action Quasi in Rem
actions, subject to the specific Rules prescribed for a. An action quasi in rem is one which is
a special civil action. • directed against particular persons but
seeks to reach and dispose of or deal with
l::i. Criminal Action their property located in the Philippines. It is
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an similar to an action in rem in that the
act or omission punishable by law (ROC, Ruic 1, Soc. purpose is to dispose of or deal with
3, Par. (b)). • property (res) in the f-'hilippines. 1lowever,
like an action in personam, it is brought
C. Special Proceeding against particular persons and the judgment
A remedy by which a party s·eeks to establish a therein is binding only upon the parties
~t;it11s, ;i ~iiJhl, nr ,1 ~r1rti.--:11l;ir f;:i.--:t (~RP) (ROC, thereto (Midgely v. Fernando, G.R. No. L
Rule 1, Sec. 3, Par. (c)). • 34314; May 13, 1975; San Pedro v. Ong,
G.R. No. 177598, October 16, 2008).
Classification of Actions
A. In General b. 1t is one wherein an individual is named as
defendant and the purpose of the
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS AND SPECIAL proceeding is to subject his interest therein
CIVIL ACTIONS DISTINGUISHED to the obligation or lien burdening the
property (Biaco v. PH Countryside Rural
Bank, GR No. 161417, February 8 2007).
Governed by ordinary Also governed • by
Rules. ordinary Rules but ACTION IN PERSONAM, ACTION IN REM,
(Rules 1-61} subject to specific AN[) ACTION QUASI IN REM,
{ROC, Huie 1, Sec 3(a)). Rules pre-scribed ._._
,·orstlNGtliSHED: DEP-DE
(ROC, Rules 62 to 71)

Formal demand of one's Special features not

leg;il rights in a· court of found in ordinary civil
justice in the manner actions.
prescribed by the court
or by the law.
An
directed
against
action

a
An
directed
against
action An
directed.
the against
action

an
'
B. As to Object person on the thing itself individual.
1. Action in Personam basis of his instead of named .as
An action in personam ,s a proceeding to personal against the defendant, to
enforce personal rights and obligations liability. person. subject his
brought against the person and is based on interest therein
the jurisdiction of the person, although it to the
may involve l1is right to, 01 Lile exercise of·
ow11ership of. specific property, or seek to
obligation
lien burdening
or
•
t;>,

compel him to control or dispose of it in the proPf)rty.

accordance with the mandate of the court.
some responsibility or liability directly upon
·.
the person of the defendant (Frias v.
Alcayde, GR No. 194262, February 28,
2018). Judgment IS Judgment is Judgment is
2. Action in Rem binding only binding upon binding only
a. An action or procedure instituted c1gainst a upon the the whole upon the
particular thing and not against a person. In parties and world. parties who
a strict sense, it is ;in action or proceeding their I
I
____J
 '>, "--,-;.,· ' ' ', ;
~ 'I { ,.

CIVIL PROCEDURE
l •• , ...,. , ,, ' , • , ' I • ',
1

30',' '. s' .

, ~ , , ~' , • '-~
Remedial Law

action for
ejectment;
action for
specific
performance;
action for
injunction
An action to A proceeding to A proceeding
impose a determine ihe which deals (Domagas v. Jensen, G.R. 158407, January 17,
responsibility state or with the status, 2005).
or liability upon condition of a ownership, or
a person thing. liability of a NOTE: In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem,
hi
'i directly. particular jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
~\

property but prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court

which are provided that the court
intended to acquires jurisdiction over the res.
operate on
these Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the
questions only defendanl not for the purpose of vesting the court
as between the - with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due
particular prcicess requirements (Biaco v. Philippine
parties to the Countryside Rural Bank, G. R. No. 161417. February
proceedings 8, 2007). -
and not to
ascertain or C. As to Calise or Foundation
cut-off the 1. Real Action - ~h action involving title to or
rights or possession of real property, or any interest
interests of all therein.
possible 2. Personal Action - an action not involving title
claimants. to or possession of real property, or any interest
(Domagas vs. therein:
Jensen, GR. 3. Mixed Action - an action involving a Joinder of
Nu.1!38407, both real and personal actions.
January 17,
2005), REAL ACTION, PERSONAL ACTION, AND
MIXED ACTION DISTINGUISHED

Jurisdiction Jurisdiction over the person of

over the the defendant is not a
person of the prerequisite to confer jurisdiction
Actions One which is One brought for
defendant is on the court provided that the
affecting title to not founded protection or
necessary for court acquires Jurisdiction over
or possession upon the recovery of real
the court to the res. of real privily of real property and
validly try and property, or rights or real also for an
decide the interest therein property. award for
case. (ROC. Rule 4, damages
Sec. ·t). sustained
(Pacferanga v.
Action for Umd Action for Hon
declaration of registration partition; action Oimalanes,
nullity of title case; change for accounting;
and recovery of name attachment; ! :,9:75 ,N,~o. L-
of ownership of
real property:
reconvcyance;
foreclosure of
mortgage.
-~~----- ill r_
J/ern/Jer 28,
9:J)
 ~ \ I

MEM:Q-:RY
AID
San 800a University Col!ogo of I.aw • RGCT Brn Oporatic.ns Center

Actions the subject matter of which is incapable

of pecuniary estimation
To determine if the subject matter of an action is one
capable of pecuniary estimation, it is necessary to
ascertain the nature of the principal action or remedy
Local, ie., its Transitory, Governed by sought (Genesis Investment Inc., v. Heirs of
venue depends i.e., its venue the Rules of Ebarasabal, GR No. 181622, November 20, 2013).
upon the depends upon venue in real
location of the the residence action. Capable of pecuniary estimation - primarily for the
property of the plaintiff recovery of sum of money; Jurisdiction over the
involved in the or the -action would depend upon the amount of the claim
litigation (ROG, defendant (Genesis Investment Inc., v. Heirs of Ebarasaba/,
Rule 4, Sec.2). (Id.). supra).

Incapable of pecuniary estimation - where the

basic issue is something other than the right to
Accion Action for a Accion recover a sum of money, or the money claim is
reinvindicatoria sum of money publiciana with merely incidental to the principal relief. the action is
a claim for within the jurisdiction of RTC ( Genesis Investment
damages (Id.). Inc., v Heirs of Ebarasabal, supra).

Significance of Distinction Between Real and Examples of Actions Incapable of Pecuniary

Personal Actions
The distinction between a real action and a personal
action is important for the purpose of determining the
venue of the action.
Knowing whether or not an action is real is also
important to know which court has jurisdiction over a
complaint. Jurisdiction over real actions will involve
determination of the assessed value of the property
(Id.).
NOTE: A real action is not the same as an action in
rem and a personal action is not the same as an
action in personam. An action in personam is an
action against a person on the basis of his personal
liability, while an action in rem is an 2ction against
the thing itself. instead of against the person. Hence,
a real action may at the same time be an action in
personarn and not necessarily an action in rem
(Hernandez v. Rural.Boni\ of Luc;urlil, C.R No. L-
2979"/ January 10. 197[)).
Examples:
1. An action to recover title to or possession of real
property is a real action, but it is an action 111
personam (Heirs of Yusingco v. Busilak, GR
No. 210504, January 24, 2018)
2. An action for declaration of nullity of a marriage
is a personal action because it is not founded on
real estate. It is also an in rem action because
the issue of the status of a person is one directed
against the whole world (Frias v. A/coydc, G. R.
No 194262, Februar1 28, 2018).
3. An action for damages is both a personal action
and an action in personam (Pacfemnga v. Hon
Dimalanes. GR No. L-49475 September 28.
1993).
Estimation:
1. Specific performance;
2. The rightJo support of the plaintiff;
3. Actiyp • f~r Support that will require the
determination of the civil status (Heirs of
Bautista v. Undo, GR No. 208232, March 10,
2014),
4. Annulment ofjudgment;
5. Actio,ns questioning the validity of a mortgage;
6. Rescission (Russel v. Vestil, G.R. No. 119347,
March 17, 1999);• •
7. Complaint forinjunction (PAGCOR v. Fontana
Dev't. Corp., GR No. 187972, June 29. 2010);
8. Reformation of contracts (Surviving Heirs of
Bautista v. Lindo, GR No. 208232, March 10,
2014): and
9. Interpretation of a contractual stipulation
(Surviving Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo, GR, No.
208232, March 10, 2014).
Even if the Complaint is denominated as one for
specific performance, if the prayer Is for
reconveyance or real property and cancellation of
the defendant's title, the action is actually a real
action because the aim in filing the complcJint was to
secure plaintiffs claimed ownership and title to the
subject property, which qualifies the case as a real
action. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, a real action is one that
affects title to or possession of real property, or an
interest therein (Spouses Trayv1llav. Se1as, G.R. No.
204970. February 1. 2016)
The nalure of an action is not dr:tcrmined by what is
stated in the caption of the comrlaint but by the
allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed
for. Where the ult1mciteobJective of the pl;:iintiffs. like
petitioners herein. is to obtain title to real property. ii
,, / , ! ~ ,

,: •32 • -, -_;: . CIVIL PROCEDURE

. , . Remedial Law
,, . ' , . '; ' ,

should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction account the issuance and service of summons
over the assessed value of the property subject (Cabrera v, Tiano, G.R. No. L-17299, July 31, 1963).
thereof (Brgy, Piapi v. Talip, G.R No. 138248,
September 7, 2005). If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later
pl1:-oding, the action iK cornmAnr.Arf with r8fJ;Jrrltn
Where the demand is in the alternative, as in an him on the date of the filing of such later pleading,
action to compel the defendant to deliver the house irrespective of whether the motion for its admission,
by complP.ting its construction or to pay the sum of if necessary, is denied by the court (ROC, Rule 1,
P644.31, the action is one that is capable of Sec. 5).
pecuniary estimation (Cruz v. Tan, C.R. No. L-3448,
November 27, 1950). Payment of Docket Fees is a Jurisdictional
Requirement
COURT DECISIONS ON ACTION FOR The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only
EXPROPRIATION OF REAL PROPERTY upon the pax.ment of the prescribed docket fees, but'
its non-payment at the time of filing of the initiatory
pleading does not automatically cause its dismissal,
provided that:
(a) the fees are paid within a reasonable period; and
(b) there was no intention on the part of the claimant
to defraud the government (Saco/Jes y Santos v.
The Supreme Court The Supreme Court
Aquiri6, G.R. No. 236219, July 22, 2019),
classified an action for Ruled that .actions for
expropriation of real partition or
Whern the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees
property as an action the condemnation of, or
assessed by the cl.erk of court, and the amount paid
subject matter of which foreclosure of a
turns out to· be defic;ient, the ·trial court still acquires
is incapable of pecuniary mortgage on real
jurisdiction over the case, subject to the payment by
estimation. Thus, property are real actions
the plaintiff of the deficiency assessment (Fedman
jurisdiction lies with the or those involving title to
Oev't, Corp. v. Agrnoili, GR. No. 165025, August 31,
RTC. or interest 1n real
2011)
µroperty. Thus,
The payment of docket fees, like the Rule of strict
jurisdiction may be with
the •MTC or RTC, compliance in the service of summons, is nofa mere
technicality of procedure but is an essential
depending on the
requirement of.due process. It can only be relaxed
assessed value of the
for the most persuasive of reasons where a litigant's
property or interest
degree of noncompliance with the rules is severely
therein,
disproportionate tu the i11juslicelie is bound lo suffer
as a consequence (7107 Islands Publishing, Inc, v.
SECTION 4. IN WHAT CASES NOT The House Printers Corp., GR No. 193420,
APPLICABLE October 14, 2015).

Guidelines Regarding the Payment of DockeU

GENERAL RULE: These Rules shall not apply to:
Filing Fees
(NICOLE)
In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion GR. Nos,
1. _!-!aturalizationcases;
79937-38, February 13. 1989_.the Supreme Co11rt
2. !nsolvcncy procccding3;
laid down the following rules:
3. ~adastral cases;
a. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
4. Qther cases not herein provided for.
appropriate initiatory pleading but also the
5. ,band registration; and
payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests
6, 11ection cases 0
a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action, Where the filing of
EXCEPTION: The Rules may apply to the above
the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
cases by (a) analogy or in a suppletory character
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow
and (b) whenever practicable and convenient (ROG,
payment of the fee within the reasonable time
Rule 1, Sec. 4).
but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period:
SECTION 5. COMMENCEMENT OF b. The same Rule applies to permissive
ACTION counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings wh1ctl shall not be considered filed
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor
originol complaint in court, with0t1I tilking ink, is p,11,:I The cuu1l 111ayalso allow payment of
 ~ \ I
MEM:-Q:RY
AID
S~n Ele<:faVnive,sity Cclk:Jgo o! t ow • RGCT Bor Opim.1tions Canter
said fee within a reasonable time but also in no
case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period; and
c. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a
claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading
and payment of the prescribed filing fee, but
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified,· the
same has been left for determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall
constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and
assess and coltect the additional fee.
The phrase "awards a claim not specified in the
pleading" in (c) refers only to damages arising
after the filing of the complaint or similar
pleading, as to which the additional fee therefor
shalt constitute a lien in the judgment
NOTE: In Manchester. clue to the fraud committed
on the government, i e , alleging in the body of the
complaint the claim for Php.78Million damages but
omittinq it in the prayer to evade payment of correct
filing fees, the Supreme Court held that the court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the case. and that the
amended complaint could not have been admitted
inasmuch as the oriqinal complaint was null and void.
The Supreme Court ruled that to all complaints,
petitions, answers and other similar pleading~
should specify the amount of damages being prayed
for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the
prayer, and said damaqes shall be considered in the
assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any
pleading thc1t fails to comply with this requirement
shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall
otherwise be expunged from the record. The court
c1cquiresjurisdiction over any upon payment of the
prescribed docket fee. However, this ruling only
applies to instances when there is intent to defraud
the Government. Otherwise. the rules laid down in
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion GR. Nos.
79937-38, Februaty 13, 1989 shalt
apply (Manchester Development Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 75919, May 7, 1987)
Wt1ile the payment of the prescribed docket fees is
c1 jurist.li'c.:tiur1al
requirement. even its non-p,iymP.nt cJt
t1·1etime o1 filiny does not r11Jtomnl!rnlly r.c111sP. thP.
dismissal of the case, 8S long as the fees is paid
within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary
period, more so when the party involved
demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules
prescribing such payment Thus,
when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the
government. the Manchester rule does not
c1pply(Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. (IBC-13)
v. Alonzo Legasto, GR No. 169108, April 18, ?006).
It does not follow, however, that the trial court should
have dismissed the complaint for failure ·of the
plaintiff to pay the correct amount of docket fees.
Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a
Jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow
the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a
reasonable time before the expiration of the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. If
the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the
defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction
or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the
lntter case. the balance between the appropriate
docket fees and the amount actually paid by the
plaintiff will be considered a lien on any award he
may obtain in his favor (National Steel Corp. v. Court
of Appeals, GR. No. 123215, February 2, 1999).
Instances when the docket fees need not be paid
at the commencement of the suit but may be
considered as a lien on the judgment award:
1. Damages arising after the filing of the complaint
or similar pleading. to which the additional filing .
fee shall constitute a lien on the judgment. The
amount of any clc1im for damoges, therefore,
arising on.or before the filing of the complaint or
any pleading, should be specified. The
exception contemplated as to claims not
specified or to clr1ims r1lthrn1ghsrecified are left
for tho de.termination of the court is limited only
to any damages that may arise after the filing of
the complaint or similar pleading for then it will
not be possible for the claimant to specify nor
speculate as to the amount thcrnof (Original
Dev'/. ConstructionCorp. v. CA, G.R. No. 94677,
October 15, 1991);
2. In the case of an indigent litigant;
3. Civil action instituted with the criminal action
where the mom!. exemplary, nominal, and
temperate damages are not specified in the
complaint or information (ROC, Rule 111. Sec.
1).
Note: Docket fees are not required for motion to
enter into records an attorney's lien but are required
for motion for the enforcement of the lien (Navarez
v. Abrogarl/1, GR. No. 191641, September 2, 2015).
No r1ssessrmrnt for docket fees on actual damages
in criminal cases, except when otherwise provided
by the rules, such as ir1 the case of violation of BP
22, where the offended party shall pay in full the filing
fees based on the amount of the check involved,
which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed (ROG. Rule 111, Sec. 1)
 ~,J, ,·" , : ' ! , : ,,; •, .' ' ,
'·,-'34.-, .,-.-,·;., CIVIL PROCEDURE
~. , ,
';':, , ~ _,' ,
Remedial Law
,·),\_,}\,, • ' • ' J"' ·: ~ ,, ' ,

SECTION 6. CONSTRUCTION
Procedural technicality should not be made a bar to
These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to the vindication of a legitimate grievance. When such
promote their objective of securin!=)a just, speedy technicality deserts from being an aid to justice, the
and inexpensive disposition of every action and courts ere justified in excepting from its operation a
proceeding. particular case (Cagayan Economic Zone Aul/101ity
v. ·Mcridien Vista Gaming Corp., G.R. No. 194962,
GENERAL RULE: Rules of Court, promulgated by January 27, 2016).
authority of law, have- the force and effect of law.
Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and The Liberal Construction of the Rules of Court is
imperative (Bago v. People, G.R. No. 135638, resorted to only to promote substantial justice, not to
January 20, 2003). delay or undermine legal processes (Boaz Int'/
Trading Co. v. Woodward Japan, G.R. No. 147793,
EXCEPTIONS: December 11, 2003)
1. Strong considerations of equity, in the interest of
substantial justice (Bago v. People, G.R. No.
135638, January 20, 2003);
2. When the party has shown substantial RULE2
compliance with it (Malixi v. Baltazar, GR No.
208224, November 22, 2017);
CAUSE OF ACTION
3. When there is a cause not entirely attriblitable to
the fault or negligence bf the party favored by
the suspension of the rules, and the othe~ party
will not be unjustly prejudiced'thereby'(Sanchcz
SECTION 1. ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS,
v. Court of Appeals, G.R Nq. 1527f36,June 20, BASIS OF
2003).
Every ordinary civil action nIu:;l I.Je uc1:;ed 011 a
ThP. h;:im invnr.r1tinn nf "thP. inte.rest ot st1bstantial GrlllSP.of nr.tion
justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically
compel the 'Court to suspend procedural rules. The cousc of nction, as defined and required of an
Procedural rules are not to be beiittled or dismissed ordinsry civil action, does not apply when the rules
simply because their non-observance may have on special civil actions provide otherwise, such as in
resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive righls. declaratory relief and interpleader (ROG, Rule 62-
Like all rules, they are required to be followed except 63)
only for the most porsuasive of 1easuns wh811 ll"tt!Y
may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an inJustice not SECTION 2. CAUSE OF ACTION,
commensurate with the degree of his DEFINED
thoughtlessness in not complying with the riror.erl1irP.
prescribed. The Court reiterates that rules of
A cause of action is the c1d u1 0111issio11 by which a
procedure have oft been held as absolutely
party violates a right of another.
indispensable to the prevention of needless delays
and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business.
Elements of a cause of action: (LOA)
The reason for rules of this nature is because the
1. The begal right of the plaintiff;
dispatch of business by courts would be impossible,
?. Th0. c:mrd;:itivP.QhliQ8tion of the defendant not
and Intolerable delays would result,
to violate the rigt1t: and
without rules governing practice. Such rules are a
3. The tct or omission of the defendant in violation
necessary incident to the proper, efficient and
of the said legal right (Asia Brewery, •Jnc. v.
orderly discharge of judicial functions. The
Equitable PC/ Bank, GR. Nu 190432, April 25,
said rules may be relaxed only in exceptionally
2017).
meritorious cases (Malixi v. Baltazar. G.R. No.
208224, November 22. 2017).
A single act or omission can be violative of various
rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes
The Rules are not inflexible tools designed to hinder
Juridically a violation of several separate and distinct
or delay, but to facilit;:ite and promote the
legal obligations. Where there is only one delict or
administration of jus_lice. Their strict and rigid
wrong, there is a single cause of action regardless
appl1cat1on,which would result in technicalities that
of the number of rights that rm:iy hcive been violatec1
tend lo frustrate, rather thc1n promote substantial
belonging to one person The singleness of a cause
justice, must always be esct1ewed (Cagayan
of action lies in the singleness of the delict or wrong
Economic Zone /luthority v Meridien Vista Gaming
violating the rights of one r,ierc;on If onIy one injury
Corp., GR No. '/94962, January 27. 2016).
 ~ \I

MEM-Q~Y AID
San Beda University Co!!ege of Low ~ !1GCT Bar Oparntions Center

resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause
of action arises (Joseph v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-
41423, February 23, 1989).
In determining the existence of a cause of action,
only the statements in the complaint may properly be
considered. (Viewmaster Construction Corp. v.
Roxas, GR. No. 133576, July 13, 2000).
FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION
AND LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION,
DISTINGUISHED
Right of Action as Distinguished from a Cause of
Action
A right of action is a remedial right belonging to some
persons while the cause of action is a formal
statement of the operational facts that give rise to
such remedial right The right ol action is a matter of
right and depends on the substantive law while the
cause of action is a matter of statute and is governed
by the law of procedure. The right of action springs
from tho cause of action but does not accrue until all
the facts which constitute the cause of action have
occurred (Mu/ti-Realty Dev'/. Corp. v. The Makati
Tuscany Condominium Corp., G.R. No. 146726,
June 16, 2006).

