Day 1 -Jurists June 05, 2022

BAR HACKS:
1. Be comprehensive. Study comprehensively.
2. Try to focus.
3. The time from now until the bar is very short.
4. You can’t be half-baked.
5. You know what will work best for you. The important thing is you prepare for the bar.

PART ONE:
The rule-making power of the Supreme Court
- Constitution, Art. VIII, especially Sec. 5
- Amendments of the Civil Procedures and Evidence were made in 2019. Both became
effective May 01, 2019.
- Recent rules promulgated by SC:
1. Expedited Rules on MTCs
2. Enforcement of foreign judgment
3. Rule on body-worn cameras = not included in the Bar Syllabus

Importance of the Rules of Court

1. Substantive laws cannot be implemented without remedial law. Hence, Rule 1 Sec. 3 of the
RROC provides that a civil action is for the protection and enforcement of a right or
prevention or redress of a wrong.
2. One cannot be held liable by invoking the Civil Code without filing a case in court using the
rules.
3. Remedial law ensures that substantive law is enforced and if rights arising from these
substantive laws were violated, one can file a case.

Jurisdiction v. exercise of jurisdiction

- Lack of jurisdiction = any judgment rendered is null and void
- Case: Ku v. RCBC Securities
➢ Mr. Co filed an action for specific performance and collection of sum of money but
RTC to which the case was raffled held that it does not have jurisdiction over the
case for it deals with trading of securities because it was in connection with the
purchase of shares. It further held that it is not one of the designated commercial
courts so it assigned the case to a different court.

➢ HELD: The RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint. It is not an intra-corporate
dispute cognizable by a special commercial court.

- The truth of the matter is Mr. Ku wants to recover money or that he be paid
by reason of his buying and selling shares.
 ➢ HELD: Even though in the ultimate the action is not intra-corporate dispute, the
special commercial court to which the case was re-raffled to has subject matter
jurisdiction over cases of personal actions. This is because all RTCs have general
jurisdiction.
- The procedural lapse in re-raffling the case to the second court does not
affect the jurisdiction of the special commercial court (second court). This is
because jurisdiction over the subject matter is different from exercise of
jurisdiction.
- WON the RTC will exercise its general jurisdiction or special jurisdiction is
only an exercise of jurisdiction which is a matter of procedural law and
cannot affect its subject matter jurisdiction (general jurisdiction) as this is
conferred upon by a substantive law, BP129.

CASE: Gonzales v. GJH Land Subject matter jurisdiction v. exercise jurisdiction

- As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction over a
particular case's subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of its
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a
court's exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself is governed by the Rules of
Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court. In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was
recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of
procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
- The general jurisdiction of RTCs stemmed from BP 129, a substantive law. Indeed,
jurisdiction is conferred by law.

Doctrine of non-interference or Doctrine of Judicial Stability

- CASE: Capili v. Balindong
➢ An RTC judge issued a TRO against a demolition order issued by another RTC. The
TRO aimed at restraining the sheriff from executing the order. Hindi pwede ito.
Pareho kayong RTC nag TTRO-han kayo.
➢ No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another
court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the
injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: A
court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the
conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.

- Does this apply only in RTC?

Ans. No. The Division for instance of the CA cannot interfere with another Division via a
TRO.
Judicial Hierarchy
- This is important in courts with concurrent jurisdiction.
- For example the SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction over CPM, habeas corpus, quo
warranto, writ of amparo, habeas data, etc.
- One has to RESPECT the hierarchy.
- This rule applies both in assailing an interlocutory order via R65 and final judgment
through appeals.
- CASE: Dy v. Palamos - A direct resort to the SC is valid when there is a supervening event
which will render the judgment impossible or unjust.
➢ SHORT FACTS:
● Spouses Dy obtained a loan and used their boat as security. They defaulted
in payment and an extrajudicial foreclosure sale was held.
● In another case of bouncing check law against the spouses, the RTC ruled in
their favor, ruling that they had not yet defaulted on their loan. There being
no default, the foreclosure was premature and the RTC ordered that the
vessel be returned to Spouses Dy.
● Upon motion of the spouses, a writ of execution was issued by the RTC.
However the boat could no longer be returned to them as it sank and
deteriorated.
● The spouses insisted that they had the right to re-acquire the boat in the
same condition that it had been, or, should it no longer be possible, that
another vessel of the same tonnage, length and beam be delivered by the
respondents.
● The RTC denied this plea in the writ of execution. Hence, Spouses Dy directly
went to the SC for certiorari under Rule 65. (You do not appeal a writ of
execution. I have to check this).

➢ HELD:
An exception to the doctrine of immutability of judgements is when a supervening
event renders the execution of a judgment impossible or unjust, the interested party
can petition the court to modify the judgment to harmonize it with justice and the
facts.

A supervening event is a fact which transpires or a new circumstance which

develops after a judgment has become final and executory. This includes matters
which the parties were unaware of prior to or during trial because they were not yet
in existence at that time.

In this case, the sinking of the boat can be considered a supervening event
Original v. Appellate Jurisdiction
- RTC , CA and SC = All has original and appellate jurisdiction
- Only MTC has no appellate jurisdiction = Small claims and cases under summary procedure
are cognizable by the RTC.
- BP 129 is amended by RA 7691. RA 7691 is amended by RA 11576

1. Under RA 11576 - Effective Date: July 30, 2021

➢ Cut off for the Bar: June 30, 2021

PERSONAL ACTIONS:
RTC = In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).”

MTC = Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) or below.

REAL ACTIONS:
RTC =In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

MTC = Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) or below.

2. Under RA 7691 - Effective Date:

PERSONAL ACTIONS - METRO MANILA

a. RTC - exceeding 400k
b. MTCs - 400k and below

PERSONAL ACTIONS - PROVINCES

c. RTC - exceeding 300k
d. MTCs - 300k and below

REAL ACTIONS - METRO MANILA

e. RTC - exceeding 50k
f. MTCs - 50k and below

REAL ACTIONS - PROVINCES

g. RTC - exceeding 20k
h. MTCs - 20k and below
3. Ejectment Case
- always with MTCs regardless of the amount of the immovable involved

4. Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation

- always RTCs; eg. expropriation, declaratory relief, etc.

5. Family Court Cases

- Examples: nullity of marriage, support, distribution conjugal properties regardless
of the amount

6. Special Proceeding Cases

- These are Inheritance cases. Always follow the jurisdictional amount of personal
actions as based on the value of the estate. Never would a settlement of estate be a
case of summary procedure even if the amount of the estate falls within the
jurisdictional amount of cases under summary procedure.

7. General jurisdiction
- RTCs

8. Original jurisdiction of CA - Rule 46

- (Hindi nabanggit ang exclusive jurisdiction of CA which is annulment of judgment of
RTCs) The CA has no original jurisdiction over ordinary civil actions.

9. Appellate jurisdiction of CA
- Rule 41 also known as ORDINARY APPEAL = Appeals of decisions of the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction.
- Rule 42 also known as PETITION FOR REVIEW = Appeals of decisions of the RTC in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
- Rule 43 also known as PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES

10. Special Civil Action of Certiorari under Rule 65

- This is not an appeal but an original action.

11. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

- The original jurisdictions of the Supreme Court are those in the Constitution. This is
also found in Rule 56 of the Rules.
- Take note: Disciplinary actions against judges and disbarment cases are within the
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. = Relate this to functions of the Judicial
Integrity Board.
- Actions against ambassadors, prime ministers, plenipotentiary
- Validity of a tax impositions
 12. Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - Rule 45 Petition for Review on
Certiorari for pure questions of law.
- The only way to appeal before the Supreme Court is through Rule 45 whether the
case originates from regular courts of justice or from quasi-judicial tribunal.

13. Special jurisdiction

- A special jurisdiction gives essence to the rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law.
It is the law that breathes into courts their jurisdictions.
- Special jurisdiction is due to the special knowledge, competence, expertise and
know-how accorded to some tribunals.
- E.g. Family courts, Drug cases, Commercial courts, Environmental courts =
specialized courts (RTCs)
- Judges in these special courts are trained by the PHILJA

14. Exclusive jurisdiction

- Usually RTC has this kind of jurisdiction
- **When the claim for damages is merely incidental to the main action, the amount of
damages claimed will not be included in the computation of the jurisdictional
amount. Consider only the amount involved in the main action.

Continuity of jurisdiction / Adherence of jurisdiction

- When the court acquires jurisdiction, it continues to exercise that jurisdiction upto its
judgment. It cannot be divested of its jurisdiction unless it blatantly appears that the court
has no jurisdiction pursuant to a law.
- If to begin with, it has no jurisdiction, all actions, orders and judgment rendered are null and
void.
- The question of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even on appeal. Lack of jurisdiction is
a duty of the court that it has to motu proprio determine. Exception: Tijam v. Sibonghanoy -
estoppel by laches in jurisdiction.
- Take note of the 4 limited grounds for a Motion to Dismiss.

Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint

- This is different from the rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law. (medyo magulo siya dito,
pero related doctrine itong dalawa)
- This is exemplified under Rule 14 Sec. 1 in lieu with Rule 9 Sec.1 where the judge is tasked
to read the complaint and dismiss the same if any of the grounds for dismissal is present,
otherwise the clerk will issue summons.

Jurisdiction over the person

- Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is no longer a ground for a Motion to
Dismiss but now one of the affirmative defenses. So to raise this, the defendant has to file an
Answer and include as one of his defenses the lack of jurisdiction over his person.
- Affirmative defenses have to be resolved within 30 days.
 - Jurisdiction over the person is essential for purposes of serving due process. (Hindi
nabanggit: Importance of actions in rem, quasi in rem and in personam in the service of
summons and jurisdiction over the person of the defendant).
- Rule 14 will come into play under this rule.
- Voluntary appearance in court or filing of pleading seeking affirmative relief amounts to the
court acquiring jurisdiction over the person. In doing so, the party recognizes the court’s
authority. E.g. of pleading seeking affirmative relief: asking for extension of time.
- Should the plaintiff submit himself to the court’s jurisdiction? Ans. Yes. The court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff simply by his filing of the complaint and
PAYMENT OF THE CORRECT DOCKET FEES.

Filing / Docket Fees

- Manchester Ruling: The case will be dismissed if you fail to pay the filing fee with the
intention to defraud the government. The intent to defraud can be verified through the
pleading.
- Filing Fee is based on the amount of the claim stated in the prayer. The prayer is checked
upon by the clerk of court.
- Sun Insurance Case: The filing fee was inadequately paid but there was no intent to
defraud. Discrepancies in the body and prayer of the amount of claim.
- Because of Sun Insurance: The Supreme Court made a pronouncement that for as long as
the full docket fees are paid within the reglamentary period, the court has jurisdiction.
- Reglamentary period: Until when?? Lecturer: The SC uses reglamentary period because fees
pertain not only fees upon filing but also extends to payment of appeal docket fees to give
the court appellate jurisdiction.
- Rules governing filing fees are: Rule 41, 40 Sec. 5, Rule 141 Sec. 4, Rule 50.
- Non-payment of fees will cause dismissal of the case.
- Permissive counterclaims - 30 days to file an Answer and pay the docket fees.
- Example of permissive counterclaim: A sued B for a collection of sum of money. B countered
that A has to deliver his motorcycle. (B: Sinisingil mo ako ng utang ko ee yung motor ko na
mas malaki halaga sa utang ko sayo, hindi mo pa sinusuli.)
- Q: Is it required to pay filing fees in counterclaims? Ans. No.
- Lien on the judgment award: It is not true that this lien on the judgment can be resorted to
at all times whenever the party is unable to pay the filing fees. Lien on the judgment award
is only proper when the Rules says so. E.g. indigent party - exempt from payment of filing
fees but the court holds a lien of the judgment award.