Hequ1sites: (CCP)
Refers to the Lack of cause of action 1. Existence of c1.Q_auseof action;
i11suffide1icy uf l11e refers to a situation 2. Performance of all .Q_onditionsprecedent to the
allegations in the where the evidence bringing of the action; and
pleading. does not prove the 3. Right to bring and maintain the action must be in
cause of action alleged the ferson instituting it ( Turner v. Lorenzo
in the pleading. Shipping, G.R. No. 157479, November 24,
2010).
The proper remedy The proper remedy
when there is a failure to when the complaint is
Relief is the. redress, protection, award or coercive
state a cause of action not based on a cause of
measure which the plaintiff prays the court to render
is to allege the same as action is to file a
in his favoras consequence of the delict committed
an affirmative defense Demurrer of Evidence.
by the defendant •
in the Answer.
(Macaslang v. Zamora G.R. No. 156375, May 30 Remedy is the procedure or appropriate legal form
2011) of relief of action which may be availed of by the
plaintiff c!S the means to obtain the desired relief.
Test of the Sufficiency of the Statement of a
Cause of Action: Subject Matter is the thing, wrongful act, contract or
Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court property which is directly involved in the action,
could render a valid judgment verdict in accordance concerning which the wrong has been done and with
with the prayer of the complaint (Misamis Occidental respect to which the controversy has arisen (1
II Cooperative, Inc. v. David GR. No. 129928, REGALADO, supra at 22)
August 25, 2005).
Thus, In a case for breach of contract:
A complaint whose cause of action has not yet 1. Subject matter - the contract violated;
acc~ued cannot be cured or remedied by an 2. Cause of action - the breach by the obligor;
amendment or supplemental pleading alleging the • 3. Right of action - consequent substantive right
existence or accrual of a cause of action while the on the part of the obligee to sue for redress;
case is pending. Such action is prematurely brought 4. Relief -- the damages or rescission or the act
and is. therefore, a grounclless suit (Swagman which the plaintiff asks the court to order; and
Hotels & Travel. Inc. v. CA. G.F~.No. '161'/35, April 5. Remedy - the type of action which may be
8. 2005) ,:ivailed of by the plaintiff. which rnay be an action .•
for damages, for rescission or for specific I
Right of Action performance (Id). •
Tl1e term right of action is the right to commence and
maintain an action. It is a remedial right belonging to Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach
some person (LG. Marquez v. Varela. G.R. No. L- Even if the contract is divisible in its performance
4845, December 24. 1952) and the future periodic obligations are not yet due, if
the obligor has already manifested his refusal to
It accrues when there exists a cause of action comply with his future periodic obligations. the
(Espanol vs. Chairman and Mem/Jers of the Board, contract is entire and the breach total. hence, there
Pfulippme Veterans, GR. No. L-44616, June 29, can only be one action for damages.
198!:J).
 ,/ ' <.
.' 36·:,-:;_, •..-~: :·_. •..' ,
.;- ' . ~ ~, . , ~,~
Thus, the principle contemplates future periodic
deliveries (divisible in this performance) and a willful
refusal to comply therewith (Danfoss Inc. v.
Continental Cement Corp., G.R. No. 143788,
September 9, 2005).
SECTION 3. ONE SUIT FOR A SINGLE
CAUSE OF ACTION
A party may not institute mbre than one suit for a
single cause of action.
SECTION 4. SPLITTING A SINGLE
CAUSE OF ACTION, EFFECT OF
Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing
a single or indivisible cause of action into several
parts or claims and instituting two or more actions
upon them. (Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. No.
157616, 22 July 2005).
Purpose of Prohibition against ~plitting a single
cause of action:
The rule against splitting a single <::auseof action is
intended "to prevent repeated litigation between the
same parties in regard to the same subject of
controversy; to protect defendant from unnecessary
vexation; and to avoid the costs and expenses
incident to numerous suits (City of Bacolod v. San
Miguel Brewery, G.R. No. L-2513, October30, 1969).
Three Tests to Ascertain Whether Two or More
Suits Relate to a Single or Common Cause of
Action:
1 Whether the sc1mP.evidence would support and
sustain both the pt 3nd 2nd causes of action
(also known as the-"same evirlenr.e" test):
2 Whether the defenses in one case may be used
to substantiate the complaint in the other; or
3. Whether the cause of action in the second·case
existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint (Umale v. Canoga Park Oev't. Corp.,
GR. No. 167216, July 20, 2011).
Rules in Determining the Singleness of a Cause
of Action
GENERAL RULE: A contract embraces only one
cause of action because it may be violated only once
even if it contains several stipulations (Quiogue. v.
Bautista, G.R. No. L-13159, February 28, 1962).
EXCEPTION: A contract to do several things at
several times is divisible in its nature. This kind of
obligation authorizes successive actions and a
Judgment recovered for a single breach does not bar
a suit for a subsequent broach (Riviera Golf Club,
Inc. v. CCA Holdings, B. V. GR No 173783, June
17, 2015).
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
Example: Promissory note payable in several
installments so long as there is no acceleration
clause.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: In an action
upon a lease for the recovery of rent, the
installments due at the time the action was brought
must be included in the complaint, ;:md failure to dc,
so constitutes a bar to a subsequent action for such
overdue rent. The principle is well ·established that a
party will not be permitted to split a cause of action
and make it the basis of sever all suits, but that rule
applies only to cases where the cause is in existence
at the time the action is brought (Larena v.
Villanueva, G. R. No. L-29155. November 5, 1928).
Remecly of the defendant where a single cause
of action has been split:
1. Move to dismiss on the grounds of:
a. Litis pendentia - if the first action is pending
whi::n the second action is filed (ROC, Rule
16, Sec. 1(e)); or
b. Resjlidicata - if a final judgment had been
rendered in the first action when the second
action is filed(ROC, Rule 16, Sec. 1(f}).
2. File an answer ·alleging the afore-mentioned
grounds as affirmative defenses.
For non-payment of a note secured by mortgage, the
creditor has a single cause of action against the
debtor to recover the debt, through the filing of a
personal actionJorcollection of sum of money or the
institution of a real a.ction to foreclose on the
mortgage security. These two remedies are
alternative,. not cumu_lative or successive, and each
remedy .is complete by itself. Thouqh the debt and
the m6rtgagA r.onstitute separate ~greP.mP.nts.thA
latter is subsidiary to the former. and both refer to
one and the same obligation. There exists only one
cause of action for a single breach of that
obligation. Plaintiff cannot split up his single cause
of action by filing a complaint for payment of the debt,
and there;:iftor <mother complaint for foreclosure of
the mortgage (Marilag v. Martinez. G.R. No. 201892,
July 22, 2015).
SECTION 5. JOINDER OF CAUSES OF
ACTION
Joinder of Causes of Action Is the assertion of as
many causes of action as a party may have against
another in one pleading alone. It is the uniting of two
or morP. demands or right of action in a complaint.
(Decena v. Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31,
2005)
 ~ \ I

MEM✓Q~Y AID of Law - ROCT &, Ocorations Cente1

San Boda University Col1E.<ge

ALTERNATIVE JOINDER ANO arnounl clc1i111ed

sl1all I.JeIlle lest uf jurisdiction.
(ROC, Rule 2, Sec. 5). •
CUMULATIVE JOINDER,
DISTINGUISHED Joinder of Causes of. Action is NOT Compulsory
The joinder of separate causes of action. where
allowable, is permissive and not mandatory in the
Exists when causes of Exists when plaintiff absence of a contrary statutory provision, even
action are set forth in one seeks relief from all his though the causes of action arose from the same
pleading alternatively or causes of action. factual setting and might under applic?ble joinder
hypothetically The rules be joined (Sps. Perez v. Hermano, GR. No.
plaintiff seeks relief fromExample: A creditor 147417 July 8, 2005).
either one of the causes may, in one complaint,
of action, not both (ROC. 10m his causes of Totality Rule
Rule 8, Sec. 2) action based on 5 Where there are several claims or causes of actions
promissory notes between the same or different parties, embodied in
Example: In a contract of against the debtor. the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall
carriage, the passenger be the totality of the claims in all causes of action,
of a vehicle which irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
collided with another out of the same or different transaction (B.P. Big.
vehicle may, in one 129, Sec. 33).
complaint, join,. in the
alternative, her causes of Determination of Jurisdictional Amount in
action against the driver, Relation to the Totality Rule:
one based on contract Under B.P. Big. 129, as amended, and under R.A
and another based on No. 7691, ttle jurisdictional amount excludes the
quasi-delict. following (IDALeC}:
1. !nterest;
Requisites for Joinder of Causes of Action 2. Qamages of whatever kind;
A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative 3. ~ttorney·s fees:
or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may 4. _bitigatibngxpenses; and
have against an opposing party, subject to the 5. _Q_osts:
following conditions: (JSVR)
1. The party joining the causes of action must Althougl'i E)Xciuciedin determining the jurisdiction of
comply with the Rules on ,!oinder of parties; the court: the above items however, shall be
included in the determination of filing fees (B.P. Big.
Joinder of causes of action may involve the 129, as amended, Sec. 33(1)).
same parties or different parties. If it involves
different parties, the following, in relation to The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever
Permissive Joinder of Parties under Section 6 of kind" in determining jurisdictional amount applies to
Rule 3, should be complied with: (TCNP) cases where the damages are merely incidental to
a. The right to relief arises out of the same or a consequence of the main cause of action.
transaction or series of Iransactions:
b. There is a question of law or fact ~omrnon However, in cases where the claim for dam.:igcs is
to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and the main cause of action, or one of the causes of
c. Such joinder is Nol otherwise f roscribed by action, the amount of such claim shall be considered
the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction in determining the jurisdiction of the court (A.C. No.
and venue (Pantranco North Express. Inc. v. 09-94, June 14, 1994).
Standard Insurance Co. Inc.. GR. No.
140746. March 16, 2005). SPLITTING AND JOINDER OF CAUSES OF
2. The joinder shall not include §_pecial civil actions ACTION, DISTINGUISHED
or actions governed by special Rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the
same riarties hut r>P.rtnintn rlifferent YPnues or
jurisdictions. joinder mc1y be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court, provided:
a One of the causes of action falls within the
There is .:i single cc1uscof Contemplates several
jurisdiction ol the RTC; and
action. causes of action.
b. The venue lies therein; and
4. Where the claims in the CcJUSc?S of action ::ire
principally for .8_ecoveryof money, tl1e augregate
 ' ) • I ,' ': , i ',""' ' • h ~ , ~
··3a· • •• _.. CIVIL PROCEDURE
:' , ,,
,
'
- '
,,. ' . ~ Remedial Law

o1 ::ill tho erroneously joined causes of action,

provided that the court trying the case has
jurisdiction over all the causes of action therein
notwithstanding the misjoinder of the same. If th~
court llyi11y lhe case has no jurisdiction over a
of action, then it sho1JlrlhP. severed
misjoinerl c:,111se
from the other causes of action. If not so severed,
any adjudication rendered by the court with respect
to the same would be a nullity (Ada v. Baylon, G.R.
It breeds multiplicity of It avoids multiplicity of No. 182435, August 13, 2012).
suits, leads to vexatious suits where the same
litigation, operates as an parties and subject
instrument of matter are to be dealt
harassment and, with by effecting in one RULE3
generates unnecessary action a complete
expenses to the pariies determination of all PARTIES TO CIVIL
(Dynamic Builders & matters in controversy ACTION
Construction Co. {Phil.}, and litigation between
Inc. v. Presbitero. Jr., the parties involving
G.R. No. 174202, Aprill, one subject matter,
2015). and to expedite the SECTION 1. WHO MAY BE PARTIES;
disposition of litigation
at minimum cost •(Ada
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT
V. Baylon, G. R. No.
182435, August 13, Plaintiff .
2012. The plaintiff may r~fer to.. the claiming party, the
counter-claimant, the cross-claimant or the third
(fourth, etc. )-party plaintiff (ROC, Ru/~ 3, Sec. 1).
SECTION 6. MISJOINDER OF CAUSES
OF ACTION Defendant
The term "defendant'', may refer to the original
Misjoinder of Action defending party, the,def~ndant in a counterclaim, the
There is misjoinder of causes of action when the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc. )-party
conditions for joinder under Section 5. Rule 2 are not defendant (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 1).
met. (Sps. Perez v. Herrnano. GR. No. 147417 July
a, 2005) NOTE: If tho conr.ont of :iny party who should be
joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be
R~medy in case of Misjoindar of Cause6 of made a deferu.Jool cHld lt1e reason thP.rAfnrsh8II hA
Action stated in.the complaint (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 10).
When there is a misJoinder of causes of action, the
erroneously joined cause of action can be severed Requirements for a person to be a party to a civil
and proceeded with separately upon motion by a action:
party or upon the court's own initiative (ROC, Rule 2, 1. He must be a:
Soc. 6). a. Natural person;
b. Juridical person; or
GENERAL RULE: Misjoinder of Causes of Action is c. Entity authorized by law.
NOT a ground for Oismissnl of on Action 2. He must have legal capacity to sue; and
3. He must be • the real party-in-interest (1
EXCEPTIONS: There may be dismissal upon f-lERRERA, supra at 504).
motion by a party or the court's own motion due to
the refusal to comply with the court's order to sever One need not be a natural or a juridical person to be
the misjoined causes of action, without any a party to a civil action. As long as an entity is
justifiable reason, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17, authorized by law to be a party, such entity may sue,
dismissal due to Hie fault of the Plaintiff (Salvador vs. be sued or both (Alon v. Rea/on, G.R. 159156,
Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016). January 31, 2005).

Subject to Waiver
If there is no objection to the imµroper 1oinder or the
court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then
there exists no bar in the simultaneous 3djudication
 ~ \ I

MEM✓Q~Y AID
San Bed a Univorsity CoHoge of La\v - RGCT Dor Operations Cente1

Entities Authorized by Law to be Parties: representation he claims (Columbia Pictures, Inc. v.

1. The State and its political subdivisions (NEW CA, G.R. No. 110318. August 28, 1996)
CIVIL CODE, ART. 44);
2. Other corporations, institutions and entities for Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be
public interest or purpose, created by law; their sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in
personality begins as soon as they have been a representative capacity, or the legal existence of
constituted according to law (NEW CIVIL CODE, an organized association of persons that is made a
ART. 44); party, must be averred (ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 4).
3. Corporations, partnerships and associations for
private interest or purpose to which the law LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE
yrants a juridical personality, separate and AND LACK OF LEGAL PERSONALITY
distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or
member (NEW CIVIL CODE, ART. 44).
TO SUE, DISTINGUISHED
4. Corporation by estoppel (REVISED
CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 20);
5. A contract of partnership having a capital of
P3,000 or more but which fails to comply with
the registration requirements is nevertheless
Plaintiff's general
liable as a partnership to third person (CIVIL
disability to sue, such as party-in-interest
CODE, Art. 1772);
on account of minority,
6. The estate of a deceased person (Nazareno v.
insanity, incompetence,
CA, G.R. No. 138842, October 18, 2000);
lack of Juridical
7. Legitimate labor organizations (LABOR CODE,
personality or any other
Sec. 248);
8. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and general disqualifications
of a party (Columbia
as to ib µ1ope1lies, lire wct1bishop or the
Pictures v: CA, Supm)
diocese to which they belong may be a party
(Versoza v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-25254,
November 22, 1926); and
9. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and
defend suits by or against it provided that the The proper remedy when The proper remedy
suits: there is lack of legal when there is lack of
a. Occur within 3 years after its dissolution; capacity to sue is to legal personality to sue
and I allege the same as an is to allege the same as
b. The suits are in connection with the ! affirmative defense in the an affirmative defense
settlement and closure of its affairs Answer (ROG, Rule 8, in the Answer (ROG,
(REVISED CORPORA TJON CODE, Sec. Sec: 12 (a,3)) Rule 8, Sec. 12 (a,4)).
139). based on the fact that
the complaint, on the
NOTE: Stewards may be allowed to file an action to face thereof, evidently
enforce environmental laws not in representation of states no cause of
marine mammals but in their own right by way of action.
citizen suit which allows any Filipino citizen, as a
(Id)
steward of nature, to bring suit to enforce
environmental laws (Resident Manne Mammals v.
Standing To Sue
Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015)
He who is directly affected and whose interest is
Remedy when a party impleaded is not
authorized to be a party: immediate and substantial has the standing to sue.
1. If Plaintiff - raise an affirmative defense that the A party must show il personal stake in the outcome
plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; and of the case or an injury to himself that can be
2. If Defendant - raise an affirmative defense that redressed by a favorable decision in order to warrant
the pleadinq fails to state a cause of action (ROG. an invocation of the court's Jurisdiction anrJJustify the
Rule 8, Sec. 12) exercise of judicial power on his behalf. (Domingo
i; vs. Carague, G.R. NO. 161065. April 15, 2005)

Legal Capacity to Sue SECTION 2. PARTIES IN INTEREST

Lc1ckul legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff
GENERAL RULE: Every ilction must be prosecuted
is not in the exercise of his civil rights. or does not or defended in the n,ime of the real party In interest.
have the necessary qualification to appear in the
ccise. or does not h,we the chamcter or