- Examples of Lien on the judgment: i nterests that balloon; damages awarded in criminal
cases

- Case: Specialized Contractors V. POBOCAN

- Case:Proton Pilipinas:
- Summons will be issued upon proof of payment of filing fees, Rule 14 Sec. 1.
- Q: What filing fee to pay in the enforcement of foreign judgment? Mijares v. Ranada - Check
Riguera. Riguera said enforcement of a foreign judgment is capable of pecuniary estimation
but within the jurisdiction of the RTC due to its general jurisdiction.
- Para sa mga kulang ang binayaran: (RELIANCE IN GOOD FAITH) If the party relies in
good faith on the assessment of the filing fees made by the Clerk of Court, the court has
jurisdiction. The Court will just issue an order of assessment for the correct/adjusted filing
fees. This is also called Deficiency Payment.
- Fixed amount of filing fees: = for real actions, the filing fee is based on the FMV or zonal
value whichever is higher. For personal actions, the basis for the filing fee is the amount of
the claim. This is where clients try to circumvent the rule on fees by filing an action for
annulment of title for example, so the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation and
the filing fee is cheaper, but if the allegations in the complaint eventually reveal that the
relief sought is for recovery of possession or title, the court has to treat it as a real action
and assess the correct fees. Currently, an action incapable of pecuniary estimation has a
filing fee of 2k. (Rule 141, Sec. 7)

- Case: Ruby Shelter v. Formaran = A real action indisputably involves real property. The
docket fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance with the value of the
real property involved therein; the only difference is in what constitutes the acceptable
value. In computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, the courts, instead of
relying on the assessed or estimated value, would now be using the fair market value of the
real properties (as stated in the Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the
same.

- Indigent Client: Leading Case: Algura v. the City of Naga

➢ Rule 141, Sec. 19 or
➢ Rule 3, Sec.21

Rule 141, Section 19. INDIGENT LITIGANTS (A) WHOSE GROSS INCOME AND THAT OF
THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY DO NOT EXCEED AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE MONTHLY
MINIMUM WAGE OF AN EMPLOYEE AND (B) 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.

Rule 3, 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.

- If you do not fall within the definition of indigent litigant under Rule 141, you may
still be considered indigent under Rule 121 provided the party claiming so proves
 that he has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family.
- Juridical entities cannot claim as indigent litigant even if they have financial losses.
- Case of GoodShepherd: It is a foundation claiming indigency: The Court held that
the rule on indigent clients only applies to individual litigants and not juridical
entities.
- Case: IBP Misamis Oriental Chapter: Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigants,
therefore, 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 other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both
requirements, then the application should not be denied outright; instead, the court
should apply the "indigency test" under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound
discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption.
- Even though the IBP Chapter is an association, if the clients they represent meet the
indigency test, and the association is non-governmental involved in a development
legal aid, the rule on indigent litigants will be applied.

- Pertinent Rule: A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC (IRR): Re: Rule on the Exemption From the
Payment of Legal Fees of the Clients of the National Committee on Legal Aid and of
the Legal Aid Offices in the Local Chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines:

➢ Section 2. Persons not covered by the Rule. – The following shall be

disqualified from the coverage of this Rule. Nor may they be accepted as
clients by the NCLA and the chapter legal aid offices.

(a) Juridical persons; except in cases covered by developmental legal aid or

public interest causes involving juridical entities which are non-stock, non-
profit organizations, non-governmental organizations and people’s
organizations whose individual members will pass the means test provided
in this Rule; xxxx

- What if the court discovers that the party is not indigent?

Ans. The Court can order execution if the indigent refuses to pay the filing fees. If
still the party refuses to pay, the court may dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 17,
Sec. 3.

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff
fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the
complaint, or to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time, or to
comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed
upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to
the right of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a
 separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the
merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.

- Is there a filing fee in filing a supplemental pleading?

- Case: Do-All Metals Industries v. Security Bank Corporation, et.al., G.R. No. 176339
January 10, 2011.
Ans. Yes. Non-payment of the filing fee for the supplemental pleading will not vest the court
jurisdiction as to the supervening event and the court cannot pass judgment thereon.
In this case a supervening event happened that the party concerned has to file a
supplemental pleading.

➢ The RTC acquired jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action from the moment they filed
their original complaint accompanied by the payment of the filing fees due on the
same. The plaintiffs’ non-payment of the additional filing fees due on their
additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over the
case.
➢ Neither could the payment of the filing fee of the supplemental pleading be made as
an after-judgment lien. Lien on the judgment as payment of filing fees applies to
cases where the filing fees were incorrectly assessed or paid or where the court has
discretion to fix the amount of the award. None of these circumstances obtain in this
case.

- Case: Unit Capital v. Consing, G.R. Nos. 175277 & 175285, September 11, 2013:
➢ Indeed, while the Court acknowledges Unicapital, et al.'s apprehension that Consing,
Jr.'s "metered" claim for damages to the tune of around ₱2,000,000.00 per month
may balloon to a rather huge amount by the time that this case is finally disposed of,
still, any amount that may by then fall due shall be subject to assessment and
any additional fees determined shall constitute as a lien against the judgment
as explicitly provided under Section 2, Rule 141 of the Rules.
➢ In other words, if the claim for damages may balloon to a higher amount until the
case is disposed of, and because the amount of filing fees is based on the claim for
damages, the filing fees will also be adjusted accordingly as the case is finally
disposed of. The balance on the filing fees shall constitute as a lien against the
judgment.

Primary Jurisdiction
- VERY IMPORTANT CASE: Nesperos v. Nesperos
➢ This is a case originally for annulment of documents and damages. The
complainants aimed to annul the CLOA over a piece of land issued in favor of the
respondents alleging fraud in the issuance of the same. The case was first filed with
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) then elevated to the Department of
 Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Regional Adjudicator; to the DARAB
to the CA then to the Supreme Court.
➢ The complaint should have been lodged with the Office of the DAR Secretary and not
with the DARAB. Section 1, Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure, the rule
in force at the time of the filing of the complaint by petitioners in 2001, provides:

SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Board
shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No.
6657, xxxxxx

➢ The Supreme Court held that when the SUPREME COURT has no jurisdiction over a
complaint and an administrative agency has PRIMARY JURISDICTION over it, the SC
has to remand back the case to the proper court and not to dismiss it. SUPREME
COURT lang pwedeng gumawa nito but not CA and RTC.
➢ This is different where the case is elevated before a court lower than the Supreme
Court. As a rule, when the RTC or CA for instance has no jurisdiction to a complaint
filed before/appealed before it, these courts cannot refer the case to the court of
proper jurisdiction. Its duty is simply to dismiss the case, nothing more.

➢ What will happen to the matters already taken up by the previous lower courts, like
in the case of Nesperos v. Nesperos, matters taken up by the DARAB Regional
Adjudicator, DARAB and CA??
Ans. These will not be put into waste. The proper quasi-judicial agency will continue
from where the case ended and there is no need for it to start the case all over again.
This is the effect of primary jurisdiction.

CASE: Ybiosa v. Drilon

Who has jurisdiction over the cancellation of a CLOA, is it the DARAB, DAR or the RTC?

DARAB - For the DARAB to have jurisdiction there must be an agrarian dispute and a tenurial
arrangement. (tenant-landlord relationship) (tenancy relationship)
DAR - if the action is merely the cancellation of the title even if the land is under CARP or the title is
CLOA, the RTC has no jurisdiction but the DAR.

**This case is an illustration of a primary jurisdiction.

Based sa Rules ng DARAB - It also has jurisdiction over cancellation of CLOA. Same goes with the
Rules of DAR, so when is it within DAR, when is the case within DARAB’s jurisdiction??
The Court agrees with the petitioners' contention that, under Section 2(f), Rule II of the DARAB
Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and
cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA. However, for the DARAB to have
jurisdiction in such cases, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants
to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance,
correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of
agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or
lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not of the DARAB.

In this case, the allegations in the complaint negate the existence of an agrarian dispute
among the parties, thus, the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction.

The subject property in this case was never under tenurial arrangement. It was originally an
unregistered land, meaning it is public land owned by the State. This is underscored by the fact that
petitioners were able to obtain a CLOA over the subject property - and, later on, an original
certificate of title in their favor.

Determination of the nature of the action

1. Case: Specified Contractors Development, Inc. v. POBOCAN, G.R. No. 212472, January 11,
2018.
➢ The parties were disputing if the nature of the action is real or action incapable of
pecuniary estimation - specific performance.
➢ Architect Olonan agreed to give Jose Pobocan one unit for every building Specified
Contractors were able to construct as part of Pobocan’s compensation package to
entice him to stay with the company. Later on, Pobocan requested the execution of
Deeds of Assignment or Deeds of Sale over the subject units in his favor. His demand
was unheeded, hence he filed a complaint to order Olonan to execute and deliver
the appropriate deeds of conveyance and to pay moral and exemplary damages, as
well as attorney's fees.
➢ In his complaint, Pobocan claimed that Olonan et.al. promised to convey to him the
subject units to entice him to stay with their company. From this, Pobocan prayed
that Olonan be compelled to perform their part of the alleged oral agreement. The
objective of the suit is to compel Olonan et.al. to perform an act specifically, to
execute written instruments pursuant to a previous oral contract. Notably, the
respondent does not claim ownership of, nor title to, the subject properties.
➢ Nonetheless, Pobocan lost the case because the action was already prescribed. An
action for oral contracts shall be commenced within years from the time the rights
accrued.
➢ Bakit yung specific performance dito was treated as personal action? Bakit yung
reckoning period ng prescription ay from the agreement and not from the time
Pobocan demanded? ANS: IT WAS AN ORAL CONTRACT
2. Do courts have jurisdiction over a presumptive death - Relate this to Rule 131, Sec. 2
(w), Evidence

CASE: Matias v. Republic -

➢ SHORT FACTS.
Estrellita Tadco-Matias filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of
presumptive death of her husband, Wifredo N. Matias, who was then a member of the
Philippine Constabulary. According to the service record of Wilfredo issued by the National
Police Commission, Wilfredo was already declared missing since 1979.

➢ HELD:
The RTC erred in declaring the Presumptive Death of Wilfredo under Article 41 of the FC;
Petitioner's Petition for the Declaration of Presumptive Death is not based on Article 41 of
the FC, but on the Civil Code either under Article 390 or Article 391.

Art. 41, FC - declaration of presumptive death is for purposes of remarriage.

Art. 390 or 391, NCC - declaration of presumptive death is for Articles 390 and 391 is for
any civil purpose. (Usually, for the opening of one’s succession. Since in this case, the wife is
claiming the benefits, this is part of Wilfredo’s estate that can be inherited.)

Hence, since the petition filed by the petitioner merely seeks the declaration of presumptive
death of Wilfredo under the Civil Code, the RTC should have dismissed such petition
outright. This is because, in our jurisdiction, a petition whose sole objective is to have a
person declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code is not regarded as a valid suit and
no court has any authority to take cognizance of the same.

- Neither is there a prayer for the final determination of his right or status or for the
ascertainment of particular fact, for the petition does not pray for the declaration
that the petitioner 's husband us dead, but merely asks for a declaration that he be
presumed dead because he had been unheard from in seven years.
- Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence that only
allow a court or a tribunal to presume that a person is dead upon the establishment
of certain facts.
- Since Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence, an
action brought exclusively to declare a person presumptively dead under either of
the said articles actually presents no actual controversy that a court could decide. In
such action, there would be no actual rights to be enforces, no wrong to be remedied
nor any status to be established.
- A judicial pronouncement declaring a person presumptively dead under Article 390
or Article 391 of the Civil Code would never really become "final" as the same only
confirms the existence of a prima facie or disputable presumption. The function of a
 court to render decisions that is supposed to be final and binding between litigants
is thereby compromised.
- Moreover, a court action to declare a person presumptively dead under Articles 390
and 391 of the Civil Code would be unnecessary. The presumption in the said
articles is already established by law.
- It must be stressed that the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the
Civil Code arises by operation of law, without need of a court declaration, once the
factual conditions mentioned in the said articles are established.