EXCEPTION: Authorized by law or these Rules
Real Party-in-Interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
A real party-in-interest Is one with "a present
substantial interest" which means such interest of a
µcnly i11tile subject matter of the action as WIii 8nlitle
him, under the substantive law, to recover if the
evidence is sufficient. or that he has the iegal title to
demand (Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142,
December 10, 2007).
The word "interest," as contemplated by the Rules,
means material interest or an interest in issue and to
be affected by the judgment, as distinguished from
mere interest in the question involved or a mere
incidental interest (Dagadag v. Tongnawa, G.R. Nos.
161166-67, February 3, 2005).
The purposes of the requirement for the feal party in
interest prosecuting or defending,,.ari a'ction
•
at law
are:
1. To prevent the prosecutibri of ,actions by
persons without any right, 'title or interest in the
case;
2. To require that the actual party entitled to legal
relief be the one to prosecute"the action;
::J. To avoid multiplicity of sutts;and
4. To discourage litig0tion ond l<eepit within certain
bounds, pursuant to sound publi~ policy
(Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. v. Cuenca, G.R.
No. 173297, March 6, 2013).
In Oposa v. Factoran, minors represented by their
parents were held as real parties in interest to file an
action to annul timber licenses issued by the Director
of Forestry under the following principles:
1. Inter-generational responsibility;
2. Inter-generational justice;
3. The right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful
ecology; and
4. Minors represent themselves and the generation
to come. (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
Legal Standing to Sue as A Taxpayer
For a taxpa·yer's suit to· prosper. two requisites must
be met:
1. Public funds derived from taxation are disbursed
by a political subdivision or instrumentality and
in doing so, a law is violated or some irregularity
is committed; and
?. The petitioner is directly affected by the alleged
act (Alliance of Non-Life Insurance Workers of
the Philippines v. Mendow. G.R. No. 206159,
[August 26, 2020)
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
Beneficiary as a Real party-in-interest
Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that
"Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative or someone acting in
a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included
in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the·
real party in interest." Being a real party in interest,
the attorney-incfact is therefore obliged to bring this
ccise f1rst uetore the t:3arangay Court. (Pascual v.
Pascual, G.R. No. 157830, November 17, 2005).
GENERAL RULE: Only parties to a contract rnay
sue.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. A beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui may
demand its fulfillment (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1311);
2. Those who are not principally or subsidiarity
obligated in the contract, in which they had no
intervention, may show their detriment that could
result from it, i.e. a creditor who is not a party to
a contract can sue to rescind the contract to
redress the fraud committed upon him {CIVIL
CODE, Art. 1318).
Locus Standi.is defined as a right of appearance in
a court of justice on a given question.
Classification of Parties in Interest
1. Indispensable parties - a real party-in-interest
without whom no final deterrni11c11iu, 1Gi:lI1IJe lia<.l
of an action (ROG, Rule 3, Sec. 7);
2. Necessary parties - is one who is not
indispensable but who ought to be joined as a
party if complete relief is to be accorded as to
those already ·parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject
of the action (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 8);
3. Representative parties - may be a trustee of
an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or
these Rules. An agent acting in his own name
and for the IJenefit of an undisclosed principal
may sue or be sued without joining the principal
except when the contract involves things
belonging to the principal (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 3);
4. Pro forma parties - a nominal or pro forma
party is one who is joined as a plaintiff or
defendant, not because such party has any real
interest in the sub1ect 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. Aguiia,
G.H. No. 125567. June 27, 2000); and
5. Quasi parties - Those in whose behalf a class
or representative suit is brought (Berses v.
VillcJnueva.GR Nu 7309. October 10. 1913)
 ~ \ I
MEM:Q~YAID
San Boda Univms1r-;Collage ct L:,iw • RGCT Bar Operations Center
SECTION 3. REPRESENTATIVES
PARTIES
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or
defended by a representative or someone acting in
a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included
in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
real party-in-interest.
A Representative may be a trustee of an express
trust, a guardian, an executor, or administrator, or a
party authorized by law or by the Rules.
In Resident Marine Mammals v. Sec, Reyes, G.R.
No. 180771, April 21, 2015, it was held the need to
give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing
has been eliminated by our Rules, which allow any
Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit
to enforce our environmental laws. The Petitioners
as real parties. having shown in their petition lhol
there may be possible violations of laws concerning
the habitat of the Resident Marine Mammals, are
therefore declared to possess the legal standing to
file this petition
How Agents Can Sue and Be Sued
In suits where an agent represents a party, the
principal is the real party-in-interest; an agent cannot
file a suit in his own name on behalf of the .principal
(V-Gent, Inc. v Morning Star Travel & Tours, Inc.
GR. No. 186305, July 22, 2015).
An agent may sue or be sued solely in its own
name and without joining the principal when the
following elements concur: ( 1) the agent acted in his
own name during the transaction; (2) the agent acted
for the benefit of an undisclosed principaf; and (3)
the transaction did not involve the property orthe
principal. (Id)
If a comploint is fi!ed for and in behalf of the plaintiff
by one who is not authonzed to do so, the complaint
is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does
not produce any legal effect. The court should
dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no
Jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff
(Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, GR. No. 171219,
September 3, 2012).
The filing of suits is an act of strict dominion. Under
Article 1878 (15) of the Civil Code, a duly appointed
agent has no power to exercise any act of strict
dominion on behalf of the principal unless authorized
by a special power of attorney. An agent's authority
to file suit cannot be inferred from his authority to
collect or receive payments; the grant of special
powers cannot be presumed from the grant of
general powers. Moreover, the authority to exercise
special powers must be duly established by
evidence, even tllough it need not be in writing (V-
AS Gent, Inc. v. Moming Star Travel & Tours, Inc., G.B.
No. 186305, July 22, 2015).
NOTE: Respondents claim to be the successors-in-
interest of the subject land just because they are
Udiaan's grandchildren. Under the law, however,
respondents will only be deemed to have a material
interest over the subject land - and the rest of
Udiaan's estate for that matter - if the right of
representation provided under Article 970 in relation
to Article 982 of the Civil Code is available to them.
In this situation, representatives will be called to the
succession by the law and not by the person
represented; and the representative does not
succeed the person represented but the one whom
the person represented would have succeeded (Ang
v. Pacunio, G.R. No. 208928, July 8, 2015).
SECTION 4. SPOUSES AS PARTIES
Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly.
NOTE:
1. A spouse without just cause abandons the other
w fails Jo comply with his or her obligations to
'tn~f~rnjlywith respect to the marital, parental or
property relations (FAMILY CODE, Arts. 101 &
108);
2. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber,
alienates or otherwise dispose of his or her
exclusive property, without the consent of the
other· spoI1sP., ;:inrl ;:irre3r alone in court to
litigate wiU} regard the same (FAMIL y CODE,
Art. 111);and
3. The regime of separation of property governs
the property relations of the spouses (FAMILY
G_ODE,Art. 145).
SECTION 5. MINOR OR INCOMPETENT
A minor or incompetent may sue or be sued. He can
be a party but with the assistance of his father,
mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad
!item.
It is sufficient that his incompetency be alleged in the
corresponding pleadings and the trial court may
pass upon the truth and effects thereof. Under the
former Rules, it was necessary !hilt the incompetent
must have been judicially declared as such (1
REGALADO. supra at 90).
SECTION 6. PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF
PARTIES
GENERAL RULE: 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.
EXCEPTION: Unless otherwise provided in ttiese
Rules.
The court may make such orders as may be just to
prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with
any proceedings in which he may have no interest.
The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.
Without the presence of indispensable parties to. the
suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real
finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the
judgment rendered by the court (Lucman v. Malawi,
G.R. No. 159794, December 19, 2006).
Requisites: (TC-NP)
1. The right to relief arises out of the same
transaction or series of Iransactions;
2. There is a question of law or fact ~ommon to all
the plaintiffs or defendants; and
3-c Such joinder is _!iot otherwise _!:roscribed by the
provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue
(Pantranco North Express, Inc . .vs Standard
Insurance, G.R. No. 140746, March 16. 2005).
"Series of transactions" means separate dealing
with the parties but all of which dealing are directly
connected·with the same type of subject matter of
the suit (1 REGALADO, supra at 92).
SECTION 7. COMPULSORY JOINDEROF
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
Indispensable Parties
Parties-in-interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action.
They are those with such . an interest in the
controversy that a final decree would necessarily
affect their rights. so that courts cannot proceed
without their presence. Joinmg indispensable parties
into an action is mandatory, being a requirement of
due process. Without their presence, the judgment
of the court cannot attain real finality (Valdez-Tallorin
v Heirs of Tarona. G.R. No. 177429, November 24.
2009)
Effect of Failure To Join Indispensable Parties
The general rule with reference to the m,aking of
parties in a civil action requires, of course, the
joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and
the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and
all conditions, their presence being a sine qua
non for the exercise of judicial power It is precisely
when an indispensable party Is not before the court
(that) the action should be dismissed. The absence
of an indispensal)le .:.-arty renders all subsequent
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
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 (Baca/so v. Padigos, G.R. No.
173192, April 18, 2008).
Non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a
ground for the dismissal of the action
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to
be indispensable Parties may be added by order of
the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative
at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are
just. If petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable
party despite the order of the court, the latter may
dismiss the complainVpetition for the
plaintiffs/petitioner's failure to comply therewith
(Plasabas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166519,
March 31, 2009)
Illustrative cases:
1. In a special civil action for partition, all persons
iriterE!sted in the property should be joined as
defendants. Each co-owner is an indispensable
party for without him no valid judgment for
partition may be ordered (Sepulveda, Sr. v.
Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195. January 31, 2005).
2. Co-owners are not indispensable to maintain an
action for ejectment under Art. 487 of the Civil
Code (Mendoza v. Coronel, G.R. No. 156402.
February 13, 2006).
3. All heirs of the dece3sed defendant in an action
to recover redl property are indispensable
parties (Dael v. Teves, G.R No. L-34124, April
30, 1985).
4. lri ·an action for the recovery of property against
a person who purchased it from another who in
turn acquired it from someone by the same
means or by donation or otherwise, the
predecessors of the defendants are
indispensable pilrties as the transfers, if not
voided, may bind the plaintiff (Alberto v.
Mananghala, G.R No. L-2715, May 30, 1951).
Co-owners as indispensable parties in actions to
recover property
When a suit is brought by any of the co-owners
against third persons to recover properties, the other
co-owners need not be joined in the action as even
though they are all real parties in interest, they me
neither indispensable nor necessary parties to the
action. Complete relief can be accorded in the suit
even without their participation since the suit is
presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-
owners. Only one of the co-owners, namely the co-
owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-
owned property, is an indispensable party thereto
(Navarro v. Escob,clo, GR. No. 153788, Novem/Jer
21, 2009).
However, in an action for partition. all co-owners
must be irnplear!ed because they are indIspensablr:,
 GimlD \ I

MEM:C:tRY
AID
Son BerJa Univer.sny CoUegi, of law ttGCT Sar Operations Cc11ler

parties, so that the judgment may be conclusive

against all co-owners (Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 102900, October 2, 1997).

SECTION8.NECESSARYPARTY

Necessary party
A necessary party is one who is not indispensable
but who ought to be joined as a party if complete
Failure to comply with
relief is to be accorded as to those already parties,
the order of the court to
or for complete determination or settlement of the
implead an include a necessary
claim subject of the action.
indispensable party party, without justifiable
warrants the dismissal cause, shall be deemed
Effect of Justified Non-Inclusion of a Necessary
of the complaint. waiver of the claim
Party: The non-inclusion of a necessary party does
against such part
not prevent the court from proceeding with the action,
(ROG, Rule 3, Sec. 9).
and the judgment therein shall be without prejudice
to the rights of such necessary party (Agro
Conglomerates, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. SECTION 9. NON-JOINDER OF
117660. December 18, 2000). NECESSARY PARTIES TO BE PLEADED
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES AND Duty of Pleader Whenever a Necessary Party is I
NECESSARY PARTIES,
DISTINGUISHED
Not Joined:
1. Set forth the name of the necessary party, if
,KllCI.Wfl;
and
2. State why such party is omitted.

Should the court find the reason for the omission

I
.
'
I

Those without whom no Those who are not unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion , of the
final determination can be indispensable but omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his
had of an action. ought to be joined as person may be obtained by ordering plaintiff to file
parties if complete an atnincted complaint impleading the necessary
relief is to be accorded party the~in as co-defendant. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 9)
as to those already
parties, or for a The failure to comply with the order of the court to
complete include a necessary party, without justifiable cause,
determination or shall be deemed c1 waiver of the claim against such
settlement of the claim party (Id.).
subject of the action.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not
prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and
lhe judgment rendernd themin sh;;ill be without
If not impleaded, the court Even if not included m prejudice to the riqhts of such necessary party (Id.).
cannot proceed without the suit, the case may
him and any Judgment be finally determined SECTION 10. UNWILLING CO-PLAINTIFF
would have no in court, but the
effectiveness. judgment therein will
not resolve the whole Unwilling co-plaintiff is a party who is supposed to
be a plaintiff but whose consent to be joined as a
controversy.
plaintiff cannot be obtained as when he refuses to be
a party to' the action (Resident Marine Mammals v.
Soc. Reyes. GR No. 180771, April 21. 2015).

Those with such ,HJ
interest ltmt a final
decree would
necessarily affect either
right so that the court
cannot proceed without
---- -------------~---
Those whose presence Soid unwilling co-plaintiff (a) may be made a
is neccss3ry to defendant; 3fld (b) the reason therefor shi:lll be
adjudicate the whol0 stated in the complaint.
controversy but whose ,
interests are so f;:ir :
.. I
separable that a tmal i
---~-----·-· ----------~---_j

SECTION 11. MISJOINDER AND NON~
JOINDER OF PARTIES
A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the
action although he should not be impleaded.
/\ny claim against a misJoined party may be severed
and proceeded with separately.
GENERAL RULE: Neither rnisjoinder nor non-
joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of the
action.
EXCEPTION: Failure to comply with the order of the
court for the inclusion of an indispensable party
(ROG, Rule J, Sec. 7 in relation to ROC, Rule 17,
Sec. 3),
The non-joiner of indispensable parties is not a
ground for dismissal of an action, Sec. 11, Rule 3
prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-
joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows
amendment of the complaint at any stage of the
proceedings, through moti~n or order of the ~ourt on
its own initiative. Only if plaintiff refuses to _1mplead
an indispensable party, despite the order of the court,
may it dismiss the action (Valdez-Tallorin v. Heirs of
Juanita Tarona, supra).
ln i~stances of non-joinder of indispensable parties,
the proper remedy is to implead them and not to
dismiss the case. The non-joinder of indispensable
parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action
(Divinagracia v, Parilla, et al, GR No. 196750, March
11, 2015).
NOTE: Objoctiorrs tu <Jdects irt µa1ties sliould !Je
made at t'he earliest opportunity, the moment such
defect becomes apparent, by a motion to strike the
names of the parties ,rnpleaded, Objections to
misjoinder cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal (LandapDy Agricultural v. Estita, GR No.
1162109, January 21, 2005)
SECTION 12. CLASS SUIT
When the subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons so
numerous that it 1simpracticable to join all as parties,
a number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully
protect the interests of all concerned may sue or
defend for the benefit of all.
Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene
to protect his individucil i11terest
CIVIL PROCEDU'RE
Remedial Law
Requisite~ of"' Cl-'!';!i-S111t:(tNRA)
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of
cornrnon or generai !nterest to many persons;
2, The persons me so Numerous that it is
impractical to join them all as parties;
3. The parties bringing the class suit a~e sufficient
in number and B_epresentativeof the class as to
fully protect the interests of all concerned; and
4. The representatives sue or defend for the
benefit of !\II (Atty, Sylvia Banda et al. vs,
Eduardo Ermita, GR 166620, April 20, 2010).
Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends
upon the attending facts, and the complaint, or other
pleading initiating the class action should allege the
existence of the necessary· facts, to wit, the
existence of a subject matter of common interest,
and the existence of a class and the number of
persons in the alleged class, in order that the court
might be enabled to determine whether the
members of the class are so numerous as to make
it imprac\)c"ab[eto bring them all before the court, to
contrast the number appearing on the record with
the number in' the class and to determine whether
claimants on record adequately represent the class
and the'.subj~ct matter of general or common interest
(Mathay,v, C6osolid,:ifed Bank & Trust Co,, G.R. No.
L-23136; Auguft 26,, 19 74).
Adequacy of Representation
In determining the qu€)s\ion of fair and adequate
representation o.fmembers of a class, the court must
consider (a) wnether __ the interest of the named party
is coextensive with the interest of the other members
of.the ciass; (b) the proportion of those made a party'
as it so bears, to the total membership of the class:
and (c) any other .factor bearing on the ability of the
named party to speak for the rest of the class (Banda
v. Ermita, GR. No. 166620, April 20, 2010).
Pleading should allege the number of persons in the
alleged class in order for the court to determine
whether the number is so numerous as to classify it
r1s r1 r:lm:s suit (Mc1thayv Consolidated Bank, G.R
. No. L-23136, August 26, 1974).
Instances When there is No Class Suit:
1, Interests are conflicting (/banes · v. Roman
Catholic Church, G.R. No. 4695, December 12,
1908);
2, Filed by a corporation to recover the property of
its members (Suto ng Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta,
GR. No, L-31061, August 17, 1976);
3. To recover real property individually held
(Mathay v, Consolidated Bank and Trust Co.,
GR No, L-23136, August 26, 1974);
4, To recover damages for personal reputation
(Newsweek, Inc. v. /AC. GR. No. L 63559, May
30, 1986),
 ~ \ I

MEM:~tRYAl D .
San Bede Ur~ersity Collega of law RGCT Bar Op-orations Center

5. In an action to recover damages sustained due
to their exposure to toxic wastes and fumes
emitted by the cooking gas plant of a corporation
located in the town (Ortigas & Co Ltd. V. Ruiz.
G.R No. L-33952, March 9, 1987); and
6. In an action for damages filed by the relatives of
the fatalities in a plane crash (Newsweek, Inc v.
/AC. GR. No. L-63559, May 30, 1986).
CLASS SUIT AND JOINDER OF
PARTIES DISTINGUISHED
Dated January 4, 1988 of Judge B. D. Ghingcuangco,
A.M. No. 88-1-646-0, March 3, 1988).
NOTE: A class suit shall not be dismissed or
compromised without the approval of the court (ROG,
Rule 17, Sec. 2).
A member of the class is bound by the judgment in
the class suit; hence this section gives him the right
to intervene if he desires to protect his own individual
interest (Liana's Supermarket v. NLRC, G.R. No.
111014, May 31, 1996).

SECTION 13. ALTERNATIVE

There is plurality of In permissive joinder
parties with only one of parties, there are DEFENDANTS
cause of action. There is two or more causes of
·community of interest action that are joined Where the plaintiff is uncertain @gainst who of
among several persons in one complaint and several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join
who are so numerous there are severnl any or all of them as defendants in the alternative,
that it is not practicable to parties who could although a right to relief against one may be
bring them all before the claim or defend these inconsistent with a right to relief against the other.
court (ROG, Rule 3, Sec. various causes of
12). actions (ROG, Rule 3, Example: Assume that Mr. X, a pedestrian, was
Sec. 6). injured in the collision of two vehicles. He suffered
injuries but does not know with certainty which
vehicle caused the mishap. What should Mr.X do if
Example of Class Suit
he wants to sue?
Derivative suit brought on behalf of numerous
stockholders of a corporation to perpetually enjoin or
Answer: He should sue the vehicle drivers and
nullify what is claimed to be a breach of trust or an
owners in the alternative (1 RIANO, supra at 234).
ultra vires act of the company's board of directors
Just as.the Rule allows a suit against defendants in
In such a suit, there is one, single right of action
the alternative, .thi!i Rule also allows alternative
pertaining to numerous stockholders, not multiple
causes of action and alternative defenses (ROG,
rights belonging separately to several, distinct
Rule 8, Sec. 20).
persons.
Alternati-ve Defendants Allowed When The
Example of permissive joinder of parties
Plaintiff Did Not Know At What Precise Stage Of
Employees dismissed by their employer on the same
The Series Of Transactions The Loss
occasion for substantially the same reasons.
Complained Of
allegedly without cause or justification, may join 8S
Where the suit is against alternative defendants
• plaintiff in a single action to obtain relief from thc:ir
under alternative causes of action, one for breach of
employer.
contract of cmriage by sea and the other for violation
of arrastre contract and at the time the complaint is
In such a case, the plaintiff each have a material
filed, the plaintiff did not know at what precise stage
interest only in the damages properly due to him, not
of the series of transactions the loss complained of
in those that may be payable to the others, although
took place, joinder of causes of action and parties
their rights thereto arise from the same transaction.
defendants is allowed under Sec. 5, Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court (Insurance Co. of North America v:
It is true that in both juridical situations. similar
United States Lines Co, G.R. No. L-21839, April 30,
essential factors exist i.e., the same transaction or
1968).
series of transactions is involved; and common
questions of fact or law are at issue. What makes the
situation a proper case for a class suit is the SECTION 14. UNKNOWN IDENTITY OR
circumstance that there is only one right or cc1useof NAME OF DEFENDANT
action pert:iining or belonging in common to m;rny
persons, not separately or severally to distinct Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is
individuals (Re RA(!/JPst nf thP HPirs of tf;p unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner.
Passengers of the Oona Paz to Set Asir!e the Orcfer heir. devisee. or by such other designation as the
case may require.