COMMENTS KO:
1. UnderArt. 41 of the FC however, the declaration of one’s presumptive death can be a valid
subject of an action because the judicial declaration of the same entitles the present spouse
of a RIGHT to remarry.
2. The lecturer said Articles 390 and 391 as echoed in Rule 31 (Evidence) is merely an
evidentiary rule. A court has no jurisdiction to rule on this presumption as the court only
rule based on facts and after examining facts. - Hindi ba may facts naman dito na pwede
ipresent and determine ang court like kelan nawala, saan huling nakita, ilang taon ng
missing, si wife ba talaga ang legal heir, etc. It will also improve petitioner’s status because
after judicial declaration that the person is dead, she then has the RIGHT to claim the
benefits. Besides, the same facts using the same evidentiary rule din naman ang gagawin ng
AFP as per the guidelines issued by the Court.
3. Hindi ba considered for opening of Wilfredo’s succession kasi death benefits and kini-claim
ni wife?

Special Civil Action of Certiorari under Rule 65 - Always relate this with Rule 46
- CASE: Lim v. Lim, G.R. No. 214163, July 1, 2019.
➢ Delayed submission of a Judicial Affidavit. Under the rule a JA shall be submitted at
least 5 days before the scheduled hearing.

JAR, Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct

testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party,
personally or by licensed courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial or
preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing.. Xxxx

➢ SHORT FACTS: The MTC allowed the belated submission of the JA of the
Prosecution. Because of this, Edwin filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. He contended that the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed
the belated filing of the Judicial Affidavits. In its Comment, the prosecution argued
 that the Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over them since no
summons had been served upon Ronald and the Office of the Solicitor General.
➢ Is there a need to serve summons in a R65 petition? (Grabe yung prose dito,
nakalimutan na ang rules!)
Ans. No. Under Rule 46, the very least that the court may do is issue a Resolution
and require the respondent to file his comment. Unlike in case of summons, where
the defendant has to file his Answer.

Rule 46, Section 4. Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired. — The
court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on
him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by
his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.

Section 5. Action by the court. — The court may dismiss the petition outright with
specific reasons for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment
on the same within ten (10) days from notice. Only pleadings required by the
court shall be allowed. All other pleadings and papers, may be filed only with leave
of court. (n)

- CASE: So v. PDIC
Which court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the PDIC as a quasi-judicial agency?
Ans. The Court of Appeals and not RTC. The remedy is certiorai under Rule 65 and not Rule
43 because the decision of the PDIC is immediately final and executory. (Rule 64 ang sabe ni
lecturer instead of Rule 43 and hindi niya nabanggit bakit 65 at hindi appeals - kasi nga
immediately executory ang decision ng PDIC, just like NLRC kaya dapat R65 - no plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law).

This is also evident from the charter of PDIC which provides:

Section 22. No court, except the Court of Appeals, shall issue any temporary restraining
order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the Corporation
for any action under this Act. xxx.

TAKE NOTE: If the case appealed from originates from a quasi-judicial agency, appellate
jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeals and not the RTCs. So it is important first to
determine if the agency is quasi-judicial.

The test for determining whether an administrative body is exercising judicial or

merely investigatory functions: adjudication signifies the exercise of the power and
authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties. Hence, if the only
purpose of an investigation is to evaluate the evidence submitted to an agency based on the
facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the agency is not authorized to make a final
 pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is an absence of judicial discretion and
judgment.

Special Civil Action of Certiorari under Rule 65 vs. Rule 5 - Appeal by Petition for Review on
Certiorari
CASE: (NEA) NAtional Electrification Administration v. Maguindanao Electric Cooperative,
Inc., G.R. Nos. 192595-96, April 11, 2018

The NEA has no standing to file a petition for review on certiorari of a CA case nullifying its (NEA’s)
decision for grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The second paragraph of
Section 5 of Rule 65 is clear and unequivocal:
Sec. 5. x x x

Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, the public
respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading
therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, the public respondents shall
be included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed by the
court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein.

- This is the difference in a R45 where the respondents remain to be indispensable or

necessary parties.
- COMMENTS KO: Siyempre pag grinave abuse mo si lower court/judge hindi pwede magfile
ng Answer si judge at ipagtanggol ang decision niya,, hahaha.. This will be chaotic. Besides,
judges are not meant to be infallible so even if their decision is really wrong, they do not
have to explain themselves. Ito talaga yung concept dapat ng JUDICIAL COURTESY, charizzz.
Pwede disciplinary action for gross ignorance of the law, ahehehe..

Writ of Kalikasan
CASE: Osmena v. Capili Garganera
In 2016, under the administration of Mayor Osmeñ a, the City Government sought to temporarily
open the Inayawan landfill. Thus a Writ of Kalikasan was filed by Capili Garganera.

ISSUES:
1. To which court should a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan be filed?
2. Should the 30-day notice requirement under the Clean Air Act and Solid Waste Management
Act for a citizen’s suit be followed in the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan?

HELD:
1. To any of the Division of the CA or the SC.
The writ is an available remedy on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. (Dapat dalawang cities or provinces)

2. No. The 30-day notice requirement will not apply in a Petition for a Writ of Kalikasan.
A writ of kalikasan is a separate and distinct action from the Clean Air Act and Solid Waste
Management Act. A writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy covering environmental
damage of such magnitude that will prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces.

It is designed for a narrow but special purpose: to accord a stronger protection for
environmental rights, aiming, among others, to provide a speedy and effective resolution of a
case involving the violation of one's constitutional right to a healthful and balanced ecology
that transcends political and territorial boundaries, and to address the potentially exponential
nature of large-scale ecological threats. (Kaya nga sa CA or SC agad ang filing because of its
immediacy.)

Ejectment Cases
- Always within the jurisdiction of the MTC regardless of the value of the property or amount
of unpaid rentals.
- CASE: Settlers were ejected from a private land, which according to the MTC was converted
into a public land by reason of laches and tolerance of the owner in using the land as public
road.

The MTC is wrong. The use of a private land by the public does not strip off the private
character of the land. Mere tolerance of the subdivision owner does not convert the land
from being private to public. The land can only become a public road if the LGU acquires the
same either through donation or expropriation.

That it was an ejectment case filed will not negate the above cited rule as a defense. The sole
purpose of an ejectment case is to recover possession over a property.

COMMENTS KO: Ejectment cases are immediately executory but appealable to the RTC and
not a case of R65 unlike the cases of NLRC and PDIC. But take note of the requirements to
stay the execution of the MTC order pending appeal with the RTC.
- Check on the distinction between immediately executory and immediately final and
executory.

Jurisdiction over IP’s cases of the NCIP v. RTC

CASE: Heirs of Tunged v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 231737,
March 06, - 2018
- It involved ancestral land and the case was filed in an RTC sitting as environmental
court.
 - Petitioners are recognized Indigenous People (IP), being members of the Ibaloi
tribe, who are the original settlers in Baguio City and Benguet Province. They filed a
Petition before the RTC for violation of IPRA against the developer, Sta. Lucia Realty
and Development, Inc., et.al. The RTC dismissed the Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. The RTC held that the recognition of the petitioners' rights as IPs is not
the proper subject of an environmental case, as such, it should be threshed out in an
appropriate proceeding governed by IPRA.

ISSUE: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the dispute?

HELD: Yes.

NCIP has jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they
arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. (Meaning, lahat ng parties
involved ay IP’s whether belonging to the same tribe or not.)

The jurisdiction of the NCIP is stated under Section 66 of the IPRA, to wit:

Sec. 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs; Provided, however,
That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted
all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification
shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to
settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a
condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP.

The RTC has jurisdiction if one of the parties is non-IP and the other is IP. This is because
the non-ICC/IP member is neither bound by customary laws as contemplated by the IPRA
nor governed by such council. (Magkaiba kasi ang kultura)

In this case, the allegations in the Complain is not an action for the claim of ownership,
much less, an application for the issuance of CALTs/CADTs, contrary to the court a
quo's findings. In fact, petitioners categorically stated in the said Complaint that their
Petition for the Identification, Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Claim and Issuance
of CALTs is already pending before the NCIP.32

Ultimately, petitioners' cause of action is grounded upon the alleged earthmoving activities
and operations of the respondents within petitioners' ancestral land, which violated and
continue to violate petitioners' environmental rights under the IPRA and PD 1586 as
the said activities were averred to have grave and/or irreparable danger to the
environment, life, and property.

Rule 71 - Indirect Contempt

 - An indirect contempt cannot proceed in the same court where the main action is pending
unless the court a quo directed the consolidation of the main action and indirect contempt.
- An indirect contempt affords notice and opportunity to explain his side for the person
charged unless the judge ignores the plea for indirect contempt in which case, the interested
party may file a separate petition for indirect contempt - verified and docketed for the court
to acquire jurisdiction over it.
- Because an indirect contempt does not involve money, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction -
Medyo iba ito sa nasa rules. As per the rules:

Rule 71, Section 5. Where charge to be filed. — Where the charge for indirect contempt has
been committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank,
or against an officer appointed by it, the charge may be filed with such court.

Where such contempt has been committed against a lower court, the charge may be
filed with the Regional Trial Court of the place in which the lower court is sitting; but
the proceedings may also be instituted in such lower court subject to appeal to the
Regional Trial Court of such place in the same manner as provided in section 11 of this
Rule. (4a; Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998)

Actions based purely on claim for damages Ang gulo ng explanation ni Sir Lecturer - I have to
go back to this
- If the principal action is damages, e.g. by reason of negligence (quasi-delict, I would like to
recover damages) - the threshold amount of 300, 400 will determine jurisdiction (RA 7691)
- If the action is purely for damages - the amount of damages claimed determines jurisdiction.

Rules on Summary Procedure

- FOR PERSONAL ACTIONS
"All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff's
claim does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00) in Metropolitan Manila, exclusive of interest and costs."

Metro Manila = not exceeding 200k

Outside MM = not exceeding 100k
*Settlement of estate is never a summary procedure even though the amount of the estate
falls within these jurisdictional amounts.

➢ Expedited Rules to be effective April 11, 2022.

➢ Answer is to be filed within 10 days.
➢ If the defendant did not file his Answer, the court can still render judgment.
➢ The court may already render judgment in the Preliminary Conference.
➢ 10 days from receipt of Preliminary Conference Order - parties may submit their
position paper and affidavits of witnesses.
 ➢ If lost, MR is a prohibited pleading but this decision is appellable within 15 days.
➢ You need a lawyer here.

Small Claims Cases

- Mas mataas ang jurisdictional amount ng personal actions under small claims cases which
are as follows:
● 300k - MTCs
● 400k - MeTCs

- Response what the defendant has to file not Answer

- From the time of the termination of hearing, the court should render a decision in 24 hours.
- The decision is not appealable. The decision is final, executory and non-appealable. No MR
allowed also, so use Certiorari under R65.
- Civil cases of a criminal case is no longer under the rules of small claims
- Under the Expedited Rules, effective April 11, 2022 the threshold now is now One Million
Pesos (PHP1,000,000.00), regardless of whether the case is filed within or outside Metro
Manila.

Section 5. Applicability. - The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions that are purely
civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or
reimbursement of sum of money.

The claim or demand may be:

(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For liquidated damages arising from contracts;

(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money
claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as The
Local Government Code of 1991.

COMMENTS KO:
1. Small claims cases and cases under summary procedures are both under the
jurisdiction of the first level courts.
2. So if it is a personal action and the amount is 200k or 100k or below - summary
procedure ka muna? If exceeding such amount upto 300k or 400 depending on WON
MTC or MeTC saka ka mag file for small claims???
 3. Ang small claims pala, although personal actions, ay para sa mga utang utang lang
based on these contracts? Pero pag claim of damages siya due to quasi-delict, hindi
siya considered small claim but ordinary civil action cognizable by the proper court
and jurisdictional amount is based on the claim for damages.

4. JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT:
a. Claim is purely for the award of damages - jurisdictional amount is based on
the amount itself claimed as damages.

b. Claim for damages is incidental to the main action - jurisdictional amount is

based on the claim for the main action and claim for damages is not
included in the computation. Hence the threshold amounts of 400k (MM) or
300k (Provinces) for personal actions do not include damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees or costs of litigation.

c. Small claims cases

- Kasama ba amount of damages dun sa jurisdictional amount
1. No - because the main action is to recover a debt and claim
for damages is merely incidental
2. Yes - because Sec. 8 of the Rules for Small Claims, omitted the
phrase “damages of whatever kind” and only says interest
and costs as per RA 7610.
3. Yes if the claimis for liquidated damages and no if not
liquidated damages.

- Kasama ba interest?
1. Yes, the interest is a principal component of the loan if
agreed upon in writing. (Gomez v. Montalban - This is not a
small claims case)
2. No - as per Section 8 of the Rules for Small Claims.
Mag-apply nga ba ang Totality Test dito?
1. A. Small claims - main action consists of recovery of sum of money AND LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES = everything is considered in the computation of jurisdictional amount. (e.g.
amount of unpaid loan + amount of liquidated damages.)

B. Small claims - main action consists of recovery of sum of money and damages EXCEPT
LIQUIDATED = jurisdictional amount is based on the claim for the main action only.
(Lumalabas main action lagi ang small claims)

2. Civil Procedures - Claim for damages is incidental to the main action = jurisdictional
amount is based on the claim for the main action only, and claim for damages, EVEN
LIQUIDATED ONES, is not included in the computation.
Case: G.R. No. 212690 - explaining liquidated damages and damages as an alternative relief.

Jurisdiction v. Venue
- Jurisdiction is conferred by law. It cannot be agreed upon by the parties except in limited
instances, like estoppel in laches
- Venues in civil cases can be agreed upon by the parties.
- Improperly laid venue is not a ground for a motu proprio dismissal. It can be waived if not
properly raised in the Answer as an affirmative defense.
- In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. The case should be filed in the place where the
crime is committed. This is pursuant to the territorial character of penal laws. So venue in
criminal cases cannot be subject of agreement between the parties, unlike venue in civil
cases.

Lupon ng Barangay
- Applies to residents of the same barangay or of the adjoining cities
- Take note of cases where barangay conciliation does not apply: E.g. with prayer for
provisional remedy,
- Ejectment cases, sum of money for small amounts.
- If conciliation in barangay is not successful, they will be give a Certificate to File Action -
This is waivable. The court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio and it can be waived if not
raised as an affirmative defense in the Answer.

PART TWO:
Rule 2 - Ordinary Civil Actions
- What is a civil action
- Ordinary v. special civil action
➢ Ordinary civil action requires a cause of action = ordinary civil action; the most
important is the element of breach
➢ Rule 7, Sec. 3 - (1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation
➢ Huwag paglaruan ang husgado. Huwag pupunta sa court kung walang cause of
action.
➢ No ordinary civil action in CA or SC - not a trier of facts ang SC
➢ PWEDE: 1 suit for single or multiple causes of action
➢ BAWAL: In one suit, you cannot split the cause of action - E.g. Recovery of sum of
money and you filed a case in several courts to recover the loan, the damages, etc.
This is FORUM SHOPPING.
 ➢ Effect of splitting cause of action: Rule 2, Sec. 4 - Litis pendentia or res judicata.
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of - If two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment
upon the merits in anyone is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4)

CASE: Chua v. Metrobank

Forum shopping can be committed in three ways:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the
previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia); (parehong pending - madidissmiss ang isa; could be the most recent one)

(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata);
and (tapos na ang first case -dismiss ang present pending)

(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or
res judicata).

PRAYERS in this case: Annulment of foreclosure sale (+) Recovery of damages based on the
annulment

CASE: Cruz v Tolentino

SHORT FACTS: Alfredo owned a piece of land and died. Purpostedly he executed an SPA authorizing
his wife, Purification to sell the land. The land was sold to Tolentino. Later on, thechildren of
Alfredo filed a case against Tolentino for annulment of titles. Tolentino filed a case against
Purificacion (mother of the heirs and wife of the deceased owner of the disputed property) for
Registration of Deed of Sale of the land, mandamus and damages. Purification eventually died and
substituted by the heirs/children.

HELD: There is a res judicata. There was already a determination made if there is a valid Deed of
Sale. Here, the SC considers not only identical parties but identical issue.

Not all breach is actionable - damnum absque injuria

- There should be a cause of action because there is a breach of a right
- Important: The breach should have resulted in damages
CASE: Cebu Trust vs.???

Joinder of causes of actions

Rule 2, Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative
or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to
the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes
of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5)

- Ordinary and special proceedings cannot be joined

- Joinder of parties
● Pertains only to the same plaintiff and defendant
● If suing multiple parties, the cause of action should arise from the same or series of
transactions
● There is commonality of fact or law

Examples:
1. Sum of money due to breach of contract and recovery of car you borrowed = They can be
joined because these are all considered ordinary civil actions and there is only 1 party
involved.
2. If multiple parties on one side = It should arise on the same transaction.
3. In cases of joint or solidary obligation (Dalawang tao umutang ke Sir) = These can be joined.
4. Totality Test = When the claim is principally for a sum of money, the aggregate amount is
the test of jurisdiction - Take note of the cut off of 7691 and threshold.
E.g. Utang - 300k (due: March 30)
Dagdag utang - 1m (due: April 30 )
Dagdag utang - 1m (due: May 30)

**Pwede hiwa-hiwalay (small claims, summary procedure or sama sama lahat before RTC)

Several claims but pertain to different venue or jurisdiction

Example: a
1st case - sum of money for 300k - MTC
Venue: Plaintiff resides in Manila; defendant resides in Pasay at the option of the plaintiff

2nd case - real action for 50k - RTC

Venue: Pampanga
**The first case will follow the venue of 2nd case - to be tried with the RTC; the rest will
follow the RTC

Misjoinder of cause of action - not a cause for dismissal

Special Civil Actions = Rules 62 -71

 - SPECAs which do not have cause of action except Rule 70.
1. RULE 63 - Declaratory relief = no breach yet; if there is already a breach, the action will be
converted into an ordinary civil action and litigant has to pay filing fee kasi magcclaim ka na
ng damages eee. This is the only SPECA convertible to ordinary action.
2. RULE 62 - Interpleader = no cause of action because there is no breach; no interest or if he
has an interest this is inconsistent with the property held.
3. RULE 64 - Review of decisions of COMELEC and COA = no breach; no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy
4. RULE 65 - Petition for Certiorari (grave abuse of discretion) = no breach; no plain, speedy
and adequate remedy
5. RULE 66 - Quo Warranto = no breach; no breach because the right to bring the action
against usurpation is the state and not an individual private person. Exception: the person
entitled to the office may bring the action.
6. RULE 67 - Expropriation = no breach
7. RULE 68 - Foreclosure = failure to pay the obligation - there is a breach; but if it is viewed as
a consequence of non-compliance, there is no breach.
● How jurisdiction is determined: TWO VIEWS
Lecturer’s submission: Foreclosure is considered a real action
8. RULE 69 - Partition = no breach
9. RULE 70 - EJECTMENT = there is a breach
10. RULE 71 CONTEMPT = not a cause of action; no breach (E.g. forum shopping; false
pleadings)

Provisional Remedies - Take note: Rule 57 -61

- Apply both in ordinary civil action and SPECA
- Ancillary remedy
- Very common: Injunction; Garayblas v. Atienza - Injunction as main action and ancillary
remedy

Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or

refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy
for and as an incident in the main action.35 The Court has distinguished the main action for
injunction from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction, thus:

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of
preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an
independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the
auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue.
Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final
injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional
remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status
quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an
 action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or
until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.

- Certiorari with Injunction

- Quo Warranto with Injunction
- Recovery of personal property with writ or replevin
- Action for Support pendente lite

What is a criminal action

- When there is already a criminal Information filed in court, there is already a criminal
action. From that point on time, the State prosecutes.
- From Complaint to Information

Special Proceedings
- Aims to establish a status or a right
Habeas Corpus
Adoption
Guardianship
Probate of a Will
Settlement of Estate

Non-applicability of Civil Procedures

- Rule 1, Section 4. In what cases not applicable. - These Rules shall not apply to election
cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient.
- Take note: Suppletory application

Liberal Application of the Rules

- Just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases.
- It is not used to disregard the rules but to achieve the ends of justice.
- Under the present rule: Litiguos motions - not mandatory for hearing; the party has to file
his Comments, and this is the mandatory part.

RULE 3 - Parties to Civil Actions

- In counterclaims - the defendant is the plaintiff and the defendant is the original plaintiff
- Real party in interest = Section 2. Parties in interest. - A 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. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
 - Necessary v. Indispensable parties - **Any judgment rendered without the indespensable
parties is null and void.

Necessary - complete relief

Indispensable - The court cannot proceed

Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. - Parties in interest without whom

no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (Indespensable Party)

Section 8. Necessary party. - A necessary party 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.

Indispensable party
Example: Action for cancellation of REM. The mortgagee is an indespensable party. It is not
enough that the register is the only party impleaded.

CASE: Macawadib v. PNP, G.R. No. 186610, July 29, 2013.

The police officer made a correction of the year of his birth to be 10 years younger as
opposed to the PNP’s record. PNP filed an annulment of judgment due to extrinsic fraud.
The

HELD: It is the integrity and correctness of the public records in the custody of the PNP,
National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) which are
involved and which would be affected by any decision rendered in the petition for
correction filed by herein petitioner. The aforementioned government agencies are,
thus, required to be made parties to the proceeding. They are indispensable parties,
without whom no final determination of the case can be had.

If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no
effectiveness.

Example: lien on subdivision

- In an action where one of the homeowners filed to cancel the annotation. They failed to
implead the Homeowner’s Association.
- Remedy if there is a failure to implead an indispensable party: Annulment of judgment.

Failure to implead the indispensable parties during the COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:
1. The court will not dismiss the case outright but ask the parties to implead the
indespensable party.
2. Failure to comply with the order in Number 1, the court will dismiss the case.
Last Example: I sue A, holder of the title and B (tenant), current possessor of the land, to recover
ownership/title of a piece of land.
A = indispensable party
B = necessary party

**depends on the relief sought: recovery of title v. recovery of possession.

Necessary party
Example: A and B both obtained a loan from me. They failed to pay.

Joint obligation = A or B are both necessary parties. I can only recover upto the extent of their share.
In order to be paid fully I need to sue both of them.

Solidary obligation = A or B are both necessary parties. I can sue just 1 of them for a complete relief.

Effects of not impleading a necessary party:

1. Despite court order and I did not comply, the case will not be dismissed but there will be a
waiver of my claim against the necessary party that failed to be impleaded.
2. If there is no court order - I can still proceed against the non-impleaded necessary party.

RULE 3 - Parties to Civil Actions, con’t.

1. Real-party-in-interest v. locus standi

➢ Real-party-in-interest
CASE: De Castro v. JBC - direct personal injury test in relation to judicial review.
CASE: De Castro v. JBC

➢ Locus standi
CASE: Araneta v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, August 26, 1949.
- Locus standi was liberalized such that even if the party does not have a direct substantial
injury, but due to transcendental importance, the party still has standing to sue.
- This eventually evolved to far reaching consequences due to the issues presented before the
court. Example is a taxpayer’s suit - he being a citizen, he has the standing to sue for cases
involving disbursement of public funds.

2. Who can be parties in a case? - Relate this to Rule 14 for the service of Summons
- Natural persons (5)
- juridical entities (Sec. 12)
- Entities authorized by law
 - Non-juridical entities (Sec. 7) = can be sued but cannot sue; can be a defendant (If the
corporation is still in the process of incorporation, it cannot sue yet as a non-juridical entity
because it has no legal existence. Thus, in this case, it has legal capacity but no legal
personality. That’s the difference).
- Foreign private juridical entities (Sec. 14)
- Executor, administrator, guardian

3. Legal capacity to sue or be sued

Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue
or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.