When his identity or true name is discovered, the
pleading must be amended accordingly.
Service of summons upon a defendant whose
identity is unknown may, by leave of court, be
effec.;tedupon him by publicatio11in a newsparer of
general circulation (ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 14).
SECTION 15. ENTITY WITHOUT
JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AS
DEFENDANT
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 s 9 id entity
must all be revealed.
,Service of summons may be effected upon all the
defendants by serving upon ariy one of them, or
upon the person in charge of. fhe office or .'place of
business maintained in such name·(ROC, Rule 14,
Sec. 8).
An entity without juridical personality may be sued
under a common name by which it is cbmmonly
known when it represents· to the plaintiff ·under a
common name, and the latter relies on such
representation (Lapanday vs. Estita, G.R. 162109,
January 21, 2005).
With respect to Judgments rendered 1nthis situation,
Section6 of Rule 36 provides that when judgment is
rendered cJgainsttwo or more persons associated in
an entity withrn1t j11rirlir.r1Ipprsorn:ility, the judgments
shall set out their individual or proper names, if
known.
SECTION 16. DEATH OF PARTY; DUTY
OF COUNSEL
Whenever the party to a pending action dies, it is the
duty of the counsel of the deceased party to:
1. Inform the court within 30 days after such death
of the fact thereof; and
2. Give the name and address of his legal
representative/s.
If there is notice of death, the court should await
appointment of legal representative: otherwise,
subsequent proceedings are void.
The Rule is intended to protect every party's. right to
due process. The estate of the deceased party will
continue to be properly represented in the suit,
through the duly appointed legal
representative. Moreover, no adjudication can be
CIVIL PROCEDURE
R~medial Law
made against the successor of the deceased if the
fundamental right to a day in court is denied
(Regalado v. Regalado, G.R. No. 196919, June 6,
2011).
If there is no notice of death, the case may continue.
Proceedings are valid and judgment i:. bindinu on
successors-in-interest. The failure, however, of
counsel to comply with this duty shall be ground for
disciplinary action (Cardenas v. Heirs of Late Sps.
Aguilar, GR. No. 191079, March 02, 2016). •
Upon the receipt of the notice of death, the court
shall determine whether or not the claim is
extinguished by such death.
If the claim survives, the court shall order the legal
representative/s of the deceased to appear and be
substituted for the deceased within 30 days from
notice (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 16).
NOTE: Service of summons is hot required to effect
substitution. Instead of service of summons, the
court shall order the legal representative of the
deceased to appear and be substituted for the said_
deceased within 30 days from notice.
It is no\ the amendment of the pleading but the order
of substitution and its service that ar-ethe initial steps
towards, the substitution o-f the deceased by his
representative or heir (ROG, Rule 3, Sec.16).
The heirs may be allowed to be substituted for the
deceased without requiring the appointment of an
administrator or executor. However, if within the
sre<::1t1ed
period a legal representAtivP.fr1ilsto nf)pAar,
the court may order the opposing counsel, within a
specified period. to process the appointment of an
administrator or executor who shall immediately
aµµear for the estate of the deceased. I he previous
pronouncement of the Court in Lawas v. CA, (G.R.
No. L-45809, December 12, 1986) that priority is
given to the legal representative of the deceased
(the executor or administrator) is no longer true (San
Juan v. Cruz, C.R. No. 167321, July 31, 2006).
Under the present Rule, the heirs of the deceased
may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased.
In such a case, there is no more need to require the
appointment of an executor or administrator.
If there is an heir and the heir is a minor, the court
may appoint a guardian ad /item.
The court may order the opposing party to procure
the appointment of an executor or administrator in
any of the following situations:
1 Ttie counsel for !he deceased does not name a
legdl representative: or
 ~ \ I
MEM:Q~YAID
San Beaa University College ot Law - RGCTSa, Operations Center
2. There is a representative named but he fails to
appear within the specified period (ROG, Rule 3,
Sec. 16).
The reason for the rules is to protect all concerned
who may be affected by the intervening death,
particularly the deceased and his estate (Sumajag v.
Uterato, G.R No. 149787, June 18, 2008).
Test to Determine Whether an Action Survives
the Death of a Par:ty:
The questio_nas to whether an action survives or not
depends on the nature of the action and the damage
sued for (Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, September
1, 2010).
In a cause of action that survives, the wrong
complained of primarily and principally affects
property and property rights, the injuries to the
person being merely incidental. In a cause of action
that does not survive, the injury complained of is to
the person, the property and rights of property
affected being incidental. This Rule is applicable
regardless of whether it is the plaintiff or the
defendant who dies, or whether the case is in the
trial or in the appellate courts (Jardeleza v. Sps.
Jardeleza. G.R. No. 167975, June 17, 2015).
If the action does not survive {like purely personal
actions of support. annulment of marriage and legal
separation). the proper action of the court is to
simply dismiss t11e case. Substitution willnot be
required (Lapus v. Eufemia. G.R. No: L-30977,
January 31, 1972).
Examples of actions which survive the death of
the party:
1 Actions to recover real and personal property
from the estate:
2. Actions to enforce a lien thereon; and
3. Actions to recover damages for an injury to a
person or a property (Sarsaba v. Te, G.R. No.
175910, July 30, 2009).
However, in an ejectment case, the non-substitution
of the deceased by his legal representatives
because of the failure of counsel to inform the court
of the death of his client does not deprive the court
of jurisdiction. The decision of the court is
nevertheless, binding upon the successors-in-
interest. A judgment in an ejectment case may be
enforced not only against defendants therein but
also against the members of their family, their
relatives, or privies who derived their right of
possession from the deceased defendants
(Florendo. Jr. v. Coloma, G.R. No. L-60544, May 19,
1984).
When Formal Substitution is Not Necessary
Formal substitution is not necessary wtien the heirs
themselves voluntarily appeared in the action.
participated therein. and presented evidence in
defense of deceased defendant (Vda. de Salazar v.
CA, G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995).
Failure of the counsel to comply with his duty to
inform the court of the death of his client, such that
no substitution is effected. will not invalidate the
proceedings and the judgment rendered thereon if
the action survives the death of such party. The trial
court's jurisdiction over the case subsists despite the
death of the party. The purpose behind this rule is
the protection of the right to due process of every
party to the litigation who may be affected by the
intervening death. The deceased litigants are
themselves protected as they continue to be
properly represented in the suit through the duly
appointed legal representative of their estate.
(Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te. G.R. No. 175910, July 30,
2009),
• . : Rules in cases where the action survives the
cl¢c1th
of a p;:irty
1.• Coilfractual Money Claim
a. Plaintiff dies:
The case will continue and the heirs or legal
~epresentatives will proceed.
b. Defendant dies:
L . ..Before entry of final judgment - the
ccfae shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment (ROG, Rule 3,
Sec. 20).
The judgment favorable to the plaintiff
shall be filed as a money claim against
the estate (ROC, Rule 86, Sec. 5).
ii. After entry of final judgment but
before execution - all claims against
the decedent, whether due, not due, or
contingent, must be filed within the time
limited in the notice as a claim against
the estate (ROC, Rule 86. Sec. 5). The
plaintiff cannot move for execution
under Rule 39.
111. After levy or execution but before
auction sale -the property actually
levied may be sold for the satisfaction of
the judgment obligation (ROG, Rule 39,
Sec. 7(c)).
2. Non-Contractual Money Claim - Apply
substitution. These claims are those mentioned

in Section 7, Rule 86 and Section 1, Rule 87 of
the ROG.
EFFECT OF BELATED SLIBSTITUTION OF A
DECEASED PARTY
The Rules require the legal representatives of a
dead litigant to be substituted as parties to a litigation.
Strictly speaking, this requirement is necessitated by
due process und not a matter of jurisdiction. Thus,
when the rights of the legal representatives of a
decedent are actually recognized and protected,
noncompliance or belated formal compliance with
the Rules cannot affect the validity of the
promulgated decision. After all, due process had
thereby been satisfied (De la Cruz v. Joaquin, G.R.
No. 162788. July 28, 2005).
SECTION 17. DEATH OR SEPARATION
OF A PARTY WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICER
The action may be continued and maintained by or
against the successor in the public office if th~
following requisites are present: • •
1. Public officer is a party to ari,action in.his official
capacity;
2. During the pendency of the action, he either dies,
resigns, or otherwise ceases_to hold office;
3. It is satisfactorily shown _tothe court by any party, •
within 30 days after the successor takes ,)ffice,
thot there is a GUbGtantiolneed for continuing or
maintaining the action;
4. That the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor; and
5. The party or officer affected has been given
reasonable notice of the application therefor and
accorded an opportunity to be heard.
SECTION 18. INCOMPETENCY OR
INCAPACITY
If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the
court, upon motion with notice, may cJllowthe action
to be continued by or against the incompetent or
incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian
or guardian ad /item.
SECTION 19. TRANSFER OF INTEREST
The transfer of interest that is referred to in this
section is a transfer that occurs during the pendency
of the action.
Where the transfer was effected before the
commencement of the suit, the transferee must
necessarily be the defendant or the plaintiff, but he
may file a third-party complaint against and implead
the transferor in the action whenever the same is
necessary and proper for a complete determination
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
of all the rights of the parties (1 REGALADO, supra
at110).
GENERAL RULE: The F{ule does not consider the
transferee as an indispensable party. Hence. the
action may proceed without the need to implead him.
EXCEPTION: When the substitution by or joinder of
the transferee is ordereu L>ycourt upon motion.
A transferee pendente lite:
1. Stands in exactly the same position as its
predecessor-in-interest, the originai" defendant;
and
2. Is bound by the proceedings had in the case
before the property was transferred to it (1
HERRERA, supra at 601).
The case will be dismissed if the interest of plaintiff
is transferred to defendant unless there are several
plaintiffs, .in which case, the remaining plaintiffs can
..proceedwlth their own cause of action.
.....
SECTION 20. ACTION ON
CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY
. Upon receipt of the notice of death, the court shall
determine whether or not the claim Is extinguished
hy ~11r.h,-r1m1thIf thP..r.l;iim survives, the court ~hall
order the legal representative/s of the deceased to
.be substituted for the decE,ased (Torres v. Court of
Appeals, GR. No. 120138 September 5, 1997)
If the defendant dies before the entry of final
judgment in the court where it was pending at that
time, the action shall not be dismissed but shall be
allowed to continue until the entry of final judgment
thereon (ROC. Rule 3. Sec.20).
Two important aspects:
1. The action must primarily be for recovery of
money, debt, or interest thereon and not where
l11esul.Jjecl 111alle1is primarily for sorne other
relief and the collection of an amount of money
sought therein is merely incidental thereto, such
as by way of dam.ages; and
2. The claim sub1ect of the action, arose from
contract, express or implied, entered into by the
decedent in his lifetime or the liability for which
had been assumed by or is imputable to him (1
REGALADO, supra at 111).
Execution shall not issue in favor of the winning party.
The final judgment should be filed as a claim against
the estate of the dPcedent without need of proving
the claim under Rulr, 86. Section 5 of the Rules of
Court.
 ~ \ I
MEM✓Q~Y AID
San Bed.l University Cottf:!ge of Law • RGCT 8:cJtOper.ilions
EXECUTION IN CASE OF DEATH OF A PARTY:
In case of the death of a party, execution may issue
or be enforced in the following manner: • the clerk of court.
1. In case of the death of the judgment obligee,
upon the application of his executor or
administrator, or succ·essor in interest;
2. In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
against his executor or administrator or
successor in interest, if the judgment be for the
recovery of real or personal property, or the
enforcement of a lien thereon;
3. In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
after execution is actually levied upon any of his
property, the same may be sold for the
satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the
officer making the sale shall account to the
corresponding executor or administrator for any
surplus in his hands (ROC, Rule 39, Sec. 7).
SECTION 21. INDIGENT PARTY
A party may be authorized to litigate his action. claim
or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex
parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the.
party is one who has no money or property sufficient
and available for food. shelter and basic necessities -
for himself and his family.
An indigent is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family.
The applicant need not be a pauper; the fact that he
is able-bodied and may earn the necessary. money
is no answer to his statement that he has no
sufficient means to prosecute the action or to secure
the costs (Acar v. Rosal, GR. No. L~21707, March
18, 1967).
If one is authorized to litigate as an indigent. such
authority shall include an exemption from the
payment of:·
1. Docket fees;
2. Other lawful fees; and
3. Transcripts of stenographic notes.
The arI1ou1Il of the docket and other lawful fees
which the indigent was exemrterl from payin0 shr1II
be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case
favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise
provides.
While the Rule allows an ex µarte application and
hearing to litigate as an indigent. at any time before
judgment is rendered by the trial court, any adverse
party may contest the gmnt of the authority 10 a party
to litigate as indigent (1 RIANO, supra at 241).
If the court should determine after hearinq thvt the
party declared as an indigent is in fact a p~rson with
Cente,
sufficient income or property, the proper docket and
other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by
Indigent Litigants under Section 19, Rule 141
Indigent litigants are those:
1. Whose gross income and that of their immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the
monthly minimum wage of an employee; and
2. Who do not own real property with a fair market
• value as stated in the current tax declaration of
more than three hundred thousand
(P300,000.00) pesos shall be exempt from
payment of legal fees.
The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment
rendered in the case favorable to the indigent litigant
unless the court otherwise provides.
To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the
litigant shall execute an affidavit that he and his
immediate family do not earn a gross income
abovementioned, and they do not own any real
property with the fair value aforementioned,
sµpported by an affidavit of a disinterested person
atte'sting to the truth of the litigants affidavit Tile
current tax cf~laration, if any, shall be attached to
the litigants affidavit.
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and
property requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141 ,
then the grant of the application is mandatory. On
the otherhanq; i;vhenthe application does not satisfy
one or both requirements, then the application
should not be denied outright; instead, the court
stiquld apply the indigency test under Section 21 of
Rtil~ 3 a_nduse its sound discretion in determining
the foerits of the prayer for exemption (Sps. Algura
v. the LGU of Naga, GR. No. 150135, October 30,
2006).
Only a natural party litigant may_be regarded as an
indigent litigant (Re: Query of Mr. Roger C.
Prioreschi Re Exemption from legal and filing fees.of
the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., A. M. No. 09-
6-9-SC, August 19, 2009).
NOTE: A certificate of indigency must be attached to
tha plo3<ilngF;I1':f.llflrlnllhflr hy lh0. R;irnna::iy in wr11ch
the party is a resident or the DSWD (A.M. No. 08-11-
7-SC (2009), Art. V, Sec. 3 (f) and (g)).
SECTION 22. NOTICE • TO THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL
In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law,
ordinance, executive order, presidential decree.
Rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may
require the appearance of thG Solicitor General who

may be heard in person or a representative duly
designated by him.
The rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring
or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines and that actions filed in the name of the
Republic, or its agencies and instrumentalities, if not
initiated by the Solicitor General. will be summarily
dismissed The authority of the Solicitor General is
embodied in Sec. 35(1 ), Chapter 12, Title Ill, and
Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987
(Cooperative Dev't. Authority v. Dole/ii Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries Coop., GR No. 137489, May
29, 2002).
RULE4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
Venue refers to the place where a civil action may
be tried; in civil cases, it essentially concerns a rule
of procedure which looks primarily at the
convenience of the litigants. (Gumabon, et al. v.
Larin, GR No. 142523,November 27, 2001).
In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not
jurisdictional, and may be waived by the defendant if
not seasonably raised either in a motion to dismiss
or in the answer (BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., v.
Sps. Yujuico, GR. No. 175796, July 22, 2015). It is
meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather
than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to
the µlace or trial (f-/e,rs of Lopez v. De Castro, GR.
No. 11290!). February :J, 2000).
Venue becomes jurisdictional only in criminal cases
(Heirs of Lopez v. De Castro, supra)
VENUE AND JURISDICTION,
DISTINGUISHED
Malter of procedural law. Matter of substantive
law
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
Establishes a relation Establishes a relation
between plaintiff and between the court and
defendant, • or petitioner the subject matter.
and respondent.
May be conferred by the Fixed by law and
act or agreement of the cannot be conferred by
parti~s. the parties.
(Nocum v. Tan, G:R. No, 145022, September 23,
2005).
NOTE: The ground that the venue is improperly laid
is one of those that may be raised as an Affirmative
Defehse,in the Answer. The failure to raise the same
at. theiearliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver
th$rebf (ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 12). •
In actiqns covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure and Small Claims, the court may motu
a
proprio ·dismiss case from an examination of the
allegations 9f the complaint and such evidence as
may be attached thereto on any of the grounds
apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action
under Section 4 of Rules on Summary Procedure
and Section 11 of Rules of Procedure on Small
. Cla.imsCases (1 RIANO, supra at 166).
SC has the Power to Order Change of Venue
The SC' has the power to order a change of venue to
prevent a miscarriage of justice (CONST/. Art. VIII,
Sec. 5, par. 4).
Basic Venue Analysis: In ordm to know the venue
of particular action, the basic and initial step is to
determine if the action is personal or real (1 RIANO,
supra at 148).
SECTION 1. VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS
Actions affecting title to or possession of real
property, or interest therein, 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.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be
commenced and tried in the MTC of the municipality
or city wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof, is situated.
Real Actions
An action is real when it affects title to or possessior1
of real property or an interest therein. All other
actions are personal actions.
 , \ : , Cl ' , , i, , , ,' , - ~- ·/
~ \ I
_·, . • ·• · 61 :·:
MEM:Q-RY
AID
Son Bod-0 Univorsity Co!logo of L-9w • RGCT Bar ()porotions C::n•,1,,r '. z. ' • . .. '. ~ /~. ' ..i ' •-~}

SECTION 3. VENUE OF ORDINARY CIVIL

A rnc1Iaction is local, i.e., its venue depends upon ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS
the location of the property (1 RIANO, supra at 151).
1. Non-resident found in the Philippines
Where the subject-matter of the action involves
a. For personal actions - where the plaintiff
various parcels of land situated in different
resides; and
provinces, the venue is determined by the
b. For real actions - where the property is
singularity or plurality of the transactions involving
located.
the said parcels of land. Thus:
1 Where the parcels of land are the objects of one
2. Non-resident not found in the Philippines -
and the same transaction - the venue is in the
An action rnqy be filed only when the case
court of any of the provinces wherein a parcel of
involves:
land is situated; or
a. Personal status of plaintiff - where plaintiff
2. If subjects of separate and distinct
resides; and
transactions - there is no common venue and
b. Any property of said defendant located in
separate actions should be laid in the court of
the Philippines·_ where the property or any
the province wherein each parcel of land is
portion thereof is situated or found.
situated (1 REGALADO. supra at -,18).
Residence of a Corporation
SECTION 2-. VENUE OF PERSONAL The residence of the corporation is the place where
ACTIONS its head or main office is situated ( Young Auto
Supply vs. CA, G.R. 104175, June 25, 1993).
Personal Action
One which is not founded upon the privily of real SECTION 4. WHEN RULE NOT
rights or real property (1 REGALADO, supra at 23). APPLICA8LE
A personal action is transitory. The venue is either:
1. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal The Rules ori venue are not applicable in ariy of the
plaintiffs resides; or following cases:
2. Where the defendant or any of the principal 1. Where a specific Rule or law provides otherwise
defendants resides. (e.g.,_Civil actions for damages in case of libel,
as speciEflRules of venue are provided for in Art.
If the defendant is non-resident the venue is 360 ofth_eRevised Penal Code) (1 REGALADO,
either: ' supra at 123); or
1. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff 2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing
resides; or . before the filing of the action on the exclusive
2. Where the non-resident may be found. venue thereof.

NOTE: All at the election of the plaintiff. Requisites of Stipulations on Venue: (WEB)
1. In ~riling;
Residence 2. Exclusive as to the venue; and
The: re:s_irlP.nr.n
of the person is his personal, actual, 3. Made §efore the filing of the action (ROC, R11IA

or physical habitation or actual residence or place of 4, Sut, 4(b)).

abode, whether permanent or temporary as long as
he resides with continuity and consistency therein
(Ang 1<.ekChen v. Sps. Calasan, G.R. No 161685
July 24, 2007). • ,
Residence of Principal Parties
When there is more than one defendant or plaintiff in
the case. the residences of the principal parties
should be the basis for determining the proper venue.
Otherwise, the purpose of ttie Rule would be
defeated where a nominal or formal party is
irnpleaded in the action since the latter would not
have the degree of interest in the subject of the
action which would warrant and entail the ces1rably
act1v0.participc1tion expected of litigants in a ecise (1
F?EGALAIJO, :;uµw at 721)
Venue Stipulation must be shown to be
Exclusive
The mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not
enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in
other venues. II niust be shown that such stipulation
is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or
restrictive words, such as "exclusively" and "waiving
for his purpose any other venue," "shall only"
preceding the designation of the venue, "to the
·exclusion of the other courts." or words of similar
import, tl1e stipulation should be deemed as merely
an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting
venue to the specified place (Auction in Malinta Inc
v. Luyai>cn G.R. No. 173979, February 12, 20'07). •
 ",', ~ ~
, . ' ,
, 52' ';,
, " . ' , ' ~ Remedial Law
Thus, in contracts involving passage tickets, a
condition printed at the back thereof that all actions
arising out of that contract of carriage can be filed
only in a particular province or city, to the exclusion
of all others, was declared void and unenforceable
due to the state of the shipping industry. The Court
noted that the acute shortage of inter-island vessels
could not provide enough accommodations for the
plaintiffs to travel to the venue indicated, aside from
the fact that the passengers did not have the
opportunity to examine the fine print providing for
such venue (Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves, G.R. No. L-
:Jl l!JU, May 19, 1978).
NOTE: Where the action is no longer based on the
agreement but on the tortious act of sending
collection telegrams despite the fact that the
obligation had already been paid, venue is no longer
based on the written stipul,:ition but at the election of
the plaintiff as fixed by law (Zoleta v. Romillo, Jr.,
G.R. No. L-58080, February 15, 1982).
Effect of venue stipulation when-th~ validity of
the written instrument is controverted-.
A complaint directly assailing the validity -of the
written instrument itself should nqt be bourid by the
exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and
should be filed in accordance with the general Rules
on venue. It would be inherently inconsistent for a
complaint of this nature to }ecognize .the ~xclusive
venue stipulation when it, ih. fact, precisely assails .
the validity of tho instrument in which such
stipulation is contained (Briones v. CA, G.R. No.
204444, January 14, 2015),
Complementary-Contracts-Construed Together
Doctrine
An accessory contract must be read in its entirety
and together with the principal agreement. This
principle is used in construing contractual
stipulations in order to arrive at their true meaning;
certain stipulations cannot be segregated and then
made lo control. This no-segregation principle Is
based on Article 1374 of the Civil Code which
provirles "the various stipulations of a contract shall
be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful
ones that sense which may result from all of them
taken jointly". Incapable of standing by itself, the
surety agreement can be enforced only in
coniunctIon _with the promissory note. The latter
documents the debt that is sought to be collected in
the action against the sureties (Philippine Bank of
Communications v. Lim, G.R. No. 158138, Ap(ii 12,
2015).
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULES
UNIFORM PROCEDURE
IN TRIAL COURTS
SECTION 1. UNIFORM PROCEDURE
The procedure in the MTC shall be the same as in
the RTC, except:
1. Where a particular provision expressly or
impliedly applies only to either of said courts; or
2. In civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
(See discussions under Special Laws)
RULE6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
SECTION 1. PLEADINGS QEFINED
Pleillli11U!:. di to ll Ie WI ille11 sl;;IP.Tll,-mls of the
respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
Purpose of Pleadings: (AID)
1. To -~pprise the Court of the rival claims in a
judicial controversy submitted for trial and
decision:
2. To draw a line of battle between the litigants and
to !ndicate fairly the nature of the claims and
defenses of both parties; and
3. To present, Qefine and narrow the is.sues and
form the foundation of proof to be submitted
during trial as well as to advice a party on what
his adversary would rely on as a cause of action
or as defense. so that he would be properly
prepared at the trial to meet the issues
raised. (Liangn Lumber vs. Lianga Timber, G.R.
No. 386685, March 31, 1977)
Motion
A motion is an application for relief other than by a
pleading (ROC, Rule 15, Sec. 1).
 El1E.lill!ID ''
MEM✓Q:RY AID
San Seda University College of Law •• ROCT Bar Operations Center

PLEADING AND MOTION, A third-party complaint is inconceivable when the

main case is one for nothing more than a declaratory
DISTINGUISHED
relief (Commissioner of Customs v. Claribel, G.R. No.
L- 21036, June 30, 1977).