4. Legal capacity to sue v. legal personality to sue

Personality to sue - WON he is the proper party in interest. Do they have the legal personality to
bring the action?

Minors = They can institute the action but they have to be assisted.
Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. - If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the
court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent
or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem

- Supervening incapacity = E.g. he figured in an accident; serious physical illness.

5. Husband and wife

Section 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by
law. = This is the general rule because there is a commonality of interest.

Exceptions:
1. Action against the other spouse
2. Criminal case against the other sposue
3. Involves practice of profession
4. Involves separate property of the other spouse

Section 11. Service upon spouses. - When spouses are sued jointly, service of summons should be
made to each spouse individually. (n)

6. Unwilling co-plaintiff
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can
not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the
complaint.
- He is a necessary party
- Because he is unwilling, he becomes a defendant but no judgment against him will be
imposed.
7. Unknown party
Section 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. - Whenever the identity or name of a
defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, 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.
= We do not use John Doe or Jane Doe. These are used in criminal cases.
= There should be still sufficient description of them to properly bring an action against the correct
party.

8. Substitution of parties - Lahat ay mamatay, ahehehe!

- Covers Secs. 16, 17, 19.
- Tagal na itong hindi natatanong sa Bar.

Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty
(30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for
disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased , without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named
shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a
specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the
deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as
costs. (16)

- Sec. 16 will only apply if the party dies, either plaintiff or defendant.
- Watch out for those actions that cannot be extinguished by reasons of death: E.g. quieting of
title, recovery of title, sum of money, rescission of contract.
- If the nature is extinguished by death: Support, nullify the marriage, specific performance
purely that the defendant can perform, e.g. defendant is a singer that should perform a
concert.
- Specific performance with alternative relief for payment of damages - not extinguished by
death. Payment of damages can be enforced against the estate of the deceased, Rule 87.
- Duty of the counsel:
 1. Informed the court within 30 days the fact of death from the fact thereof, not from
the knowledge of the counsel. Attach the Death Certificate.
2. Inform the court of the legal representatives - the substitutes who will not be
personally liable because the estate will be the one to be liable.
- Duty of the Court:
1. Require the representative to appear before the court.
2. Determine if he is the proper substitute.
3. Issue an order of substitution.

- ESSENCE OF SUBSTITUTION: to satisfy the requirement of due process. This is not

jurisdictional. Case: Lapere v. Barbarona.

- Effects of Improper Substitution: Judgment is null and void.

- CASE:Ambrosio
➢ There are three plaintiffs who are relatives. One of them died. There was a notice of
substitute from the parties but the court failed to order a substitution.
➢ Effects:
1. The decision as to the two alive plaintiffs are valid but the judgment as to the
deceased plaintiff and to parties that will be prejudiced thereby is null and
void.
2. Even if the requirements of substitution under Sec. 16 were not followed, if
the heirs of the deceased or his supposed representatives came forward and
participated in the case the judgment remains valid because the
requirement of due process was satisfied. (SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE).

9. When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and
the defendant dies
Section 20. Action on contractual money claims. - When the action is for recovery of money
arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final
judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not
be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased
person. (20)

- Here, the defendant dies. If the plaintiff dies, Sec. 16 will be applied.
- Section 20 is not substitution. It merely tells us that the action for a sum of money if the
defendant dies, continues until entry of judgment.
- Tuloy ang kaso. The case will continue until judgment.
- Sino ang papalit - The estate or follow Sec. 16.
- Relate this to money judgment, Rule 86 - Claims against Estate.
- BAR Q: The defendant dies and the case was dismissed. Is the dismissal proper?
 Ans. No. Whether Section 16 or 20, there is no dismissal of the case involved unless the
nature of the action is extinguished by death (purely personal to the defendant).

10. Section 17 - Other kinds of Substitution = Napapanahon dahil bago ang administrasyon.

- Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. - When a public
officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or
otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against
his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may
be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a
substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues
or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is
made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given
reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (17).

- Sec. 17 deals with cases against public officers by virtue of their office not on their
personal capacity.
- So buhay ang kaso.
- Requirements of Due Process:
1. The successor adopts or threatens to adopt the action of the predecessor;
2. He notifies the court the need to maintain or continue the action within 30 days
after he takes office or such time as may be granted by the court(for the interest of
the Republic);and
3. The successor shall be given notice and opportunity to be heard.

11. Transfer of Interest

- Section 19. Transfer of interest. - In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be
continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person
to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original
party. (19)

- Sec. 19 applies only when the transferee and transferor are both alive. = Meaning that
the transfer of interest shall be effected by the transferor and the transferee while they are
alive. Otherwise, no transfer of interest can be made upon the death of either party and the
rule of substitution under Sec. 16 will be applied. Nonetheless, for the “supposed transferee”
to be substituted in the place of the deceased party, he should be the proper substitute
contemplated by Rule 16, that is, he is the legal representative of the deceased or the
deceased administrator or executor.
- CASE: Sumaljag v. Literato, G.R. No. 149787, June 18, 2008.
➢ Josefa filed a nullity of deed of sale over a piece of land, against her sister and the
latter’s husband. During the pendency of the case, the land was sold to Judge
 Sumaljag and Josefa died. Sumaljag then moved that he be substituted in the place of
Josefa.
➢ HELD: The request for substitution is denied. While Josefa was alive and there was a
transfer of interest over the property between Josefa and Sumaljag, they could have
effected a transfer of interest under Sec. 19. Upon the death of Josefa, Sec. 19 could
no longer be effected. Neither Sumaljag could substitute Josefa, when Sumlajag is
neither a legal representative (legal heir) of Josefa or Josefa’s executor, as Josefa left
no will, or administrator of her estate.

- Other Remedy: The transferee can also be impleaded as party to the case.
- My question: Can the transferee file a Motion for Intervention??

12. Class suit

- Common or general interest
- 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 is impracticable 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 individual interest.
- COMMON OR GENERAL INTEREST
➢ Interest is Collective
➢ Interest is not severable
➢ There is no diversity of interest.
- Example: 50 employees removed from employment due to pandemic. Is this class suit?
Ans. No. First of all, there is no class suit in labor laws. Second, these employees have
different interests (different positions, salary rate, benefits, tenure, etc.)

- Another example: Individuals who suffered injuries from a vehicular accident

Ans. No class suit. Their interests are diverse (educational background, standing in life,
physical health conditions, life expectancy, etc.) They came from different walks of life.

No standard in terms of numbers. The rules says, “to be sufficiently numerous and
representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all.”

- Example of Common General Interest

➢ Use of right of way of certain residents of a locality.

- Adequacy of representation of the class:

● CASE: MVRS PUBLICATIONS V. ISLAMIC DA'WAH COUNCIL OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003.
 An element of a class suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the
question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, the court must
consider:
(a) whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest
of the other members of the class;
(b) the proportion of those made parties 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.

The rules require that courts must make sure that the persons intervening should
be sufficiently numerous to fully protect the interests of all concerned. In the
present controversy, Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., seeks in effect
to assert the interests not only of the Muslims in the Philippines but of the whole
Muslim world as well. Private respondents obviously lack the sufficiency of numbers
to represent such a global group; neither have they been able to demonstrate the
identity of their interests with those they seek to represent. Unless it can be shown
that there can be a safe guaranty that those absent will be adequately represented
by those present, a class suit, given its magnitude in this instance, would be
unavailing."

● Banda v. Ermita, G.R. No. 166620 : April 20, 2010.

Here, the petition failed to state the number of NPO employees who would be
affected by the assailed Executive Order and who were allegedly represented by
petitioners. It was the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, who pointed out
that there were about 549 employees in the NPO.

The 67 petitioners undeniably comprised a small fraction of the NPO employees

whom they claimed to represent. Subsequently, 32 of the original petitioners
executed an Affidavit of Desistance, while one signed a letter denying ever signing
the petition,ostensibly reducing the number of petitioners to 34. We note that
counsel for the petitioners challenged the validity of the desistance or withdrawal of
some of the petitioners and insinuated that such desistance was due to pressure
from people "close to the seat of power."

Still, even if we were to disregard the affidavit of desistance filed by some of the
petitioners, it is highly doubtful that a sufficient, representative number of NPO
employees have instituted this purported class suit. A perusal of the petition itself
would show that of the 67 petitioners who signed the Verification/Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping, only 20 petitioners were in fact mentioned in the jurat as
having duly subscribed the petition before the notary public. In other words, only 20
petitioners effectively instituted the present case.
Rule 4 - Venue of Actions
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 municipal trial court of the
municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (1)

Section 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other actions may be commenced and tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.

- Place where the action is to be filed - Manila or QC

- This is not jurisdiction =Jurisdiction is MTC or RTC
- Ejectment case is a real action

1. Stipulation limiting the venue

- This applies to all types of actions - real or personal. If there is a valid stipulation
limiting the venue, disregard the venues provided in Rule, 4 even for real actions
where the venue is supposed to be the place where the real property is located.
- Always differentiate this with the rule that jurisdiction can never be subjected to the
agreement of parties.
- In the contract of lease, the parties agree that the action for ejectment will be
instituted in the courts of Manila. Is this a proper stipulation?
Ans. Yes.

Requisites for a valid venue stipulation:

As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence instructs that it must be shown
that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as
"exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other venue," "shall only" preceding the
designation of venue, "to the exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar import, the
stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as
limiting venue to the specified place.

In Pilipino Telephone Corporation v. Tecson, the Court held that an exclusive venue
stipulation is valid and binding, provided that:
(a) the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in nature or in intent; (words of
exclusivity)
(b) it is expressed in writing by the parties thereto; and
(c) it is entered into before the filing of the suit.
 2. Real Actions v. Personal actions = the classification affects:
- Jurisdiction
- Venue
- Filing fees

3. What if there are multiple parties residing in different cities, where is the venue of
the action in a personal action?
Ans. Option of the plaintiff or PRINCIPAL plaintiff or defendant or PRINCIPAL defendant.

Case: MARCOS-ARANETA vs. CA, G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008

SHORT FACTS: Irene Marcos Araneta instituted before the RTC two complaints for conveyance of
shares of stock, accounting and receivership against the Benedicto Group in Batac Ilocos Norte.
Benedicto Group moved to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue as Mrs. Marcos was
not a resident of Ilocos. Mrs. Marcos filed an amended complaint which name other plaintiffs who
are allegedly residents of Batac Ilocos Norte.

HELD: Sec. 2 of Rule 4 indicates quite clearly that when there is more than one plaintiff in a
personal action case, the residences of the principal parties should be the basis for
determining proper venue.

According to the late Justice Jose Y. Feria, "the word 'principal' has been added in the uniform
procedure rule in order to prevent the plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor plaintiff or
defendant as the venue." Eliminate the qualifying term "principal" and the purpose of the Rule
would, to borrow from Justice Regalado, "be defeated where a nominal or formal party is impleaded
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 desirably active participation expected of litigants in a case."

There can be no serious dispute that the real party-in-interest plaintiff is Irene. As self-styled
beneficiary of the disputed trust, she stands to be benefited or entitled to the avails of the present
suit.

4. What if there are several venues agreed upon/stipulated by the parties?

Ans. The most recent venue stipulation prevails. Case of Briones.

5. Words of exclusivity
- Only
- Exclusively
- Shall be filed
- "to the exclusion of the other courts,"

If there are no words of exclusivity, what has been stipulated is just an additional venue for those
venues provided under Rule 4. E.g. BAR Q: It will be instituted in the courts of QC.
 6. If the contract’s validity is questioned, e.g. one of the parties disputed his signature
on the contract saying it was forged.
Ans. The stipulation limiting the venue will not bind the parties.