To submit a claim of To apply for an order
defense for appropriate not included in the
judgment (ROG Rule 6, judgment
Sec. 1).
SECTION 3. COMPLAINT
Complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiffs or
claiming party's cause or causes of action. The
names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant
must be stated in the complaint.

A complaint is an initiatory pleaqinga As such, it is

It must be written (Id).
It may be initiatory.
It may be oral when
made in open court or in
the course of a hearing
or trial (ROG, Rule 15,
Sec. 2).·
It is not on its own an
initiatory pleading, but it
may be part . of an •
initiatory pleading
; 1fJ27_79,Augµst 23, 2010).
subject to the requirements on the payment of
docket fees and certification against forum shopping
(Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
93262 December 29, 1991).
Test of Sufficiency of the Facts Alleged in the
Complaint to Constitute a Cause of Action:
Whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court could
render a valid judgment upon the same in
accordance with the prayer of the petition or
complaint (Lazaro v. Brewmaster Int'/. Inc., G.R. No.

SECTION 2. PLEADINGS ALLOWED The jurisdiction of the court and the nature of the
(C 6 ART) action are determined by the averments in the
complaint. The prayer for relief is not controlling on
the court and:is merely advisory as to the nature of
1. ~omplaint; the action, as it is the averments in the complaint
2. ~ounterclaim; which_ .control_ (13µ,Jao v. CA, citing Bautista v.
3. ~ross-claim; Fernanilez, ?_.R.No: 101983 February 1, 1993).
4. ~omplaint-in-intervention;
5. ~ounter-counterclaim;
6. ~ounter-cros~-claim;
SECTION 4. ANSWER
7. ~nswer;
8. 8,eply; • ~nsweris a pleading in which a defending party sets
9. Ihird (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. forth his or her defenses.

The defenses of a party are alleged in the Answer to
the pleading asserting a claim against him or her
(ROG, Rule 6, Sec. 2 par. 2).
An Answer may be responded to by a Reply only if
the defending party attaches an actionable
document to the answer (ROG, Rule 6, Sec. 6 par.
3).
All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any
claims arising out of the new matters so alleged,
such claims shall be set forth in an amended or
supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may
file a reply only if the defending party attaches an
actionable document to his or her answer (ROC,
Rule 6, Sec.10).

NOTE: Pleadings mentioned in Rule 6 are available SECTION 5. DEFENSES

in civil cases and in special civil actions that follow
ordinary civil procedure (Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corp v. CA G.R. No. 126911. April 30,
2003). There are however exceptions such as in
Rule 67, that is, in a complaint for expropriation
where counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party
complaints are expressly prohibited (ROG, Rule 67,
Sec.3).
Two kinds of defenses that may be set forth in
the answer:
1. Affirmative Defense is an allegation of a new
matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of tt1e
claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
recovery by him or her.

Affirmative defenses include: (FRIED-ACS2)
a. fraud;
b. §tatute of limitations;
c. Release;
d. ~ayment;
e. !!legality;
f. §_tatute ot frauds;
y. !;_stoppel;
h. former recovery;
i. Qischarge in bankruptcy; and
j. Any other matter by way of fonfession and
Avoidance.
The court is allowed to conduct a summary hearing
within 15 calendar days from the allegation of these
affirmative defenses in thP. Answer After such
hearing. they must be resolved by the court within 30
calendar days from the end of the summary hearing
(ROG, Rule 8, Se_c.12(d)).
Attirmative defenses may also include grouii~s for
the dismissal of a complaint, specifically:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over Jhe
subject matter;
2. That there is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause; or
3. That the action is barred by a prior judgment
(ROC, Rule 6, Section 5{b))
Other affirmative defenses a, e c1b1Jµ1uvillet.l irt Rule
8, Sec. 12 of the ROC.
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asse11ing the claim states no
cause of action; and _
5. Th::it ;:i condition precedent for filing t11eclaim
l1as not been complied with.
The court must motu proprio resolve these
affirmative defenses within 30 calendar days from
the filing of the Answer (ROC. Rule 8, Sec. 12(c)).
2. Negative Defense is the specific denial of the
material facts or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of
action.
(See discussion on Modes of Specific Denial under
Rule 8, Section 10)
SECTION 6. COUNTERCLAIM
Counterclaim is any claim which a defending party
may have against an opposing party.
Nature of a Counterclaim: A compulsory
counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the
orrgirwl suit and derives its jurisdictional support
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
therefrom. A counterclaim presupposes the
existence of a claim against the party filing the
counterclairn (Financial Building Cow vs. Forbes
Park Association. GR. No. 133119. August 17,
2000).
A counterclaim may either be:
1. Compulsory; or
2. Permissive.
NOTE: A counterclaim need not diminish or defeat
the recovery sought by the opposing party, but may
claim relief exceeding in amount or different in kind
from that sought uy the opposing party (Maranan v.
Manila Banking Corp., G.R. No. 164398, March 30,
2007).
A permissive counterclaim is an initiatory pleading.
As such, it is subject to the requirements on the
payment of docket fees and certification against
forurri' shopping (Korean Exchange v. Gonzales,
G.R NOS. 142286-87, April 15, 2005)
But a compulsory counterclaim does not require a
certificate of non-forum shopping (and the payment
of docket fees) because it is not an initiatory pleading
(Cruz-Agana v. Santiago-Lagman, G.R. No. 139018.
April 11, 2005). •
SECTION 7. (.;OMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIM
A Compulsory Counterclaim or otherwise known
as principle of recoupment is one whic;h, being
cognin=,I.JI"'L,yll,e r1::1yulc11
cuL11tsur justice, arises out
of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing
party's claim and does not require for its adjudicntion
the presence. of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Requisites of a Compulsory Counterclaim:
(CoN-CoJA)
1. It arises out of, or is Connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim;
2. It docs ~ot require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction;
3. The claim is Cognizable by the regular courts of
justice and such courts have jurisdiction to
entertain the counterclaim both as to the amount
and nature (Metropolitan Bank v. CPR
Promotions, GR. No. 200 567, June 22, 2015);
4. It must be within the Jurisdiction of the court both
as to the amount and t11enature thereof, except
that rn an original action before the RTC, the
counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the Jmount (ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 7):
and
 ~ \ I
MEM✓Q-RY Al D
San 8eL1a University College of Law - RGCT Bar Operations Center
5. It is ~!ready in existence at the time that the
defending party files his answer (ROC, Rule 11,
Sec. 8)_
Compelling Test of Compulsoriness
Criteria or tests that may be used in determining
whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive:
1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim
and counterclaim largely the same?
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on
defendant's claim absent the compulsory
counterclaim Rule?
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or
refute plaintiff's claim as well as defendant's
counterclaim?
4. Is there any logical relation between the claim
and the counterclaim, such .that the conduct of
separate trials of the respective claims of the
parties would entail a substantial duplication of
effort and time by the parties and the court?
(Metrobank v. CPR Promotions and Marketing,
Inc., G.R. No. 200567, June 22, 2015).
A counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the
court both as to the amount and the nature thereof,
except that in an original action before the Regional
Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount (ROC, Rule 6,
Sec. 7).
Illustration:
In accion publiciana filed with the RTC where the
value of the land is P1 ,000,000 and defendant
claims for reimbursement of P50,000, the
reimbursement would be considered as compulsory
because the original action was filed with the RTC.
However, the nature of the action is always material
such that unlawful detainer cannot be set up in the
RTC.
If a counterclaim is filed in the MTC in excess of its
jurisdictional amount, the excess is considered
waived (Agustin v. Baca/an. GR. No. 46000. March
18, 1985).
In Calo v. Ajax Int'/. (G.R. No. 22485, March 13,
1968), the remedy where a counterclaim is hP-yonrl
the jurisdiction of the MTC is to set off the claims and
file a separate action to collect the balance
A counterclaim beyond court's jurisdiction may only
be pleaded by way of defense. If found to be
meritorious, the complaint may be dismissed on the
ground that defendant has the bigger credit ( Calo v.
Ajax Int'/., GR No. 22485, March 13, 1968).
A plaintiff who foils to or chooses not to answer a
compulsory counterclaim may not be c1eclared in
clefault. principally because the issues raised in the
counterciairn are deemed automatically joined by
the allegations of the complaint (Gojo v. Goya/a. G.R
No. 26768, October 30, 1970).
A party who desires to plead a compulsory
counterclaim should not file a motion to dismiss. If
he files a motion to dismiss and the complaint is
dismissed, there will be no chance to invoke the
counterclaim (Financial Building Corp. vs. Forbes
Park Association, G.R. No. 133119. August 17,
2000).
GENERAL RULE: A compulsory counterclaim not
set up in the answer is deemed barred (ROC, Rule
9, Sec. 2).
EXCEPTIONS:
1. If ii is a counterclaim which either matured or
was acquired by a party after serving his answer.
In this case, it may be pleaded by filing a
supplemental answer or pleading before
judgment, with the permis~ion of the court (ROG,
Rule 11, Sec. 9); and
2. When a pleader fails lo set-up a counterclaim
through oversight, inadvertence, excusable
negligence, or when justice requires, he may, by
• leave. of court, set-up the counterclaim by
amendment of the pleadings before judgment
(ROC, Rule 11, Sec. 10).
No Docket Fees for compulsory counterclaims
Payment of docket fees for compulsory
counterclaims remains to be suspended The ruling
in KoreaTechnologies Co., Ltd. v. Lerma (G.R. No.
143581, January 7, 2008) with respect to the
requirement of payment of docket fees for
compulsory counterclaims has been deleted in a
revised issuance (OCA Circular 96-2009 dated
August 13, 2009).
Permissive Counterclaim
A counterclaim is permissive if it does not arrse out
of or Is not necessarily connected with the subject
matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially
an independent claim that may be filed separately in
another case (Alba v. Malapajo, GR No. 198752,
January 13, 2016). Permissive counterclaim is
otherwise known as principle of set-off.
Generally, a counterclaim is permissive if any of the
elements of a compulsory counterclaim is absent (1
RIANO, supra at 320).
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law

PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM AND Effect of the Dismissal of a Complaint on the

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM, Counterclaim Already Set up:
There are 3 significant situations involving the
DISTINGUISHED dismissal of a complaint and the effect of such
dismissal on the counterclaim already pleaded by
the defending party:
1. The defendant does not file a motion to
dismiss. Instead, he files an answer and
utilizes certain grounds for a motion to
Does not arise out of One which arises out of dismiss as affirmative defenses. Included in
nor is it necessarily or is necessarily the answer is a counterclaim. During the
connected with the connected with the hearing on the affirmative defenses, the
subject matter of the transaction or court decides to dismiss the complaint - The
opposing party's claim. occurrence that is the dismissal of the complaint shall be without
subject matter of the prejudice to the prosecution in the same or
opposing party's claim. separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the
answer (ROG, Rule 17, Sec. 3).
2. The plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss
his complaint after the defendant has
. pleaded his answer with counterclaim. The
rriotiqn is granted by the court- The dismissal
shall tie limited to the complaint. The dismissal
.. shall be without prejudice to the right of the
def¢ndant 'td .prosecute his counterclaim in a
separate action, unless within 15 days from
notice of the moiion. he manifests his preference
to tiave his 'counterclaim resolved in the s3me
action (ROG, Rule "17,Se9. 2).
3. The complaJnt ,ig dismissed thl'ough th~
plnintiff'!i fault and at o time when o
counterclaim lias already been set up The
dismissal is ;also without prejudice to the right of
Should be Qoes not require the the defendarino prosecute his counterclaim in
accompanied by a -certificates mentioned
the same o'r separ~te action. The dismissal shall
certification against because it is not
have the e~ct bf an adjudication upon the
forum shopping and initiatory in character.
merits, unless otherwise declared by the col)rt
whenever required by
(ROG, Rule 17, Sec. 3).
law, a certificate to file
ucl10II issued l.Jy llIe
The Rules recognize the right of the defending
L.upong
party to prosecute the counterclaim in the same
Tayapamayapa.
or separate action notwithstanding the dismissal
of the complaint, and without regard as to the
permissive or compulsory nature of the
counterclaim (Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R.
Must be answered by Foilurc to answer is not
Nn 1ln.154, June 30, 2006).
ti ,e p2H ty 3SJdinslwhom d cause for cl defoult
it is interposed declaration.
A Compulsory Counterclaim Need Not Be
otherwise, he may be
Answered·
declared in default as to
An answer to a compulsory counterclaim is NOT
the counterclaim
required before pre-trial may be scheduled. While ii
may be true that the private respondent had not filed
any answer to the counterclaim contained in the
,.1
Payment of Docket fees Filing fees and petitioner's answer, such circumstance does not
to9ether with the filing certificate against non- prevent the trial court from conducting the pre-trial.
of cer11f1catea~Jainst Is forum shopping are not It must be remembered that the issues may only be
required in permissive required in compulsory ascertained from the allegations contained in the
I counterclain1s as they counterclaims. pleadings filed by the parties. The leis! permissible
; are initiatory pleadings. pleading that a party may file would be the reply to
L _______ _
the answer to the last pleading of claim that had
(1 RIANO. supra at 321-322).
been filed in the case, which may either be the
 ~ \ I

MEM:Q-RY
AlD
Sen Beda University Col!sge ot Law - RGCT Bar Oper<"tions Cor,to,

complaint, a cross-claim, a counterclaim or a third perm1ss1on of the court. be presented by

party complaint, etc. Any pleading asserting a claim
must be answered, and the failure to do so by the
party against whom the claim is asserted renders
him liable to be declared in default in respect of such
claim. There are, however, recognized
exceptions to the rule, making the failure to
answer a pleading of claim as a ground for a
default declaration, such as the failure to answer
a complaint in intervention, or a compulsory
counterclaim so intimately related to the
complaint such that to answer to same would
merely require a repetition of the allegations
contained in the complaint (Sarmiento v. San Juan,
GR. No. L-56605. January 28, 1983).
SECTION 8. CROSS-CLAIM
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 either of the original action
or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may
cover all or part of the original claim.
supplemental pleadings before judgment (1
RIANO, supra at 327).
A cross-claim cannot be set up for the first time on
appeal (l.oadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v.
G/odel Brokerage Corp., G.R. No. 179446, January
10, 2011).
NOTE: Tl1e dismissal of the complaint carries with it
the dismissal of a cross-claim which is purely
defensive, but not a cross-claim seeking an
affirmative relief (Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R No.
~
170354, June 30, 2006).
CROSS~CLAIM, COUNTERCLAIM, AND
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT,
DISTINGUISHED

Requirements on Cross-Claim: (CAP)

1. Can be filed only against a .Q_o-party;
2. Must ~rise out o( the subject matter of the
complaint; and
3. Proper only where cross s;laimant stands to be
~rejudiced by the filing of the action against him
(1 HERRERA, supra at 700). Must arise May or may not Similar to a
from tJ1e arise out of the cross-claim in
P~rpose: To settle in a single proceeding all the transaction, or subject matter. that the third-
claims of the different parties against each other in occurrence of the party plaintiff
the case in order to avoid multiplicity of suits that is the complaint. II seeks to
(Republic v. Paredes, G.R. No. L-12546, Mav 20, subject matter may be recover from
1960). • • of the. original compulsory or another person
complaint or permissive. some relief in
A cross-claim is an initiatory pleading (A.M. 04-94). counterclaim. respect to the
As such, it is subject to the requirements on the opposing
payment of docket fees and certification against party's claim.
forum shopping.

Effect of Failure to File a Cross-claim Leave of court Leave of court Leave of court
GENERAL RULE: A cross-claim which is not set up is not required. is not required. is required.
in the action is barred (ROG, Rule 9, Sec. 2).
(1 RJANO, supra at 328-330).
EXCEPTIONS:
1. When it is outside the jurisdiction of the court; SECTION 9. COUNTER-
2. If the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over 3" 1 COUNTERCLAIMS AND COUNTER-
parties whose presence is necessary for the
adjudication of said cross-claim (what some
CROSS-CLAIMS
writers call a permissive cross-claim) (1
REGALADO, supra at 147); A counterclaim may be asserted against an original
3. If through oversight, inadvertence. or excusable counter-claimant.
n~ligence, it is not asserted. it may still be set
up with leave of court, by amenc1ment of the A cross-claim may also be filed against an original
pleadings; or cross-claimant
'1. Cross-claim that may muture or may he
acquired after service of the answer rnay. hy

SECTION 10. REPLY
Reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is
to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new
matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable
document. all the new matters alleged in the answer
are deemed controver1ed (ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 10).
If llie plo1rlliff wishes to interpose any dairns arbiny
out of new matters so alleged, suc:h c:lnims shAII hA
set for1h in an amended or supplemental complaint.
However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the
defending party attaches an actionable document to
his or her answer.
In the event of an actionable document attached to
the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the
same is based solely on an actionable document.
Rejoinder is the second pleading on the part ~f the
defendant, being his answer to the plainfiffs
replication (Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edf
A par1y cannot, in his reply, amend his cause of
action (Calo v. Roldan, G.R. No. L-252, March 30,
1946) nor introduce therein new or additional causes
of action (Anaya v. Palaroan, GR. No. L-27930,
November 26, 1970).
Effect of Failure to File a Reply:
GENERAL RULE: The filiriy of the reply is optional
as the new matters raised in the answer are deemed
controverted even without .a reply Veluz v: CA,
G.R 139951, November 23, 2000).
EXCEPTION: Reply is necessary where the answer
is based on an actionable document in which case a
verified reply is necessary, otherwise the
genuineness and due execution of said actionable
document are generally deemed admitted (ROG,
Rule 8, Sec. 8);
A reply to a counterclaim or cross-claim is improper.
An answer lh8retu IYru0llJe filetl i110lec1u·will1i11
10
days from the receipt thereof (1 FERIA. supra at
327).
Differences between Answer to Counterclaim
and Reply:
1. A reply is a response to the defenses interposed
by the defendant in his answer, whereas an
answer to a counterclaim is a response to a
cause of action by the defendant against the
plaintiff;
2. The filing of a reply is generally optional,
whereas the filing of an answer to a
counterclaim is gP.nerally mandatory under Rule
11 as failure to file an answer lo the counterclaim
shall render the plaintiff i11 udciuil 011 the
counterclvim.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
SECTION 11. THIRD (FOURTH, ETC.)-
PARTY COMPLAINT
Third (Fourth, etc.)-Party Complaint is a claim
that c1 defending party may, with leave of court, file
against a person not a party to the action, called the
third (four1h etc.)-party defendant, for ~ontribution,
!ndemnity, §.ubrogation or any Qther relief(CISO), in
rnspud or liio uµµu11enl't: ul...11rn.
The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be
denied admission where (CES):
1. The third (fourth, etc)-party defendant ~annot be
located within 30 calendar days from the grant
of such leave;
2. Matters gxtraneous to the issue in the principal
case are raised; or
3. The effect would be to introduce a new and
§eparate controversy into the action.
NOTE: Remedy for the following instances when
third party complaint is not permitted is to file a
separate action.
There could also be a four1h, etc., -party complaint
with the same purpose and function as a third-party
complaint.
A Third (Fourth, etc.)-f-'arty Complaint is an initiatory
pleading (A.M. No. 04-94). As such, it is subject to
the requirements on the payment of docket fees and
certification against forum shopping.
The filing of a third-party complaint requires leave of
court and hence. its ;:i<im1ssionis subject to judicial
discretion. Leave of cour1 is not required in filing a
counterclaim or a cross-claim because the parties
-involved are already par1ies to the action-Capayas v.
CF/ of A/bay, GR. No. L-475. August 31, 1946.
Tests to Determine whether the Third-Party
Complaint is in Respect of Plaintiff's Claim:
1. Whether it arises out of the same transaction on
which the plaintiff's claim is based, or althrninh
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
par1 of the plaintiff's claim against the original
defendant, although the third-party defendant's
liability arises out of another transaction; ,ind
3. Whether the third-party defendant may assert
any defenses which the third-party plaintiff has
or may have to the plaintiff's claim (Asian
Construction & Oev't. Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
160242, May 17, 2005)
Trial courts me not especially enjoined by law to
admit a third-party complaint. I hey are vested with
discretion to allow or disallow a party to an action to
 ~ \ I , J; _r, '::J . , ~ ,<··.·_'
\: ,-