7. Improperly laid venue not a ground for motu proprio dismissal, motion to dismiss
but an affirmative defense.

8. If the law provides for the venue, stipulation limiting venue is not permitted:
- Venue in taking depositions is in the place where the prospective adverse party
resides.
- Quo Warranto = where any of the respondents reside or where the CA sits??
- Habeas data =
- Probate of a Will = province where the decedent last resides at the time of his death
- Adoption = domestic - where the adopter resides; intercountry - where the adoptee
resides.

9. CASE: Hygienic Packaging v. Nuti-Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 201302, January 23, 2019.
An invoice and purchase order is not a contract. Both parties are claiming for better venues as per
the invoice and purchase order. Still follow the rules on venue as per Rule 4.

The venue for the collection of sum of money case is governed by Rule 4, Section 2 of the Rules of
Court. Unless the parties enter into a written agreement on their preferred venue before an action
is instituted, the plaintiff may commence his or her action before the trial court of the province or
city either where he or she resides, or where the defendant resides. If the party is a corporation,
its residence is the province or city where its principal place of business is situated as
recorded in its Articles of Incorporation.

9. Even if there is a valid venue stipulation, if the cause of action does not arise out of the
contract or same relations, the stipulation will not apply.

Rule 6 - Kinds of Pleadings

- Take note of the definition of a Pleading = written statements of one’s causes of actions and
defenses.
- Complaint - cause of action; Answer - defenses

1. Negative defense v. Affirmative defense

➢ Negative - specific denial of the cause of action
➢ Affirmative - while hypothetically admitting the cause of action will nevertheless bar
recovery
➢ **These are different from specific denial under Rule 8, Sec. 10.
 ➢ In multiple causes of action, it is possible that the defendant will raise both negative
and affirmative defenses.

Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the
pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action.

(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of, a new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless
prevent or bar recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of
limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery,
discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.

Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically,
that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
judgment.

SEC. 10. Specific denial.— A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth
of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the
matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only
a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny
only the remainder. Where defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state,
and this shall have the effect of a denial.

2. COUNTERCLAIMS
➢ Compulsory
a. MTC = within the jurisdictional amount
b. RTC = Sky is the limit
c. No Certificate of Forum Shopping
d. No filing fees
➢ Permissive
a. Leave of court is not needed
b. With filing fees
c. Within the jurisdictional amount of the court - MTC or RTC
➢ Cross claim
a. A claim against a co-party
b. does not require leave of court because this is a claim against and amongst parties in
the case.
c. Requires a filing fee as per Sec. 7, Rule 141
➢ Counter crossclaim
 a. Claim against a party on the same side.
b. E.g. A and B are plaintiffs in the case while X and Y are the defendants. X and Y
interposed a counterclaim against A and B. Later on, X said it was just Y who owed A
and B money.
➢ Counter counterclaim
a. A claim against an original counterclaimant
b. A and B are plaintiffs in the case while X and Y are the defendants. X and Y
interposed a counterclaim against A and B. Later on, A and B interposed a
counterclaim to counter the counterclaim of X and Y.

- The Answer together with the negative and affirmative defenses contain the counterclaims,
cross claims, etc.
- A counterclaim not timely raised is barred, Rule 9 Sec. 2:
Section 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. - A compulsory
counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
- What is your remedy and you may have overlooked to plead your counterclaim?
Ans. File an amended Answer and incorporate your counterclaim.
- Claim for damages, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation form part of your counterclaim.
- The counterclaim before MTCs should be within the jurisdiction of the court.
- If the counterclaim is not within the jurisdiction of the MTC, what is the remedy?

Section 6. Counterclaim. - A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against
an opposing party. (6)

Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. - A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable

by the regular courts of 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
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such 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. A compulsory counterclaim not raised in the
same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by these Rules. (7a)

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. (8a)

Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. - A counterclaim may be asserted

against an original counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
 Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. - A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim
that a defending party has at the time he or she files his or her answer shall be contained therein.
(8a)

Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. - A counterclaim or a cross-claim

which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his or her pleading may, with the
permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading
before judgment. (9a)

Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. - When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim
or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he
or she may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before
judgment.

3. REPLY
- It is not required to be filed as per the amended rules. REASON: All new matters raised in
the Answer are deemed controverted by the Plaintiff.

- What is the remedy of the plaintiff if he wants to meet the new matters raised therein?
Ans. He should file a supplemental or an amended complaint.

- The only instance that a reply is allowed is when the defendant attaches an actionable
document on his Answer. Actionable documents can be in the Complaint and in the Answer
or other pleadings like a counterclaim.

- Related Rule: Rule 10 - Rules in Amended v. Supplemental Pleading - Amendment is allowed

until a responsive pleading is filed, otherwise all amendments will be with leave of court.
- Related Rule: Rule 7 = Due execution of an actionable document. Do not attach the original.
Put the substance in the body of the pleading and attach a copy of the document to pleading.

- Why is there a need to deny the actionable document: There are actionable documents
which are common documents and you do not have issues with it, hence there is no need to
deny it. But if there is a need to deny it based on the grounds under the rules, then do so.
(e.g. peke or forged documents, incorrect dates, witnesses in the documents were not
present in the execution of the documents).

- Rule 8, Sec. 10: How to deny an actionable document? - This is only a denial of a particular
allegation (narrow application) unlike the denial mentioned in negative and affirmative
defenses. 3 WAYS:

1. Denied for being untrue

2. Qualified denial - only a portion is admitted and the rest is denied. (E.g. Yes, we met that day but in
the morning not at night.)
3. Lack of knowledge or information to form a belief - no knowledge at all. You are in a position to say
that you were not there when it happened, hence you have no knowledge at all.

➢ General denial amounts to judicial admission as per Rule 129, Sec. 4, Rules
on Evidence. This is also called a negative pregnant. E.g. I am not so certain
about that; That may or may not be my signature.
➢ A judicial admission need not be proved - Once admitted, it does not need to
be proved that it is genuine, that your signature is not forged, etc. because
of your failure to specifically deny it.
➢ So denial must be specific. Specific denial means categorical as to its
existence, due execution or your participation.

- Related Rule: Rule 11 = Period to file a Reply shall be filed within 15 days.
- No period within which to file a rejoinder. Lecturer said it may follow the 15-day period in
filing a reply.

Sec. 2. An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable
document to the answer.

Section 10. Reply. - 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.

A 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.

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.

Related Rule: Rule 11 = Period in filing a Reply

Section 6. Reply. - A reply, if allowed under Section 10, Rule 6 hereof, may be filed within fifteen
(15) calendar days from service of the pleading responded to.

Related Rule: Rule 7 = Due execution of an actionable document

Section 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense is founded upon a
written instrument, or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section,
the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts; but
the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to
 the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.

Related Rule: Rule 10 = Amendments of Pleadings

Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. - A party may amend his or her pleading once as a
matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any
time within ten (10) calendar days after it is served. (2a)

Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. - Except as provided in the next preceding Section,
substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave shall be refused if it
appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay [or] confer jurisdiction on the
court, or the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be amended. Orders
of the court upon the matters provided in this Section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and
after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.

RULE 8: Specific Denial - How to deny an actionable document or material allegation

Section 10. Specific denial. - A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he or she does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the
matters upon which he or she relies to support his or her denial. Where a defendant desires to deny
only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall
deny only the remainder.

Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
a material averment made to the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of
a denial.

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. - Material averments in a
pleading asserting a claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.

RULE 129:Judicial Admissions

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was made.

4. THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

- With leave of court
- Third party complaint may be a plaintiff or defendant = This is a person who is a stranger to
the case.
- This is done via Motion (Motion to Admit a TP Complaint) and incorporates the TP
Complaint in the Motion. (Rule 15, Sec. 3)
 - Once the court approved the TP complaint but the defendant cannot be located 30 days
after, a separate case should be filed.
- Reasons for denial of TP Complaint:
1. Complainant cannot be located within 30 days - court has no jurisdiction over his
person?? (edi ba siya nagfile nung motion bakit walang jurisdiction?)
2. Raised extraneous matters
3. Different causes of action or controversy which are in any way not related in the
pending action.
- The dismissal of the TP complaint is not in any way res judicata.
- Period to file an Answer to a TP Complaint - 30 days; governed by the same rules in filing an
Answer, Rule 11, Sec.3, 3rd par. Hence, an extension of time to file an Answer in a TP
Complaint is allowed.

RULE 3
Sec. 1. The term plaintiff may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant,
or the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff. The term defendant may refer to the original defending
party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party
defendant.

RULE 15
Section 3. Contents. - Amotion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and the grounds upon
which it is based, and if required by these Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged therein, shall be
accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers.

RULE 11
Sec.3. 3rd par. This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-
claim, amended third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention.

RULE 7 - Parts and Contents of a Pleading

- The amendments now require that upon filing a Complaint and Answer, attached therewith
are the party’s object and documentary evidence, JA’s of the witnesses, summary of the
witnesses testimonies and other documents. (Sec. 6, Rule 7)
- Only those witnesses whose JA’s were attached to the pleading shall be presented during
trial.
- What if the party failed to submit these required documents?
- Ans. Only upon meritorious reasons that the court may allow the presentation of additional
witnesses. A party may also make a reservation of witnesses to be presented during pre-
trial as per Rule 18, Sec. 2.

- Reason for extension of time to file an Answer: To give the defendant time to prepare these
requirements.
 - Relate this to Rule 8, Section 1. = dati ultimate facts lang ang nakalagay sa Complaints and
Answer. Now you have to comply with this requirement.
- Certificate that the counsel files the pleadings with no intent to harass, delay or file a
frivolous suit. Sec.3. +Very Good Amendment.
- Signature: = This should apply in all documents signed by a lawyer in his official capacity.

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:

(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party's claim or defense:
(b) 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. 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; and
(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading.

RULE 11
A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an answer, is prohibited and considered a
mere scrap of paper. The court, however, may allow any other pleading to be filed after the time
fixed by these Rules.

RULE 18
4. Reserve evidence not available at the pre-trial. but only in the following manner;
i. For testimonial evidence, by giving the name or position and the nature of the testimony
of the proposed witness;

ii. For documentary evidence and other object evidence, by giving a particular description of
the evidence.

No reservation shall be allowed if not made in the manner described above

RULE 8
Section 1. In general. - 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 [or her] claim or defense, as the case may be.

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.

Section 3. Signature and address. - (a) Every pleading [and other written submissions to the
court must be signed by the party or counsel representing him or her.
(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read
the pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) 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
jurisprudence, 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 [R]ules: and

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified,
are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this Rule
has been violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the proper office
for disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible
for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and
severally liable for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. The sanction may
include, but shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction; an order to pay a penalty in
court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing
payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses
directly resulting from the violation, including attorney's fees for the filing of the motion for
sanction. The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the client.

VERIFICATION
- Do all pleadings need to be verified? No. Not all initiatory pleadings must be verified. Only
those required by law or the rules need be verified.
- If not verified, case will be dismissed or subject of certiorari.
- Pleadings required to be verified:
1. Complaint with provisional remedies of TRO,attachment, replevin, support
pendente lite
2. Petition for Review to CA - R42
3. Petition for Review to CA from quasi judicial agency - R43
4. Petition for Review to SC - R45
5. Petition for Certiorari - R65
6. Quo warranto
7. All pleadings in ejectment cases
8. Pleadings in ADR Law
9. Appeals to SC of decisions of COA and COMELEC - R64
 - What if the pleading required to be verified is not verified?
Ans. Verification is a matter of form therefore it could be corrected by amending the
pleading or attaching the Verification in the pleading.

- Who signs a verification?

Ans. The client or party complaining.