MEM✓Q~Y AID
Snn Beda UnNcrsity College Of law - RGCT Bru Operations Center
>;':·\_.::.:~:· ••.. \ '•, '59·,\'.,
•, :,>'• :~•,•:,v,
~'t•~¼;~~~{t.•~,>J l ;,r :• ~

implead an additional party, Thus, a defendant has
no vested right to file a third-party complaint (China
Banking Corp. v.Padi/la, G.R. SP. 143490, February
2. 2007).
Summons must be served in order to obtain
jurisdiction over the third-party defendant (1 FERIA,
supra. at 333).
Where the lawyer acts in the name of the client, the
court should not_permit his being impleaded as an
additional party defendant in the counterclaim in the
very same case where he is acting· only ;:is c:ounsel.
Any claim for alleged damages or other causes of
action against him should be filed in an entirely
separate and distinct civil action (Chavez v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 91391, January 24, 1991),

Where the trial court has jurisdiction over the main SECTION 13. ANSWER TO· THIRD
case, it also has jurisdiction over the third-party (FOURTH, ETC.)-PARTY COMPLAINT
complaint, regardless of the amount involved as a
third-party complaint is merely. auxiliary to and is a
A third (fourth, etc. )-party defendant may allege in
continuation of the main action (Republic v. Central
his or her answer his defenses, counterclaims or
Surety & Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-27802, October
cross-claims, including such defenses that the third
26, 1968). For the same reason, what is
(fourth, etc. )-party plaintiff may have against the
determinative of venue are the operative facts in the
original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he or she
main case. and not those alleged in the third-party
may also assert a counterclaim against the original
complaint (1 REGALADO, supra at 151).
plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the
third-party plaintiff.
A third-party complaint is inconceivable when the
main case is one for nothing more than a declaratory
Examplo:
relief (Gomm1ss1om;rotc;ustoms v. c;Jonbel, G.k. No.
A reinsurer (against whom a third-party complaint
L- 210 3·6,June 30, 1977). In this case. the concept
has been filed by then defendant insurer) may set up
of r1 r.cit 1seof ciction under ordinary civil actions does
in his answer the defense alleged by the defendant
not strictly apply. The reason is that an action for
insurer that the loss was caused by the willful act of
declaratory relief presupposes that there has been
connivance of the plaintiff insured. However. the
no actual breach of the instruments involved or of
third-party defendant reinsurer may not ordinarily file
rights urising thoroundor (Velarde v. Social Justice
a counterclaim against the plaintiff, there being no
Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004).
privily of contract between them.
[ven if action based on culpa contractual, damages
If a c:omplaint is filed against the surety on a
can be awarded based on culpa aquiliana. It is
promissory note executed jointly and severally by
immaterial that the third party plaintiff asserts a
the surety and the principal debtor. the surety may
cause of action against the third party defendant on
file a. third-party complaint against the principal
a theory different from that asserted by the plaintiff
debtor and the latter may assert a counterclaim
against the defendant. Defendant in action may join
againstthe plaintiff (1 FERIA. supra at 338).
as third party defendants those liable to him in tort
for rlaintiff's claim against him or directly to the
Parts of a pleading under Rule 7
plaintiff (Sama/a vs. Victqr, G.R. No. L-53969;
1. Caption (Sec 1); •
February 21, 1989).
2, Text or the body (Sec. 2);
3. Signature and address (Sec. 3);
4. Verification (Sec. 4); and
SECTION 12. BRINGING NEW PARTIES 5. Certification aoainst forum shopping (Sec. 5).

When the presence of parties other than those to the

original action is required for the granting of
complete relief in the determination of a
counterclaim or cross-claim. the court shall order
RULE7
them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction P 1l.RTS AND CONTENTS
over them can be obtained.
OF PLEADINGS
In an action to recover possession by a co-owner,
the defendant files a counterclaim to recover tit!e to
Hie same property. The other co-owners may be
brought in under this section as defend,mts to the SECTION 1. CAPTION
counterclaim for complete relief thereon (1
!-/ERRERA. :;upro nt 710) The Caption sets forth the fol!owing:
1 The name of the court;

2. The title of the action, which indicates the names
of the parties.
They shall all be named in the original complaint
or petition; hut in subsequent pleadinAs, it sh,ill
be sufficient if the name of the first µc:1I
ly 011 each
side be stated with an appropriate indication
when there are other parties. Their respective
participation in the case shall be indicated;
3. The docket number, if assigned.
Note: It is not the caption of the-pleading but the
allegations therein which determine the nature of the
action, and the court shall _grant relief warranted by
the allegations and proof even if no such relief is
rrnyP.rl for (Torres v. Aruego, G.R. No. 201271,
September 20, 2017).
SECTION 2. THE BODY
The body sets forth:
1. Its designation;
2. The allegation of the party's claims ar\d
defenses;
3. The relief prayed for; and
4. The date of the pleading.
Paragraphs
The allegations in the body of a pleading s"1all be
divided into • paragraphs so nwnbered as to be
readily identified, each of which: shall contain a
statement of a single set of circumstances- so far as
that can be done with corivenlelice. A _paragraph
may be referred to by its number in all suc;ceeding
pleadings.
Headings
When two or more causes of action are joined, the
statement of the first shall be prefaced by the words
"first cause of action," of the second by "second
cause of action," and so on for the others.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
addressed to one of several causes of action in the
complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words
"answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to the
second cause of action" and so on; and when·one or
more paragraphs of the answer are addressed to
several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by
words to that effect.
Relief
The pleading st1all specify the relief sought, but it
may add a general prayer for such further or other
relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
A court can grant the relief warranted by the
allegation and the proof even if it is not specifically
sought by the injured party; the inclusion of a general
prc1yer may 1ustIty the grant of a remedy different
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
from or together with the specific remedy sought, if
the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence
introduced so warrant (Prince Transport, Inc., v.
Garcia. G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011).
Date
Every pleading shall be dated.
SECTION 3. SIGNATURE ANO ADDRESS
l very pleading and other written submissions must
be signed by the party or counsel representing him
or her-.
Significance of the Signature of Counsel
Hts signature constitutes a certificate by him or her
that:
1. He has read the pleading;
2 To the best of his knowledge, information or
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under
the circumstances;
l. It is not being presented for any improper
purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase
the cost of litigation;
2. The claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or
jwis1.11uuertce,• or by a non-frivolous
argument for extending, modifying, or
reversing existing jurisprudence;
3. The factual contentions have evidentiary
support or, if specifically so identified, will
likely have evidentiary support after
availment of the modes of discovery under
these rules; and
4. The denials ot tactual contentions are
warranted on the evidence or, if.qiecific.illy
so idenlif1P.d,;:ire mr1sonably based on belief
or a lack of information.
Sanction for Violation of the Rule
If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio
and after notice and hearing. that this rule has been
violated, it may impose an ;:ippropriate sanction or
refer such violation to lhe proper office for
disciplinary action, on any person violating this rule
or responsible for thi_sviolation.
The sanction may include, but shall not be limited to:
1 Non-monetary directive or sanction;
2. An order to pay a penalty in court; or,
3. If imposed on motion anc1warranted for effective
deterrence;
4. An order directing payment to the movant of part
or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other
expenses direclly resulting from the violation,
including attorney's fees for the filing of the
motion for sanction.
 MEM✓Q~Y AID
San Beda Univefsity CoHego of law - RGCT 861 G'perations C6rrte,
Absent exceptional circumstances. a law firm shall
be held jointly and severally liabie for a violation
committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(Rule 7, Sec. 3(c))
The lawyer or a law firm cannot pass on the
monetary penalty to the client (Id).
Failure to sign a pleading may not be remedied, and
the lawyer and firm or party involved with such failure
tu sign shall be held jointly and severally liable for a
violation committed by its partner, associate, 01
emrloyeP., unlP.ss there ;,re exceptional
circumstances
SECTION 4. VERIFICATION
GENERAL RULE: Pleadings need not be· under
oath, or verified.
EXCEPTION: When otherwise specifically required
by law or a Rule.
Pleadings that should be Verified (not exclusive)':
1. Certification against forum shopping (ROG, Rule
7, Sec. 5);
2. Statement of Claim for Small Claims Cases, as
well as the Response thereto (Rules of
Procedure tor Small Claims Cases, Secs 5 &
11);
3. Complaint for injunctio11(ROC, Rule 58;• Sec. 4);
4. Application for appointment of receiver (ROG,
Rule 59, Sec. 1);
5. Application for support pendente lite (ROG, Rule
61, Sec. 1);
6. Complaint for forcible entry or unlawful detainer
(ROG, Ru}e70);
7 .. Petition for indirect contempt (ROG; Rule 71,
Sec. 4);
8. Petition for relief from judgment or order (ROG,
Rule 38, Sec. 3);
9. Petition for review from RTC to the Court of
Appeals (ROG, Rule 42, Sec. 1);
10. Petition for review from quasi-judicial agencies
to Court of Appeals (ROC, 1-<ule4J, 0ec. o).
11. Appeal by certiorari from the Court of Tax
Appeals to the SuprnmP. C:ourt (R A 9?8?, Sec
12);
12. Appeal by certiorari from the Court of Appeals to
the Supreme Court (ROG, Rule 45, Sec. 1);
13. Petition for annulment of judgments or final
orders and resolutions (ROG, Rule 47. Sec. 1).
14. PetItion tor certiorari against the Judgments, !Jnal
orders or resolutions of constitutional
commissions (ROG, Rule 64, Sec. 5);
15. Petition for certiorari (ROG. Rule 65, Sec. 1).
16.· Petition for prohibition (ROG. Rule 65, Sec.?},
17 Petition for rnandamI1s (ROG Rule 65. Sec. 3);
18. Petition for quo warranto {ROC. Rule 66, Sec 1},
19. Complaint for expropriation (ROG, Rule 67. Sec.
1);
20. Petition for appointment of general guardian
(ROG, Rufe 93, Sec. 2);
21. Petition for leave to sell or encumber property of
the ward by a guardian (ROG, Rule 95, Sec. 1);
22. Petition for declaration of competency of a ward
(ROG, Rule 97, Sec. 1);
23. Petition for habeas corpus (ROG, Rule 102, Sec.
3);
24. Petition for change of name (ROG, Rule 103,
Sec. 2),
25. Petition for voluntary judicial dissolution of a
corporation (ROG, Rule 104, Sec. 1; see also
REVISED CORPORATION CODE, Sec. 134);
and
26. Petition for cancellation or correction of entries
in the civil registry (ROG, Rufe 108).
How a Pleading is Verified:
1. A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant
duly authorized to sign said verification.
2. The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf
of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's
certificate or a special power of attorney, should
;Pf;l;:itta¢1jedon the pleading.
3. TEe'~1¥idJvit shall allege that:
a. Th1:{a,ffianthas read the pleading. and
b. The allegations therein are true and correct
of his p_ersonal knowledge or based on
auth~ntic.records.
c. ;,'The pleading is not filed to harass, cause
/i:iori'e®saiy' delay, or rieedlessly increase
• tl1e'tos'i"6T1iligation; and
d. The factual allegations therein have
evidentiary support or, if specifically, so
id€)ntified, will likewise have evidentic1ry
support after a reaso_nable opportunity for
discovery (ROG. Rule 7, Section 4)
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a
certification of the lruthfulness of the allegations in
the pleading.
Unverified Pleading
A pleoding required to be venfied that contains a
verification based on "information and belief," or
upon "kn_owledge,informatiori and belief," or lacks a
µroµer verification, shdll be treated as an unsigned
pleading (Rule 7, Section 4)
Purpose of Verification
Tire µurµvse or Ie4uiri11gverificdlion is to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the petition are true
and correct. not merely speculative. (Torres-Gomez
v. Cod!lla, G.R. No. 195191. 20 March 2012)
Effect of Lack of Verification
Non-compliance therewith or a defec:t lht,rein does
not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.

The Court may order its submission or correction or
act on tho pleading if the .:ittonding circumstances
are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be
dispensed with in order that ends of justice may be
served thereby (Ju/u'0 Kiddie Carts v. Cabal/a, G.R.
No. 230682, Novembm )9, ;JO"f I).
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION AGAINST
FORUM SHOPPING
Forum Shopping
Forum shopping is committed when multiple suits
involving the same parties and the same causes of
action are filed. either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgmen_t through means other than
appeal or certiorari (Vda. De Karaan v. Aguinaldo,
G.R. No. 182151, September 21, 2015).
There is forum shopping where there exist:(eRJ)
1 Identity of farties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions;
2. Identity of B_ightsasserted and relief prnyed for,
the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3 The identity of the two preceding particulars is
such that any :J.udgmentrendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful
would amount to res judicata (Sps.' Zosa v.
Estrella, G.R. No. 149984, November 28, 2008).
Fur urn shopping is an act of malpractice for. it trifles
with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades
the administration of justice and adds to the already
congested court dockets. (Zamora v. Quinan, Jr.,
G.R. No. 216139, November 29, 2017).
Certification against Forum Shopping
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under ooth
in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting
a claim for relief or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith
1. That he or she has not commenced any action
or fiied any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of hrs knowledge, no such other
action is pending;
2 If there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status
thereof, and
3 If he or she should learn that the same or a
similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending. he shall report that fact within _5
calendar days to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Certification against Forum Shopping required
only in Initiatory Pleadings
nie certification against forum shopping is required
only in a complaint or other initiatory pleading
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
(Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Santos, G.R.
No. J578G7, Oecem/Jet 15, 2009).
According to A.M. No. 04-94, the following are
corrsidered as initiiilmy plP.c1rlinns·
1. Original civil complc1int;
2. Permissive Counlerdairn;
3. Cross-claim;
4. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaint;
5. Complaint-in-intervention; and
6. Any other petition or application wherein a party
asserts his claim for relief.
NOTE: Answer is nol cin initiatory pleading which
requires a certification against forum shopping
• (Korea Technologies Co. v. Lerma, supra).
An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession is not an initiatory pleading (Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Company v. Santos, supra).
•Administrativ.e Circular No. 04-94 does not apply to
compulsory •counterclaims (Sps. Ponciano v..
Parente/a, G,R. 'NO. 133284, May 9, 2000). A
compulsory counterclaim does not require a
certificate of non-forum shopping because it is not
an initiatory pleading (Cruz-Agana v Santiago-
l.F1gman,supra),•
GENERAL RULE: The certification against forum
shopping must be executed by the party-pleader and
not his counsel.
EXCEPTION: If, for reasonable or justifiable
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must
execute c1 Special Power of Attorney designating his
counsel of record to sign on his behalf (Jo/o's Kiddie
Cartsv. Cabal/a, supra).
Reason: It is the petitioner and not the counsel who
is the best position to know whether he or it actually
filed or caused the filing of a petition. A certification
signed by the counsel is a defective certification and
is a valid cause for dismissal (Far Eastern Shipping
Co. v. C/1, G.R. No. 130068, October 1, 1998).
NOTE: Where the plaintiff or a principal party is a
juridical entity like a corporation it may be executed
by a properly authorized person. This person may be
the lawyer of the corporation. As long as he is duly
authorized by the corporation and has personal
knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in
the certification against forum shopping, the
certification may be signed by the authorized lawyer
(National Steel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 134468,
August 29, 2002).
NOTE: The following officials or employees of the
company can sign the verification and certIficatron
without need of a board resolution (CP-PEG)
 flilmm!D \ I
MEM:Q~YAID
Sen Oeda Unive-rsityCol!age of Law - RGCl fau Orieraticm, Cente!
1. fhairperson of the Board of Directors;
2. fresident of a corporation;
3. personnel Officer;
4. ~mployment Specialist in a labor case; and
5. Qeneral Manager or Acting General Manager;
The above cases do not provide the complete
listing of authorized signatories. As long as one is
in a position to verify the truthfulness and
correctness of the allegations in the petition, the
official can sign the verification and certification
without need of a board resolution {Swedish Match
PHL. v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila, GR. No.
181277, July 3, 2013).
Test to Determine the Existence of Forum
Shopping:
Whether the elements of litis pcndentia are present,
or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to
res judicata in the other (Heirs of Sotto v. Pa!icte,
GR. No. 159691, February 17, 2014).
Three Ways of Committing Forum Shopping:
1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause
of action and with the same prayer, the previous
not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia);
Requisites of Litis Pendentia: (PRJ)
a. Identity of parties, or at least such as
representing the same interests in both
actions;
b. Identity of Rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief founded on the same facts; and
c. Identity of the two cases such that judgment
in one, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res ludicata in
the other (Sps. Marasigan v. Chevron PHL,
Inc., G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012).
2. Filinq multiple cases based on the same cause
of action and with the some proyer, the previous
having been resolved with finality (res 1ud1cata/.
Note: Requisites of Res Judicata: (FJMI-PSC)
a. The former Judgment or order must be final;
b. The court which rendered it had Jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties;
c. The judgment must be on the Merits; and
d. There must be, between the first ,rnd the·
second actions, !dentity of:
i. farties;
ii. ~ubject matter; and
iii. fauses of action (Chin~J v. San Pedro
College of Administration. GR. No.
213197, October 21, 2015).
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same causes
of action but with different prayers (splitting of
cause of action, where the ground for dismissal
is also Ji/is pendentia or res judicata) (Heirs of
Sotto v. Pa!icte, supra).
Defects / Non-Filing of Certification Against
Forum Shopping
1. Failure to comply with the requirements:
a. Not curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading;
b. Cause for dismissal· of the case, without
prejudice, unless 6therwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing
2. False Certification or Noncompliance with any of
the Undertakings therein
a. Constitutes contempt of court, without
prejudice to administrative and criminal
actions
3. Willful and Deliberate Forum Shopping
a. Ground for summary dismissal, with
prejudice;
b. Direct contempt of court;
c. Cause for administrative sanctions.
NOTE: If the forum shopping is willful and deliberate,
both (or all, if there ·are more than two) actions shall
bl;) dismissedwith prejudice (Ao-As v. CA,G.R. No.
128464, Jun(:j20, 2006).
Summary of Guidelines Respecting Non-
Compliance with the Requirements of, or
Submission of Defective, Verification and
Certification against Forum Shopping
1. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a
defect therein does not necessarily render the
pleading fatally defective. The court may order
its submission or correction or act on the
pleading if the attending circumstances are such
that strict compliance with the Rule may be
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice
may be served thereby. •
7 VP.rificcition is deemed substantially complied
with when one who hc1s omple knowledge to
swear to the truth of thP. r1IIP.Qr1linnsin the
complc1int or petition signs the verification, and
when matters alleged in the petition have been
made in good faith or are true and correct.
3. As to certification against forum shopping, non-
compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike
in verification, is generally not curable by· its
subsequent submission or correction thereof,
unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the
ground of "substantial compliance·· or presence
of "speci?I circumstances or compelling
reasons
4. The certification against forum shopping must
be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a
case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case.

Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners
share a common interest and invoke a common
cause of action or defense, the signature of only
one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
5. The certification against forum shopping must
be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he
must execute a Special Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of record to sign on his
behalf (Alires v. Empleo, G.R No. -/80986,
December 10, 2008).
SECTION 6. CONTENTS
Every pleading stating a party's claims or defenses
shall, in addition to those mandated by Section 2,
Rule 7, state the following:
1. Names of witnesses who will be presented to
prove a party's claim or defense;
2. Summary of the witnesses' intended
testimonies, provided that the judicial affidavits
of said witnesses shall be attached to the
pleading and form an integral part thereof; and
Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are
attached to the pleading shall be presented by
the parties during trial. Except if a party presents
meritorious reasons as basis for the admission
of additional witnesses, no other witness or
affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the .court
(A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 10)
3. Documentary and object evidence in support of
the allegations contained in the pleading ..
Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and
logical form. a plain. concise and direct statement of
the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which
the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as
the case may be (ROC. Rule 8, Sec. 1).
Documents attached lo as a part thereof are
considered evidence and also part of the pleadings
(Asia Banking Corp. v. Olsen & Co, G.R. No. L-
24488, December 28, 1925).
RULES
MANNER OF MAKING
ALLEGATIONS IN
PLEADINGS
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
SECTION 1. IN GENERAL
Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and
logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of
the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies
for his claim or defense, as the case may be.
Ultimate facts are the essential facts constituting
the plaintiffs cause of action, or such facts as are so
essential that they cannot be stricken out without
leaving the statement of the cause of action
inadequate (Canete v. Genuino Ice Co., GR. No.
154080, Jahuary 22, 2008).
What are Not Ultimate Facts; (SPAC 2 E)
1. ~tatements of law;
2. Facts £resumed by law and matters of judicial
notice;
3. ~rguments;
4. fonclusions of Fact or inferences of facts from
facts not stated, or incorrect inferences or
conclusions from facts stated;
• General allegations that a contract is valid or
legal, or is just, fair, and reasonable, are mere
concllisrons of law. Likewise, allegations that a
contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra
vires, or against public policy, without stating
facts showing its invalidity, are mere
condusions of law (Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-
Gran. GR. No. 197380, October 8, 2014).
5 ~videntiary matters (ROG, Rule 8, Sec. 1).
A complaint ;,tales a cause of action if it
sufficiefltly_avers the existence ofthe 3 essential
elements of a cause of action, namely:
a. a ri9ht in favor of the plaintiff by whatever
means and under whatever law it arises or
is created;
b. an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such
right; and
c. an act or omission on the part of the named
defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff
or constituting a breach of the obligation of
defendant lo lhe plaintiff for which the l;;itler
may maintain an action for recovery of
damages
6. f;::_onclusionsof Law (1 FERIA, supra at 317).
If the allegations of the complaint do not state the
concurren-ce of these elements, the complaint
becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the
ground of failure lo state a ·cause of action (Zuniga-
Santos v. Santos-Gran, supra).
Evidentiary facts are those facts which are
necessary for determination of the ultimate facts;
they are the premises upon which conclusions of
ultimate facts are based (Tantuico v. Republic, G.R.
No 89114. December 2. 1991)
 ~ \ I
MEM:v~Y AID
San Booa UflMllsity COll8116of Law - RGCT ear Operouoos Centor
Test to Distinguish Conclusion of Law from
Statement of Facts:
If from the facts in evidence, the result can be
reached by the process of natural reasoning,adopted
in the investigation of truth, it becomes an ultimate
fact to be found as such.
If, on the other hand, resort must be had to artificial
processes of the law in order to reach a final
determination, the result is a conclusion of law
(Mathay v. Consolidated Bank & Trust Co., GR. No.
L-23136, August 26, 1974).
Cause of Action or Defenses Based on Law
If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on
law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their
applicability to him or her shall be clearly and
concisely stated (ROG, Rule 8, Sec. 1).
SECTION 2. ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF
AC"flON OR DEFENSE·
A party may set forth two or more statements of a
claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically,
either in one cause of action or defense or in
separate causes of action or defense.
When two or more statements are made in the •
alternative an one of them if made independently
would be sufficient, the pleading i~ ' not made
insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the
alternative statements.
The liability of the defendant may possibly be
based on either one or two or more possible
causes of action.
The plaintiff niay, for example, believe that the
liability of the carrier may be based either on a
breach of contract of carriage or quasi-delict, but he
may not be certain which of the causes of action
would squarely fit the set of facts c1lleged in the
complaint. although he is certain that he is entitled to
relief. He may therefore, state his causes of action in
the alternative. This provision in effect, also relieves
a party from being compelled to choose only one
cause of action (1 RIANO, supra at 278).
A defendant can make use of both a negative and
affirmative defense
In the same manner that the plaintiff may assert two
or more causes of action in a court suit. a defendant
is likewise exµressly c1llowed, ur1de1Section 2, Rule
8, of the ROC, to put up his own defenses
alternatively or even hypothetically. Under Section 1,
Rule 9, of the ROC, defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in an answer
are deemed waived. We take this to mean that a
defendant may, in fact, feel enJoined to set up all
possible defenses (La Naval Drug Corp., v. CA, G.R.
No. 103200, Aug. 31, 1994).
SECTION 3. CONDITION PRECEDENT
SECTION 4. CAPACITY
SECTION 5. FRAUD, MISTAKE,
CONDITION OF THE MIND
Facts that may be Averred Generally:
1. Conditions precedent (ROG, Rule 8, Sec. 3)
a. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
b. Barangay conciliation
c. Clearing in the PCHS
d. Arbitration;
Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent Must Be
Averred
In any pleading a general averment of the
performance or occurrence of all conditions
precedent shall be sufficient. (Sec. 3, Rule 8)
All valid conditions precedent to the institution or th\:)
particular ac\ion, whether prescribed by statute,
fixed by agreement of the parties or implied by law
_must be performed or complied with before
commencing the action, unless the conduct of the
adverse party-has been such as to prevent or waive
performance or excuse non-performance of the
condition. (Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay, G.R. No.
191178, March 13, 2013) •
NOTE: Failure ,to comply with a condition precedent
can be rai$ed iJS an affirmative defense in the
Answer pursuant to the Amended Rules (ROG, Rule
8, Sec. 12(5))-
2. . Malice .. !ntent, _!Snowledge or f_ondition of the
mind (MICK) (ROC, Rule 8, Sec_ 5);
Reason: It is difficult to state the particulars
constituting these matters.
3. Judgments or decision of a domestic or foreign
court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of
board, or officer; or (ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 6);
II is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision
without showin9 jurisdiction of the court to
render such judgment or decision.
4. Official document or act (ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 9j
It is sufficient to aver that the document was
issued or the act done in compliance with law
Facts that must be Averred Particularly: (CALF)
1. Facts showing fapacity or a party to sue or to
be sued;
2. The ~uthority to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity;

3. The hegal existence of an organized association
ot persons that is made party (ROC, Rule 8, Sec.
4); and
NOTE: A rmty desiring to raise an issue as to
l11eleyal existence or capacity of any party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity shall
do so by specific denial which shall include
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within
the pleader's knowledge (ROG, Rule 8, Sec. 4).
Where the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, the
specific circumstance that it is duly licensed to
do business in the Philippines, or that the
transaction sued upon is singular and isolated.
is ;:in P.SsP.nti;cilf)<Jrt nf the element of the
plaintiff's capacity to sue and rnust be
affirmatively pleaded as required by Sec. 4, Rule
8 of the ROC (Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v.
Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc;., G.R. No. L-18961,
August 31, 1966 as cited in Olympia Business
Machines Co Inc. v. E. Razon, Inc.; G.R. No.
75631, October 28, 1987). • original or a copy thereof (ROG, Rule 9, Sec. 7)
4. In all averments of fraud or mistake the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake
must be stated with particularity (ROG, Rule 8,
Sec. 5). .
It is not enough for the complainant to allege that
he was defrauded by the defendant. The
complaint must state with particularity the
fraudulent acts of the adverse party. These
particulars which would necessarily include the
specific acts of fraud committed against the
plaintiff would help apprise the judge of the kind
of fraud involved in the complaint (Reyes v. RTC
uf Makali, GR No. 165744, August U, 2008).
Mere invocation of the words "surreptitiously and
fraudulently" does not make the allegation
particular without specifying the circumstances
of the commission and employment of fraud.
The allegation of fraud would have been averred
with p0rticulmity had the plaintiff alleged, for
example, that the defendants removed the
equipment under the false pretense that they
needed repair and refurbishing but the
equipment were never returned; or that
defendants removed the merchandise because
Semicon needed to sell them in exchange for
new supplies but no new supplies were bought
(Villalon v. Lirio, G.R. No. 183869, /wgust 3.
2015).
SECTION 6. JUDGEMENT
In pleading a judgement or decision of c1 domestic or
foreign court. judici;:il or quasi-judicial. or of n bonrd
or officer. It Is sutt1cIont to aver the judgP.ment or
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RemedialLaw
decision without setting forth matter showing
jurisdiction to render it. An authenticated copy of the
judgement or decision shall be attached to the
pleading.
SECTION 7. ACTION OR DEFENSE
BASED ON DOCUMENT
Actionable Document
A document is actionable when an action or defense
is grounded upon such written instrument or
document (Asian Construction & Dev't. Corp. v.
fv/endoza, G.R. No. 176949, June 27, 2012).
Two Permissible ways of pleading an Actionable
Document:
1 By setting forth the substance of such document
in the pleading and attaching said document
thereto as an annex; or
2. By attaching to the pleading as an exhibit, which
shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, the
SECTION 8. HOW TO CONTEST SUCH
DOCUMENT
SECTION 9. OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR
ACT
How to Contest an Actionable Document:
1. By specific denial under oath; and
The requirement of oath does not apply:
a. when the adverse p;irty rloes not appe,H
to be a party to the instrument: or
b. when compliance with an order for an
i11sµecliu11or tile original document is
refused.
2. By setting forth what is claimed to be the facts.
Where the actionable document is properly
alleged, the failure to specifically deny under
oath the same results in:
1 The admission of the genuineness and due
execution of said document. except:
J. When the adverse party was not a party to
the instrument; or
b. When an order for the inspection of the
document was not complied with (see Rule
27)
2 The document need not be formc1lly offP.rerl in
evidence. (Central Surety v. Hodges, GR. No.
·12730,/\ugust 22 1060)
"Genuineness" means that the document is:
(DFDF)
1. The Qocument was voluntarily signed by party
the clocument or it wns siamirf hy nnother for him
 mam!l) \ /

MEK✓Q~Y AID
San Reda Univorsiry College of t.aw - PGCT Bm Operations Centm

and with his authority; considered waived (Central Surety & Insurance Co.
2. That at the time it was signed it was in words and v. Hodges, Supra).
,Eigures exactly as set out in the pleading of the
party relying upon it; SECTION 10. SPECIFIC DENIAL
3. That the document was Delivered; and
4. That any formalities required by law, such as a A defendant must specify each material allegation of
seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, fact the truth of which he or she does not admit and,
which it lacks, are waived by him (Permanent whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance
Savings and Loan Bank v. Velarde, supra). of the matters upon which he or she relies to support
his or her denial. Where a defenclant clesires to oeny
"Due Execution" means that the document is: only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify
(SAD-F) so much of it as is true and material and shall deny
1. The document was §igned voluntarily and only the remainder.
knowingly by the party wt1ose signature appears
thereon; . Modes of Specific Denial
2. That if signed by somebody else such 1. Absolute Denial
representative had the ~uthority to do so; and By specifying each material ollcgotion of the fact
3. The document was Q.uly delivered; and in the complaint, the truth of which the defendant
4. The !:ormalities were complied with;(ld). does not admit, and whenever practicable,
setting forth the substance of the matters which
Defenses Cut-Off by the Admission of he will rely upon to support his denial
Genuineness and Due Execution: (FACODS) 2. Partial Denial
1. That the signature was a forgery; By specifying so much of an averment in the
2. That the ~gent signing in behalf of a partnership complaint as is true and material and denying
or of corporation is unauthorized; only the remainder;
3. The ~orporation was not authorized under its 3: Denial by Disavowal of Knowledge
charter to sign the instrument By stating that the defendant is without
4. That the party charged signed the instrument in knowledge or information sufficient to form a
some Qther capacity than that alleged in the belief as to the truth of a material averment in
pleading setting it out;
the complaint, which has the effect of a denial
5 That the document was never Qelivered (Sps.
Santos v. Alcazar, G.R. No. 183034, March 12,
(PB Communications vs. Spouses Go, G.R. No. fr
175514, February 14, 2011). l
2014); and
6. That the document was not in the words and Insufficient • denial or denial amounting to
figures as §et out in tt1e pleadings (Imperial admissions:
Textile Mills v. CA. G.R No. 86568, March 22, 1. ---General denial; and
1990).
2. Denial in the form of a negative pregnant.
Defenses not Cut-Off by the Admission of
When matters of whether the defendant alleges
Genuineness and Due Execution:
having no knowledge or information sufficient to form
(FLIP-DWIM-MEC)
a belief are plainly and necessarily within the
1. fraud;
defendant's knowledge, a claim of "ignorance or lack
2. Statute of !,_imitations
of information" will not be considered a specific
3. !!legality of consideration;
Jenial (Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R No 16o!U4,
4. _Eayrnent;
December 20, 2006).
5. Quress; -
6. Want of consideration;
Negative pregnant is ;i form 0f neg;:itive expression
7. !1111.Jecitity
whir:h r::,mies with it an affirmation or at least ari
8. _Mistake;
implication of some kinrl favornhle to the adverse
9. .M_ino1ity,
parly. It is ;i (lenial prH(Jnr1111 with ::in 21dmiss1onof
10. _E;:.;toppel;
rn1d
ti 1e sul.Jsta11lic1I
facts alleged in the pleading. Where
11. fornprornise.
a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying
language and the words of the allegation as so
NOTE: Where a case has been tried in complete
qualified or modified are literally denied, has been
disregard of the Rule and the plaintiff having pleaded
held that the qualifying circumstances alone are
a document by copy, presents oral evidence to prove
denied while the fact itself is adn~rtted (Republic v.
the due execution of the docurmmt as well as the
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 152"154.July 15. 2003).
agent"s authority and no objec!:ons arc made to the
defendant's evidence in refutation. the F~ulewill be

SECTION 11. ALLEGATIONS NOT
SPECIFICALLY DENIED DEEMED
ADMITTED
GENERAL RULE: Material allegations in the
compl;:iint not »pP.r;ifir.ally denied are deemed
admitted.
EXCEPTIONS: (Not deemed admitfed even if not
specifically denied):
1 Allegations as to the amount of unliquidated
damages (ROG, Rule 8, Sec.11);
2 Allegations immaterial to the cause of action,
which includes conclusions of fact and law,
inferences, etc. (Worcester v. Lorenzana, G.R.
No. L-9435, July 31, 1958); and
3 All allegations in the complaint where no answer
has been filed by the defendant (Lopez v.
Mendezona, GR. No. 3945. September 7, 1908.
SECTION 12. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Affirmative Defenses: . . ....
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party;
2. that the venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no
cause of action; and
5 That a condition precedent for filing the claim
has not been complied with.
Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the
earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.
Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not. be the
subject of a motion for reconsideration or petition for
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be
c1mongthe matters to be raised on appeal after the
judgement on the merits.
Period to Resolve Affirmative Defenses
The court shall rnotu proprio resolve the affirmative
defenses under section 12(a) within thirty (30)
calendar days from the filing of the answer (Rule 8,
Section 12(c)).
As to the other affirmative defenses under the first
i paragraph of Section 5 (b), Rule 6, the court may
conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15)
calendar days from the filing of the answer. Such
affirmative defenses shall tie resolved by the court
within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination
of the summary hearing (Rule 8. Section 12(d)).
Denial of Affirmative Defenses
Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the
subject of a motion for reconsideration or petition for
certior;rn, prohibition or mandamus, but may be
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
among the matters to be raised on appeal after a
judgment on the merits (Rule 8, Section 12(e)).
SECTION 13. STRIKING OUT OF
PLEADING OR MATTER CONTAINED
THEREIN
The court may order 8IIy µlec1uir1ylo Lie c;tIicker1uul
or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out
therefrom:
1. Upon motion made by a party before responding
to a pleading;
2. Upon motion made by a party within 20 days
after the service of th.e pleading upon him, if no
responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules;
or
3. Upon the court's own initiative at any time.
NOTE: ,In -relation to ROG, Rule 7, Sec. 3, counsel
who alleges. scandalous or indecent matter in a
pleading shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
action (Bugaring v. Hon. Espaiiol, GR.No. 133090,
January 19;°2001).
RQLE9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO
PLEAD
SECTION 1. DEFENSES AND
OBJECTIONS NOT PLEADED
GENERAL RULE: Defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answ'"r are deemed waived.
EXCEPTIONS: (PL-JR)
1 ,!:rescriplion of the action.
2. bJtis pendentia;
3. Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter; and
4. fies jud/cata;
The presence of any of these 4 grounds authorizes
the court to motu proprio dismiss the claim. The
court may, in the exercise of its discretion. ;rnrl if
deemed necessary for its resolution, call a hearing
on the motion (ROG, Rule 15, Sec.6/.
NOTE: These grounds are also the exceptions to the
Omnibus Motion Rule under Rule 15, Section 9 and
the only grounds allowed in a Motion to Dismiss
under Rule 15, Section 12(a).
 Ulm'lm \ /

MEM✓Q-RY Al D
San Bed,;1;Unive1sity Col!cgei of i. flv, H<)CT Be• '.Jporat!ons C(~r,ter

GENERAL RULE: Lack of jurisdiction over the 3. The claiming party must file a motion to declare
subject matter may be raised at any stage of the the defending party in default (Id.);
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. 4. The claiming party must prove that the
defending party has failed to answer within the
EXCEPTION: period provided by the ROC (Sablas v. Sablas,
Estoppel by !aches GR No. 144568, July 3, 2007),
Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for 5. The defending party must be notified of the
an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to motion to declare him in default (ROG, Rule 9,
do that wt1ich, by exercising due diligence, could or Sec. 3); and
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or 6. There must be a hearing set on the motion to
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, declare the defending party in default (Spouses
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to de /os Santos v. Carpio, GR. No. 153696
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert September 11, 2006).
it. The doctrine of !aches or of "stale demands·· is
based on public policy which requires, for the peace When defendant may be declared in default
of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, 1. Failure to file and answer (ROC, Rule 9, Sec. 1);
unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere 2. Failure to furnish copy of answer;
question of time hut is principally a question of the 3. Failure to appear at pre-trial - as in default
inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to (ROC, Rule 18, Sec. 5);.
be enforced or asserted. ( Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 4. Failure to comply with modes of discovery
supra) (ROG, Rule 29, Sec. 3).

SECTION 2. COMPULSORY DECLARATION OF DEFAULT AND

COUNTERCLAIM, OR CROSS-CLAIM, EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR,
NOT SET UP BARRED . . DISTINGUISHED

The bar of course: rde1:; tu a compulsory

counterclaim (or cross-claim) that a defending party
has at the time he files the answer, i.e., a
counterclaim already existing at the time the answer
is filed. A permissive coLinterclaim however will not
be barred (Lafarge Cement v. Continental Cement
Corp., G.R. No. 155173 November 23, 2004) Failure oid~fauitof the Failure or default of the
defendant to file a defendant to appear at
SECTION 3. DEFAULT; DECLARATION responsive pleading the pre-trial
OF DEFAULT wlthin the reglementary conference.
period.

If the defending party fails to answer within the time

allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the
claiming party with notice to the defending party, :Jnd It allows the Court to II nllowc; lhf:l plaintiff to
proof of such failure, declare the defending party in proceed to render present evidence ex
default. judgment granting the parte and for the Court
claimant such relief as to render judgment on
Thereupon. the court shall proceed to render his pleading may the basis thereof.
. judgment granting the clrnmant such relief as his warrant.
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requrres the clriimant to submit evidence. (Paramount Life & Geneml Insurance Corporation v.
Castro G.R. No. 195728, April 19, 2016).
Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
clerk of court.
Mere non-appearance of defendants at an ordinmy
Requisites: hearing and to adduce evidence does not constitute
1. Tt1e court must have validly acquired jurisdiction default, when they have already filed their answer to
over the person of the defending party, either by the complaint within the reglementary period
service of summons or voluntary appearance (Monzon v. Sps Re/ova. G.R. No. 171827.
September 17. 2008).
(Gomez v. CA GR. No. 127692. March 10,
2004j, .
2. Tt1e defending party must hcive failed to file his A declaration or order of default is rssued as a
cinsw0r within the tirne allowed therefor (ROC, punisi1rnent for unnecessory delay in joining the
Rule 9. Sec.3); issues Defendants lose tliui, sl;_;11uing
in court, ttiey
. .
~ " , , ' ' '~ . ~ t <,' ' • ), ,

:. ·10· · ,. ·, _·,_,. CIVIL PROCEDURE

:, , ' t . ·,: f ..-:\'>, ,:
Remedial Law

cannot expect the trial court to act upon their DEFAULT IN ORDINARY PROCEDURE
pleadings, and they are not entitled to notice of the
Aft&r the lapsa of Motion den!!ld:
proceeding unti! the final termination of the case
tln'l'il to fit.3 an Defondan! allowed
(Vlason Enterprises Corp. v. CA, G.R. Nos. 121662- answ0r. tt,a plllinllff to filo an answer
64. July 6, 1999). may move to
declNe the
The Court admonishes trial Judges against issuing
precipitate orders of default as these have the effect
dt1!t11Kl11-Hl
dsfalJII.
In I Dalendantanswe,s I
of denying a litigant the chance to be heard, and in
order to prevent needless litigations in the appellate Mottongranted:
courts. While there are instances when a party may Coon ISSL'e3 order
properly be defaulted, this should be the exception of default Bild
renders judgmsnt,
rather than the rule (Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Villaluz, or require ptalntiffto
GR. No. 40628, February 24, 1980). submit ev\denoo ex
PDrl8,

NOTE: If the defendant was declared in default upon

an original complaint, the filing of the amended
complaint resulted in the withdrawal of the original Before )udgnumt by Court maintains
oofault Is rendend, r) order of default.
complaint. Hence, the defendant was entitled to file defendant may:
answer to the amended complaint as to which he 1. Mo<Je to set aside
was not in default. ord~ or -dBfault upon
shofAng ol fraud, {
~Iden~ ,Mistake, or
!;,xc:usable•Negligence Presentation 0
plairdiffs evkle nee
_
(FAME). ;tnd that he
ex-parts
has a me!ltorious
ooffJJ.6'J
2. Avail <if Rtf/& 65 In
projW!"C3S.SS,

i' ff plalnlilf
hla
p!OVW.
al~a1k>ns,
Coor! sets aside ordjlr Ctiurt ren~
jWdgl'n""1l t:,y
of default and
dfifanQant ill a!lov,oo _to delallit.
flle.an answer
OR

i If pl;,lr\li:ff fails lo

I C!Js&set to, pre-trial

I prove
a~IJ{T3t4,ns,ciise
lsdism~m.
his
~

GENERAL RULE: A default order and

consequently a default judgment are triggered by the
failure of the defendinfl party to file the required
answer.