Other persons authorized to sign the Verification

➢ Client is a Corporation - One appointed by the Corporation through a Board
Resolution approved by the Board. The Resolution shall contain the allegations and
embodied in a secretary’s certificate.
➢ Individual Party - SPA = The allegations must be contained in the SPA

- Signing the Verification means that there results a certificate of truthfulness based on his
personal knowledge (that the allegations therein are true and correct). If the one signed
although he has no personal knowledge, but he is the custodian of the documents, he
certifies that the documents are based on authentic records.
➢ This is more attuned to the exception to the hearsay rule on business record
exception.
➢ Rule 130, Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or
near the time of transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as
prima facie evidence, if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or
in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
- Sa madaling salita, hindi na kailangan yung gumawa/nagprep/accomplished
ng documents ipatawag as witness. The custodian of the documents will be
enough to sign the Verification.

Section 4. Verification. - Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule , pleadings
need not be under oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. 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 be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the
following attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal
knowledge, or based on authentic documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
cost of litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations
in the pleading.

CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

- All initiatory pleadings require a Certificate of Forum Shopping.
- Who will sign it? Ans. The party complaining. Same rules in the Verification for other
persons who will sign the Certificate Against Forum Shopping.
- What if there are several plaintiffs? See case below: Cordillera Global Network v. Paje
- Remedy if failed to attached: refile (dismissal without prejudice)
- False Certificate or Non-Compliance: indirect contempt + administrative & criminal actions
- Wilful and deliberate forum shopping: summary dismissal with prejudice and + direct
contempt wherein you will not be required to be heard.

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:

(a) that he or she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his [or her] knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and
(c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he [or she] shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court
wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

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 be attached to the pleading.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If
the acts of the party or his or her counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping,
the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (5a)

CASE: Cordillera Global Network v. Paje, G.R. No. 215988, April 10, 2019.
SHORT FACTS: Parties applied for TEPO to enjoin SM Corporation from from cutting and/or earth-
balling the 182 Benguet pine and Alnus trees on Luneta Hill.Private respondents SM Prime
Holdings, Inc. and Shopping Center Management Corporation assert that the Petition should be
dismissed outright for its defective Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping.90 It
points out that of the 202 or so claimed petitioners, only 30 actually signed the document. Further,
two (2) of the 30 signatories were not even plaintiffs in either the first or second environmental
case before the Regional Trial Court

ISSUE: WON the failure of around 200 petitioners of the Verification and Certificate against Forum
Shopping will warrant dismissal of the case. (Only 30 petitioners signed the Certificate)

HELD: No. The failure to sign the certificate will not warrant outright dismissal because of
substantial compliance of the petitioners.

In the present case, the signing of the verification by only 11 out of the 59 petitioners already
sufficiently assures the Court that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the
product of the imagination or a matter of speculation; that the pleading is filed in good faith; and
that the signatories are unquestionably real parties-in-interest who undoubtedly have sufficient
knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.

With respect to petitioners' certification against forum shopping, the failure of the other petitioners
to sign as they could no longer be contacted or are no longer interested in pursuing the case need
not merit the outright dismissal of the petition without defeating the administration of justice. The
non-signing petitioners are, however, dropped as parties to the case.

Altres then provided guidelines, as culled from jurisprudence, on low to resolve noncompliance
with the requirement and defective submissions of verification and certification against forum
shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of

defective verification, and non- compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.

2) 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.

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to
swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

4) 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 "special
circumstances or compelling reasons".
5) 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.

6) Finally, 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.

Verification
- Not all plaintiffs are required to sign. There is substantial compliance when one who has
ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs
the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or
are true and correct.
- Failure to comply will not warrant dismissal of the case. The Court may order ist
correction/ amendment.

Certificate against Non-forum shopping

- All parties are required to sign. Those who are unable to sign will be dropped from the case
as parties.

- Exception to Number 1: If there is commonality of interest between the parties.

- Its non-compliance will warrant dismissal of the case. The court CANNOT order its
amendment.

RULE 8 - Manner of Making Allegations in the Pleading

Section 3. Conditions precedent. - In any pleading. a general averment of the performance or
occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.

Capacity -
Defendant’s capacity = State the age, address where he may be served Summons.
Capacity may be contested in the Answer = averments & evidence; If association not yet
incorporated, get a Certificate from SEC that it is not yet duly incorporated.

Minor - he cannot file a suit by himself. He has to be assisted by his parents or guardians.

Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. - In all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent,
knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally. (Paano ka niloko
for fraud, etc.)
Section 6. Judgment. - In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or
quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision
without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it. An authenticated copy of the
judgment or decision shall be attached to the pleading. (There is presumption that the court acted
with jurisdiction)

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Rule 6, Sec. 5(b)
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting
the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery
by him or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.

Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint. specifically, that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.

Rule 8, Sec. 12
Section 12. Affirmative defenses. - (a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in
his or her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the
following grounds:

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 asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.

(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver
thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar
days from the filing of the answer.
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first 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 be resolved by the court within thirty (30) calendar days from the
termination of the summary hearing.
(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration or
petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be among the matters to be raised on
appeal after a judgment on the merits. (n)

Rule 9, Sec. 1
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. - Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that
there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.

Rule 15, Sec. 12

Section 12. Prohibited motions. - The following motions shall not be allowed:

(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:

1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and
3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations.

(b) Motion to hear affirmative defenses;

(c) Motion for reconsideration of the court s action on the affirmative defenses;

Rule 14, Sec. 1

Section 1. Clerk to issue summons. - Unless the complaint is on its face dismissible under Section
1, Rule 9, the court shall. within five (5) calendar days from receipt of the initiatory pleading and
proof of payment of the requisite legal fees, direct the clerk of court to issue the corresponding
summons to the defendants.

Rule 15, Sec. 13

Section 13. Dismissal with prejudice. - Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion
to dismiss or an affirmative defense that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the
statute of limitations: that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff s pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished: or that the claim on which the action is founded is
unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds, shall bar the refiling of the same action
or claim.

&&Motion to Dismiss Rule 16 - was deleted to direct the parties to file an Answer.
All the grounds for a Motion to Dismiss can also be raised as affirmative defenses.

NOTES:
 ● All of the original grounds for a Motion to Dismiss are now affirmative defenses.
● Affirmative defenses will also lead to dismissal of the case just like a Motion to Dismiss.
● Condition precedents:
1. Parties are members of the family who did not try amicable settlement
2. Barangay conciliation
3. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies

● Affirmative defense are waivable except the four grounds for a Motion to Dismiss =
prescription, res judicata, litis pendentia and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
● No need to file a Motion to set the hearing for affirmative defenses. This is a Prohibited
Pleading. You could make a manifestation that the 30-day period has lapsed. It is the duty of
the court to resolve the affirmative defenses within 30 days.
● Where there is a hearing for affirmative defenses: fraud, statute of limitations, release,
payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy,
and any other matter. (that will bar recovery) = Can the party file for a Motion to hear these
affirmative defenses if the court did not conduct a hearing; how to reconcile this with the
rule that a Motion to hear affirmative defenses is a prohibited pleading?? Ans. No. Discretion
of the court.
● The 30-day of the court to render a decision in affirmative defenses that require a summary
hearing commences at the end of the hearing.
● It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case which relief/remedy should be
resorted to.

● What are the remedies available to an action taken by the court in an affirmative defenses?

I. Standpoint of Plaintiff - The affirmative defenses are granted and the case will be
dismissed.
1. Affirmative defenses under Rule 8, Sec. 12:
- lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, improper venue, lack of
capacity to sue, non-compliance with a condition precedent, no cause of
action
a. Refile - These irregularities can be cured by the plaintiff, hence he
can refile the case.
b. Certiorari- R65
c. IMPORTANT: MR is not an available remedy in an action taken for
affirmative defenses, either denying or granting the same.

2. Affirmative defenses under Rule 15, Sec. 13:

- payment,waiver, abandonment, unenforceable under statute of frauds
a. Appeal
b. IMPORTANT: MR is not an available remedy in an action taken for
affirmative defenses, either denying or granting the same.
 ➢ Section 13. Dismissal with prejudice. - Subject to the right of appeal, an
order granting a motion to dismiss or an affirmative defense that the cause
of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations: that
the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished: or that the claim on which
the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of
frauds, shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim.

II. Standpoint of defendant - The affirmative defenses are denied and the case will proceed
to pretrial and trial.
a. Cannot be a subject to a MR, appeal or certiorari.
b. But these can be raised in appeal = You have to wait until judgment is rendered and
appeal the judgment.
c. IMPORTANT: MR is not an available remedy in an action taken for affirmative
defenses, either denying or granting the same.

➢ (e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be
among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits.
➢ Section 12. Prohibited motions. - The following motions shall not be allowed: (c)
Motion for reconsideration of the court s action on the affirmative defenses;

● Motion to Dismiss - Rule 9, Sec.1., Rule 15, Sec. 12

➢ The period to file an Answer is the same period to file a Motion to Dismiss.
➢ The filing of Motion to Dismiss, the reglamentary period to file an Answer is
interrupted so that the party who has not filed an Answer will not be placed in
default.
➢ How many days more to file an Answer?
Rule 22, Sec. 2. = Maiinterrupt lang pero hindi marere-fresh yung 30 days.

Section 1. How to compute time. - In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed
by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or
event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date
of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday,
a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the
next working day.

Section 2. Effect of interruption. - Should an act be done which effectively interrupts the
running of the period, the allowable period after such interruption shall start to run on the
day after notice of the cessation of the cause thereof.
 ➢ The grounds for a Motion to Dismiss are not waivable. Thus these can be raised at any stage
of the proceedings even after filing an Answer.

➢ Remedies in a motion to dismiss due to subject matter jurisdiction:

1. Standpoint of Defendant (denied motion to dismiss)
- MR
- Certiorari
➢ A denied motion to dismiss is not adjudication on the merits. The case will
continue, hence it is an interlocutory order that cannot be appealed from
under Rule 41, Sec. 1.

2. Standpoint of Plaintiff (granted motion to dismiss)

- Filing the case before the court of proper jurisdiction (if indeed the court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction)
- File an MR
- Certiorari
➢ A granted motion to dismiss is dismissal without prejudice which cannot be
appealed from under Rule 41, Sec. 1.
RULE 41, Sec. 1

No appeal may be taken from:

(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgement;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the
ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the
court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.

In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
action as provided in Rule 65. (As amended by A.M No. 07-7-12-SC, December 1, 2007.)

➢ Remedies in a motion to dismiss due to litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription:
- The remedy is Appeal because it something that the Plaintiff cannot refile.
- He can also file an MR..
- This is under Rule 15, Sec. 13:
Section 13. Dismissal with prejudice. - Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a motion
to dismiss or an affirmative defense that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the
statute of limitations: that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff s pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished: or that the claim on which the action is founded is
unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds, shall bar the refiling of the same action
or claim.

Rule 9 - Effect of Failure to Plead

Section 3. Default; declaration of. - 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, and
proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to
render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his or her pleading may warrant, unless the
court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be
delegated to the clerk of court.

(a) Effect of order of default. - A party in default shall be entitled to notices of subsequent
proceedings but shall not to take part in the trial.

(b) Relief from order of default. - A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof
and before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing
that his or her failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and
that he or she has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may be set aside on such
terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice.

(c) Effect of partial default. - When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action
against several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall
try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence
presented.

(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. - A judgment rendered against a party in default shall neither
exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.

(e) Where no defaults allowed. - If the defending party in action for annulment or declaration of
nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the Solicitor General
or his or her deputized public prosecutor, to investigate whether or not a collusion between the
parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the
evidence submitted is not fabricated.

Notes:
● A copy of the complaint and Summons are served to the defendant by the process server of
the Court. It is through this process that the defendant became aware of the complaint
against him and the need for him to file an Answer.
● If no Answer is filed within 30 days from receipt of the Summons, upon motion of the
plaintiff, the court may declare the defendant in default.
● If there is failure to serve summons or improper service of summons - The 30 day period for
the defendant to file his Answer will not run.
➢ Plaintiff may assists the sheriff to serve
➢ The court may authorize the representative of the plaintiff to serve the summons if
the defendant is outside the Philippines.