EXCEPTION: Judgment by default for refusal to

comply with the modes of discovery.

Action of the Court after Declaration/Order of

Default:
When a party is declared in default, the court may rlo
either of two things:
1. To proceed to render judgment granting the
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant;
or
2. To require the claimant to submit his evidenc:e
ex parte (ROC. Rule 9, Sec 3)
 &ma \ I
MEM-Q-RYAID
San Beda Univorsity ColJege of law ~ RGCT &ru Ope1ations Center
Judgment by Default
A judgment by default may be rendered in the
following cases despite an answer having been filed:
1. If a disobedient parly refuses to obey an order
requiring him to comply with the various modes
of discovery (ROG, Rule 29, Sec. 3(c)); or
2. If a party or officer or managing agent of a party
willfully fails to appear before the officer who is
to take his deposition or a party fails to serve
answers to interrogatories (Rule 29, Sec. 5).
The court need not personally receive the evidence
if it decides to hear the evidence of the plaintiff. The
reception of the evidence may be delegated to the
clerk of court (Id.)
A default judgment is frowned upon because of the
policy of the _lawto hear every litigated case on the
merits. But the default judgment will not be vacated
unless the defendant satisfactorily explains the
failure to file the answer and shows that it has a
meritorious defense (Momarco Import Company, Inc.
v. Villamena, G.R. No. 192477, July 27, 2016).
Effect of Declaration/Order of Default
1. The party declared in default loses his standing
in court. The loss of such standing prevents him
from taking part in the trial;
2. While defendant can no longer take part in the
trial, he is nevertheless entitled to notices of
subsequent proceedings (Rule 9, Sec.3 (a)) and
service of orders and judgments; and
3. It could be not be interpreted as an admission by
the defendant that the plaintiffs causes of action
find support in the law or that the latter is entitled
to the relief prayed for (Monarch Insurance Co.,
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 92735, June 8, 2000).
4c Being declared in default, and thereby losing
one's standing, do not constitute a waiver of all
rights; what •is waived only is the right to be
heard and to present evidence during the trial
while default prevails. A party in default is still
entitled to notice of final judgments land orders
and proceedings taken subsequent thereto
(Garcia v. CA, G.R No. 83929, June 11, 1992)
and he may be cited and may testify as a witness
(Cavi/iv vs. Florendo, G.R. No. 73039, October
9, 1987).
NOTE: A party in default may thus be cited as a
witness by his co-defendants who have the standing
and the right to present evidence which the former
may provide (Id.).
Remedies Available to Party who has been
Declared in Default:
1. The defendant in default may, at any time after
notice thereof and before judgment, file a
motion under oath to set aside the order of
default on the ground that his failure lo answer
was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence, and that he has a
meritorious defense (ROC, Rule 9, Sec. 3(b)):
NOTE: The requisites tt1at must be satisfied by
a motion in order Jo warrant the setting aside of
an order of default for failure to file answer are:
(MO-FAME)
1. There must be a proper stiowing of the existence
of a Meritorious defense contained in an affidavit
of merit;
2. It must be made by motion under oath by one
that has knowledge of the facts;
3. It must be shown that the failure to file answer
was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence,
(Spouses Manuel v. Ong, G.R. No. 205249,
October 15, 2014, citing Montinola, Jr. v.
Republic Planters Bank, G.R. No. L-66183, May
4, 1988).
2. If the judgment has already been rendered when
the defendant discovered the default, but before
the same has become final and executory, he
may file a motion for new trial under ROC,
Rule 37, Sec. 1(a);
3. If the defendant discovered the default after the
judgment has become final and executory, he
may file a petition for relief under ROC, Rule
38, Sec 1;
4. He may also appeal from the judgment
rendered against him as contrary to evidence or
to the laW; even if no petition to set aside the
order of default has been presented by him
(ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 2; Otero v. Tan, G.R. No.
200134, August 15, 2012); or
5. A petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of
a judgment by default if the trial court improperly
declared a party in default, or even if the trial
court properly declared a party in default, if
grave abuse of discretion attended such
declaration ( Crisologo v. Globe Telecom Inc.,
G.R. No. 167631, December 16, 2005).
The more appropriate and adequate remedy is not
ordinary appeal but the special civil action of
certiorari when the petitioners were not given an
opportunity to present their evidence, and therefore,
nothing can be reviewed on appeal except the self-
serving evidence adduced by the private respondent
during the ex parte presentation of the evidence
(Continental Leaf Tobacco (Phil.), Inc. v. CA, GR.
No. L-69243, November 22. 1985).
Partial Default
1. The pleading asserting a claim states a common
cause of action against several defending
parties:
2. Some of the defending parties answer and the
others fail to clo so. and

3. The answer interposes a cornmon defense.
Effect of Partial Default
The court will try the case against all defendants
upon the answer of some except where the defense
is personal to the one who answered, in which case,
ii will not bemifit those who did not answer,
The Rule on Partial Default does not apply where the
defenses of the answering defendants were
personal to them, such as the defense of forgery (1
FERIA, supra at 382, citing Luzon Surety Co. Inc. v.
Magbanua, GR. No. L-41804, July, 30, 1976).
Plaintiff cannot move to dismiss the case as
regards the answering defendant and retain the
defaulted defendant to secure an immediate
judgment
Since the singleness of the cause of action inevit'ably
implies that the defendants are indispensable
parties, the court's power to. act is integral and
cannot be split such that it cannot relieve any of them
and at the same time render judgment against the
rest. It is to be assumed that wnen any'defendant
allows himself to be in default knowing that his co-
defendant has already answered, .he does so
trusting in the assurance implicit in the rule that his
default is in essence a mere formality that deprives
him of no more than the right to take part in the trial
and that the court would deem anything done by or
for the answering defendant as done by or for hir\1.
The presumption is that otherwise he would have
seen to it that he would not be in default. If the
complaint has to be dismissed iri so far as the
answering defendant is concerned, it becomes his
inalienable right that the s;:ime be rlismissefl r1lsn .::is
to him (Co v. Acosta, GR. No. L-64591. January 17.
1985).
Extent of Relief in a Judgment by Default
A judgment rendere~ against a party in default shall
not: (EDU)
1. _!;xceed the amount prnyed for:
2. Be Qifferent in kind from that prayed for: nor
J, Award 11,nliqutdateddamaqes ROC, Rule 9. Sec
3 (d))
Where No Defaults are Allowed: (ANS 4)
1. ~nnulment of marriage (FAMILY CODE, Art. 48);
2. Declaration of J'!ullity of marriage (FAMILY
CODE, Art. 60);
3. !,_egalSepmation (FAMJL Y CODE, Art. 60)·.
4. In ~pecial civil actions for certiorari, prohibition.
and mandamus where a comment instead of an
answer is required to be filed;
5 §mall Claims,Cases: and
6. .§.ummary Procedure
: I
i
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
Effect of Failure to File an Answer in Marriage-
Related Cases
If the defending party in an action for annulment or
declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal
separation fails to answer, the court shall order the
prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a
collusion between the pmties exists (FAMILY CODE,
Art. 48, Art. 60, Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No.
145370, March 4, 2004).
If there is no collusion, the court shall order said
prosecuting attorney to intervene for the State in
order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not
fabricated or suppressed (Ancheta v. Ancheta,
supra)
RULE10
AMENDEDAND
SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS IN
GENERAL
Pleadings may be amended by:
1. Adding or striking out an allegation;
2. Adding or striking out the name of any party;
3. Correcting a mistake in the name of a party; or
4. Correcting a mistaken or inadequate allegation
or description in 2rny other re:sµeGl.
Amendments may be made so that the actual merits
of the controversy may speedily be determined,
without regard to technicalities, and in the most
expeditious and inexpensive manner.
Rule 10 vis-a-vis Section 4 of Rule 129
Matters involviny tt1e ornernJrnent of pleadmgs are
primarily gove, neu by llle µe, lir1eril µrovisions of
Rule 10 and not by Section 4 of Rule 129 of the ROC.
Hence, allegations (and admissions) in a pleading-
even if not shown to be mafle through "palpable
mistake·-can still be corrected or amended
provided that the amendment is sanctioned under
Rule 10 of the ROC (Yujwco v. United Resources
Asset Management. Inc . G R. No. 211113, June 29,
2015).
SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT
A party may amenc his pleadings once as a matter
of right c1Ic1nytime before a responsive pleading
 mmi:m \/
MEM:Q~Y AID
S8118a(Ja Unive,sity College of Law "RGCT Bar Operations Centm
is served, or in the case of a reply, at any time within
ten (10) calendar days after it is served.
The right to amend a pleading as a matter of right
may be exercised only once. Hence, even if no
responsive pleading has yet been served, if the
amendment is subsequent to a previous amendment
made as a matter of right, the ·subsequent
amendment must be with leave of court.(ROC, Rule
10, Sec. 2)
The court would be in error if it refuses to admit an
amended plAc1dingwhen its exercise is a matter of
right. This error is correctible by mandamus (Breslin
v. Luzon Stevedoring, GR. No. L 334G, September
2D, ·1949) bocauso the trial court's duty to admit an
amended complaint made as a matter of .right is
purely ministerial (Alpine Lending Investors v.
Corpuz, G.R. No. 157107, November 24, 2006).
Instances when Amendment is a Matter of Right;
1. Amendment of complaint before an answer is
filed;
2. Amendment of answer before a reply is filed or
• before the period for filing a reply expires;
3. Amendment of reply any time within 10 days
after it is served; and
4. Formal amendment. ·~
NOTE: A motion to dismiss is not a responsive
pleading. Records show that petitioners had not yet
ftled a responsive ple2ding to the originalcomplaint.
What they filed was ci motion to dismiss. It follows
that respondent may file an amended complaint
even after the orig:nal complaint was ordered
dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal is not
yet final (Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, G.R. No.
148361, November 29, 2005).
NOTE: Where some but not all the defendants have
answered, plaintiffs may amend their complaint once,
as a mailer of right, in respect to claims asserted
solely c1gainst the non-answering defendants, but
not as to claims c:1sserted against the other
defendants (Remmgton Industrial v CA, G.R. No.
133657, May 29, 2002).
Whan New Service of Summons is Required
It is not the change of cause of <;1ctionthai gives rise·
to the need to serve another summons for the
amended complrnnt, but rather the acquisitio11 of
jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants. If
the trial court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over
them, a new service of summons for the amended
complaint is required (Vlason Enterprises
Corporation v. CA, supra).
SECTION 3. AMENDMENTS BY LEAVE •
OF COURT
Leave of Court is Required:
1. If the amendment is substantial; and
2. A responsive pleading has already been served.
NOTE: Even if the amendment is substantial no
leave of court is required if made as a matt~r of
right In other words, the consideration should
always be whether tl)e responsive pleading has
already been filed or not. If yes, then it is no
longer a matter of right.
Requisites: (MON)
1. There must be a Motion filed in court·
2. Notice to the adv~se party; and '
3. Qpportunity to be heard attorded to the adverse
party.
Instances when Amendment by Leave of Court
Shall Not be Allowed: (CDC)
1. Amendment is intended to _gonfer jurisdiction to
the court (Home Guaranty Corp. v. R-11Builders,
/rJC,,G.R, No. 192649, March 9. 2011);
2. Amendm~nt for purposes of Qelay (ROC, Rule
10, Sec. 3); or
3. Amendment to £urea premature or non-existing
cause of action (Swagman Hotels & Travel. Inc.
v. CA, G.R. No. 161135. April 8, 2005). •
Amendment is Not Allowed Where No Cause of
Action'Exists
The curing effect under Section 5 is applicable only
1f a cause of action in fact exists at the time the
. complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for
failure to allege the essential facts (Swagman Hotels
& Travel, Inc., v. CA, supra).
It th1Js follows that a complaint whose cause of
action has not yet accrued cc1nnot be cured or
remedied by an amended or supplemental pleadinq
alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of actio~
while the case is pendinCJ(Swagman fiotels & Travel,
Inc., v. CA, supra).
Amendment to Correct a Jurisdictional Defer.t
A fair reading of jurisprudence recognizes the rigt1t
of a pleader to amend his complaint befure a
responsive pleading is served even if its effect is to
correct a jurisdictional defect ramayo v. San Miguel
Brewery, G.R. No. L-17749, January 31, 1964)
Test to Determine Whether a Different Cause of
Action is Introduced by the Amendments:
Whelt)er a different cause of action is introduced by
amendments to the complaint. what is ascertained is
whether the defendant Is be,ng required to answer
for r1 lii3bd,ty or lege1Ioblioation completely different
from that stated in the mi9in::il complaint (,Lleirs of

Pagobo v. CA et al, GR No. 121687, October 16,
1997).
The same test may .be applied with respect to
SIJf)f)IP.mP.nt;:il rlP.Arlings ( 1 REGALADO, supra at
208).
SECTION 4. FORMAL AMENDMENTS
A defect in the designation of the parties and other
clearly clerical or typographical errors may be
summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the
action, at its initiative or on motion, provided no
prejudice is caused to the adverse party.
SECTION 5. AMENDMENT TO CONFORM
TO OR AUTHORIZE PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE
When issues not raised by the pleadings· ar~. tried
with the express or implied consent oftl'le paf1ies_:
1. They shall be treated in all respects as _ifrgised
in the pleadings: . • • • .· ..
2. No amendment of such. pleadings deemed
amended is necessary to cause them to.conform
to the evidence.
NOTE: In Mercader v. OBP (G.R. /Vo. 130699, Moy
12, 2000), the Court explained th~t:Section 5 of Rule
1o envisions 2 scenarios -~ first,· when evidence is
introduced on an issue not alleged, in the plectdings
and no objection was interjected and second, when
evidence is offered on an issue not alleged. in the
pleadings but this time an objection was
interpolated. In cases where an objection is mai:Je,
the court may nevertheless admit the evidence
where the adverse party fails to satisfy the cqurt that
the admission of the evidence would prejudice him
1n maintaining his defense upon the merits, and the
court may grant him a continuance to enable him to
meet the new situation created by tt1e evidence
(Azolla Farms v. CA, GR. No. 138085, November
11, 2004).
Since there was an implied consent on the part of
petitioners to try the issue bf payment, even if no
motion was filed and no amendment of the pleading
has been ordered, lhe RTC cannot be faulted for
admitting respondent's testimonial and documentary
evidence to prove payment (Spouses Dela Cruz v.
Concep.cion. GR No. 172825, October 11, 2012).
Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause
of action at the time his action is commenced, the
defect cannot be cured or remedied by the
acquisition or accrual of one while the action is
pending. and a supplemental complaint or an
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Remedial Law
action is not permissible (Swagman Hotels & Travel
Inc. v. CA, supra).
Illustration: The plaintiff sues the defendant before
the maturity of the loan. Clearly. there is no cause of
uctiori when the complaint was filed. Thus, if t1·1e
loa11
motures after the filing of the complaint, t1·1ereis
nothing that will conform to evidence since there is
no cause of action in the first place.
SECTION 6. SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS
Supplemental pleading is one which· sets forth
transactions, occurrences or events which have
happened since the date of the pleading sought to
be supplemented. Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435.
August 13, 2012)
Ui:>:onmotion of a party, !he court may, upon
.rea;ot:iable.notice and upon such terms as are just,
•permit hirn·or her to serve a supplemental pleading
setting forth .transactions. occurrences or events
which have happened since the date of the pleading
soughtto be supplemented.
In an obligation payable in installments with no
acceleration clause, inasmuch as a cause of action
exlst's wjth respect to all tl1e mstallments due and
unpaid ~t the time of.the complaint, a supplemental
complail)t may be filed for installments subsequently
accruing (1 FERIA, supra at 393).
When the cause of action in the supplemental
complaint is .different from the cause of action
mentioned in the original complaint, the court should
not admit the supplemental complaint (Asset
Privatization Trust v CA, GR No. 121171,
December 29. 199R)
A supplemental pleading may raise a new cause of
action as long as it has some relation to the original
cause of action set forth in the original complaint
(Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, August 13, 2012).
The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10)
calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
supplemental pleading (ROG. Ruic 10, Sec. 6).
The answer to the complaint shall serve as the
answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or
supplemental answer is filed ROC, Rule 11. Sec. 7).
The admission or non-admission of a supplemental
pleading is not a matter of right but is discretionary
on the court /\mong the factors that the court will
consider are:
1 Resulting preiuc!ice to thP.parties: and
 ~ \ I

MEM:v-RYAID
San Beda Unjve1sity Collei;u ct Lc:i·N- R•,-iCTBar Operatmns Cenie1

2. Whether the movant would be prejudiced if the 3. Claims or defenses alleged therein not
supplemental pleading were to be denied incorporated in the amended pleading shall be
(Lambino v. lion. Presiding Judge, GR. No. deemed Waived (ROG, Rule 10, Sec. 8).
169551, January 24, 2007).
Effect of Amendments in Relation to the Statute
AMENDED PLEADING AND of Limitations
An amendment which merely supplements and
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING,
amplifies the facts originally alleged in the complaint
DISTINGUISHED relates back to the date of the commencement of the
action and is not barred by the statute of limitations,
tho period of which expires after service of the
original complaint but before service of amendment
(Verzosa v. CA, supra).

Where the original complaint states a cause of action,

but does it imperfectly, and afterwards an amended_
complaint is filed, correcting the defect, the plea of
statute of limitations will relate to the time of the filing
of the original declaration (Pangasinan
Transportation·Co, v. Phil. Farming Co., Ltd., GR
No. L-1324, July 22, 1948).

However, such Rule would not apply to the party

who was impleaded for the first time in the amended
complaint wf:iich was filed after the period of
prescription had already lapsed, hence t1·1ean,endeu
complaint must be dismissed as to such party who
Can be made as a Always with leave of was thus belatedly included in the action (Aetna
matter of right, as when court Insurance Co. v. Barber Steamship Lines Inc., GR.
no responsive pleading No. L-25266, Jahuary 15, 1975).
has yet been filed

< ...
SECTION 7. FILING OF AMENDED ••/,RULE 11
PLEADINGS
WHEN TO FILE
When any pleading is amended, a new copy of the
entire pleading, incorporating the amendments,
RESPONSIVE
which shall be indicated by appropriate marks, shall PLEADINGS
be. filed.

SECTION 8. EFFECT 0~ AMENDED

PLEADING PERIOD TO FILE RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS
Effect of Amended Pleading: (SEW)
1. An amended pleading §.upersedes the original
one which it amends. The original complaint is 1. Answer to Within 30 C81endar days after
deemed abandoned and superseded by the the service of summons, unless a
amended complaint only if the Gmended complaint different period is fixed by the
complaint introduces 3 new or difference cause court (ROC, Rule 11, Sec. 1)
of action or demand (Verzosa v. CA, G.R. Nos.
119511. November 24. 1998):
2 Pleadings superseded or amended disappear 2. Answer a. If it has a resident agent -
from the record, lose thrnr status as pleadings ·or a within 30 calendar days after
and cease to be judicial admissions. While they defendant the service of summons to
may nonetheless be .utilized against the pleader foreign such agent:
as gxtrajudicial admission, they must, in order to private b. If it has no resident agent
have such ettect, be formally offered in ev1clence ju1iuicdl but it has an agent or
(Ching v. CA, GR No. 110844, April 27, 2000); entily officer in the Philippines •
and