● Proof of failure to file an Answer - In filing a Motion to Declare Defendant in default the
proof of failure to file an answer is to be shown by the plaintiff. This failure can be proved
by the proof of proper service of summons. (Malalaman na ni Plaintiff na tumatakbo na ang
period to file an Answer)
- It is the duty of the sheriff to give the plaintiff a copy of his return so the plaintiff is
made aware that the Summons has been received by the defendant, Rule 14, Sec. 20.
- Rule 14, Section 20. Return. - Within thirty (30) calendar days from issuance of
summons by the clerk of court and receipt thereof, the sheriff or process server, or
person authorized by the court, shall complete its service. Within five (5) calendar
days from service of summons, the server shall file with the court and serve a copy
of the return to the plaintiff's counsel. personally, by registered mail. or by
electronic means authorized by the Rules.
- Proof of failure depends on the manner of service of summons. Service of summons
can be done personally, via registered mail, electronically, by publication, etc.

● Effect of Order of Default

- The defendant can no longer participate in the proceedings but he is entitled to
notices.
- The plaintiff can present evidence ex parte.
- The court can already render judgment as the pleadings may warrant.

● Reliefs from Order of default (attorney remedyuhan mo!)

1. Motion to set aside/ lift the order of default on the ground of FAME
➢ FAME - Motion for new trial, Petition for Relief from judgment under oath
➢ Why under oath? - To avoid deceiving/ misleading the court. Madali lang
mag-imbento ng dahilan so under oath, under pain of perjury
➢ Show that you have a meritorious defense - Affidavit of merit or explain to
the court that you have meritorious defense attached to the motion or better
yet attached your Answer for the court to know your defenses.
➢ Extrinsic fraud - annulment of judgment (Rule 47)
➢ Fraud - extrinsic fraud - a fraud that prevented you from participating in the
proceedings or your day in court.

● Partial default
- Happens in a situation where there are multiple defendants and not all of them filed
an Answer.
 - Can the defendant who filed an Answer be allowed to present evidence ex parte -
No. Because the defendants have a common cause of action hence those who filed
their Answers still has to present their evidence. The court shall try the case against
all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.
In short the presentation of evidence is not ex parte.
- Ex parte presentation of evidence is only allowed when there is 1 defendant and he
failed to file his Answer.
- Check if there is a common cause of action against the defendants, e.g. sum of money
against three defendants under 1 promissory note.
- Different causes of action: It is possible for an ex parte presentation of evidence -
Rule 3, Sec. 6 = joinder of parties is only allowed if they all arise from the same or
series of transactions.
➢ Unless the cause of action arises from a common law but may be different
acts.

● Default judgment
- This happens when the defendant did not file his Answer; did not file motion to lift
the order of default and the case proceeded until judgment.
- Remedy:

➢ Within the period to file an appeal or Motion for New Trial

1. File a Motion for New Trial on the ground of FAME- Not an MR

because the defendant did not present evidence so there is nothing
to reconsider.
2. Appeal the judgment

➢ When the decision became final and executory - after the lapse of period to
appeal. The period is 6 months from entry of judgment but within 60 days
after petitioner learns of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set
aside. (6-60)
1. File a Petition for Relief from Judgment - if the decision became final
and executory.

CASE: Lina v. CA -
a) The defendant in default may, at any time after discovery thereof and before judgment, file a
motion, under oath, to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was
due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect, and that he has a meritorious defense; (Sec. 3,
Rule 18)

b) 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 Section 1
(a) of Rule 37;
c) If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he
may file a petition for relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and

d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to
the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule
41)

.. where the judgment rendered by the respondent court is the one sought to be annulled, a petition
for relief, under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court, which is a remedy in the ordinary course of
law, could have been just as plain, adequate and speedy as certiorari. Such a remedy could have
been granted by the respondent court. And if the respondent court still denies the petition, then
petitioner can take an appeal on the order denying the petition, and in the course of such appeal
petitioner can also assail the judgment an the merits upon the ground that it is supported by the
evidence, or it is contrary to law. (p. 25, Rollo)

CASE: Mason v. Columbus Bus, G.R. No. 144662, October 13, 2003.
R65 could also be a remedy in a default judgment
- There was already a default judgment but there was improper service of Summons because
it was served on the unauthorized person to receive it. There was grave abuse of discretion
(R65) and the decision rendered was null and void.
The appellate court pointed out that private respondent was not properly served with summons,
thus it cannot be faulted if it failed to file an Answer. Section 11, 7 Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that service of summons upon domestic private juridical entity shall be made
through its president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-
house counsel. Since service upon private respondent was made through a certain Ayreen Rejalde, a
mere filing clerk in private respondent’s office, as evidenced by the latter’s employment record,
such service cannot be considered valid. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings, including the
order of default, judgment by default and its execution, were also invalid because the trial court did
not acquire jurisdiction over private respondent. Besides, judgments by default are not favored,
especially so when there is a prima facie showing that the defaulting party has a meritorious
defense, which in this case was grounded on the contract of lease sued upon, said the Court of
Appeals.

Rule 10 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Notes:
- Amendment = You want to correct or strike out something or introduce a fact.
- When you’re making an amendment to introduce a fact, the information/fact must be
available at the time of filing the pleading.
- Formal amendment - Can be summarily done by the court.
 - Relate amendment to the principle of cause of action
- Amendment in criminal cases: Reference point: before and after arraignment
- Amendment in criminal cases: Reference point: before and after an Answer was filed
- Amendment v. Supplemental
- Amendment as a matter of right v. Amendment with leave of court
● As a matter of right = before a responsive pleading is served. Lahat pwede mo i-
ammend as to form and substance.
- Even substance can be changed like you feel that there should be a change or
additional cause of action. What matter is there is a cause of action at the
time of filing.
- Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. - A party may amend his [or her]
pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive
pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10)
calendar days after it is served.

● With leave of court

- This is discretionary on the part of the court.
- Substantial amendment is allowed even if it means there will be changes on
the cause of action, e.g. from sum of money to specific performance,etc..
What matters is there is a cause of action at the time of filing of the
Complaint.
- Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. - Except as provided in the next
preceding Section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of
court. But such leave shall be refused if it appears to the court that the
motion was made with intent to delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or
the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be
amended. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this Section shall
be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party,
and an opportunity to be heard.

CASE: Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping, G.R. No. 157479, November 24, 2010.
The shareholders wanted to exercise their appraisal rights however the corporation refused to ay
so they sued it for collection of sum of money with damages. However at the time of the filing of
action, the corporation has no unrestricted retained earnings.

HELD: The petitioner’s right to payment had not yet accrued when they filed their Complaint albeit
their appraisal right already existed.

Before an action can properly be commenced all the essential elements of the cause of action must
be in existence, that is, the cause of action must be complete. All valid conditions precedent to the
institution of the particular action, 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.

A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured by an amended or
supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of
the action.

● No amendment needed to confer evidence

In relation to Rule 128, Sec. 1 - Evidence is the means to ascertain, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
- Ideally: Allegations supported by evidence
- It is possible that what was alleged is different from what was proven - Do I need to
amend my allegations?
Ans. No. The judgment should conform to the evidence because that was what was
proven in the court. The judgment does not necessarily has to conform with the
allegations for as long as the judgment is within the jurisdiction of the court. In such
a case, the pleading is DEEMED AMENDED. WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT WAS
PROVEN!

Section 5. No amendment necessary to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. -

When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties,
they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. No amendment of
such pleadings deemed amended is necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence.

● Supplemental Pleadings
Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. - Upon motion of a party, the court may, upon
reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him or her to serve a
supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have
happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may
plead thereto within ten (10) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
supplemental pleading.

- There can be supplemental Complaint, Answer, Reply - if there is an actionable

document attached to the Answer.
- Supplemental Petition for Certiorari.
- Rule 11, Sec. 7 - applies to Supplemental COMPLAINT for all other supplemental
pleading, follow Rule 10 Sec. 6

Rle 11, Section 7. Answer to supplemental complaint. - A supplemental complaint may be

answered within twenty (20) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a
different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the
supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
 - Effects of Amendment:
1. Amended Complaint superseded the prior pleading
2. Admission and or defenses in the prior pleading can be used and offered
against the pleader. E.g. in the cross examination
3. Defenses not raised in the Amended pleading are considered waived.

● Amendment in criminal cases - balikan ko ito (Last video for Day 1)

- Rule 110, Sec. 4
- Downgrade the offense
- Before plea
- Substitution of Criminal Case
- When the accused dies - substitution for claims not arising from delict / independent civil
actions

Rule 11 - When to file a responsive pleading

- CASE: Javaluyas Enterprises - MR cannot be extended
- Foreign juridical entities can file an Answer within a period of 60 days.
- Answer to amended complaint as a matter of right - 30 days
- Answer to amended complaint with leave of court - 15 days
- Answer to a counterclaim - 20 days
- Reply - 15 days
- Rejoinder - silent (Use the period for Reply)
- Bill of Particulars - same period to file an Answer, 30 days

A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an answer, is prohibited and considered a
mere scrap of paper. The court, however, may allow any other pleading to be filed after the time
fixed by these Rules.

(f) Motion for postponement intended for delay, except if it is based on acts of God, force
majeure or physical inability of the witness to appear and testify. If the motion is granted
based on such exceptions, the moving party shall be warned that the presentation of its evidence
must still be terminated on the dates previously agreed upon.

A motion for postponement, whether written or oral shall at all times, be accompanied by the
original official receipt from the office of the clerk of court evidencing payment of the
postponement fee under Section 21 (b), Rule 14 to be submitted either at the time of the filing of
said motion or not later than the next hearing date. The clerk of court shall not accept the motion
unless accompanied by the original receipt.

Rule 15,S ec. 12. (d) Prohibited Motions:

(d) Motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or injunction issued by a
higher court;
- A proceeding can only be suspended via a TRO or injunctive relief

Rule 12 -Bill of Particulars

- Cannot be motu proprio done by the court.
- Only upon motion of the defendant. It is a litigious motion and it tolls the running of the
prescriptive period to file an Answer.
- Purpose: Such motion shall point out the defects complained of, the paragraphs wherein
they are contained, and the details desired.
- By jurisprudence: Bill of Particulars can no longer be filed after once an Answer has
already been filed. Hence, instead of filing an Answer, the defendant may file for a Bill of
Particulars if he needs to clarify some matters in the complaint in order for him to come up
with intelligible defenses.
- In relation to them Motion to Dismiss -failure to state a cause of action v. Now affirmative
defense - That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action.
- This is not a mandatory pleading. It is upto the lawyer of the counsel.

PROCESS:
1. Motion of the defendant to be made:
a. within 30 days from date of service of Summons
b. Within 10 days from the date of service of reply
2. The Motion tolls the running of the prescriptive period to file an Answer
3. Plaintiff will comment within 5 days from notice (because it is a litigious motion as
per Rule 15)
4. The court has to resolve the litigious motion within a period of 15 days (Rule 15)
5. If granted, the Plaintiff has to comply with the order within 10 days from service of
order.

● A granted motion for a Bill of Particular:

1. The court may require the amendment of the complaint

2. The court may require the party to submit a Bill of Particular - The plaintiff will now
address each defect and supply the information.
3. The plaintiff may also file an MR then Certiorari - R65

● A denied motion for a Bill of Particular:

1. The defendant has to file his Answer
2. The defendant may also file and MR then Certiorari - R65

● Period to file an Answer

 ➢ Section 5. Stay of period to file responsive pleading. - After service of the bill of
particulars or of a more definite pleading, or after notice of denial of his or her
motion, the moving party may file his or her responsive pleading within the period
to which he or she was entitled at the time of filing his or her motion, which shall
not be less than five (5) calendar days in any event.

1. If you file the MBP on the last day to file an Answer, you will still have 5days to file your
Answer if denied.
2. If filed on the 15th day to file an Answer - you have the remainder of the 30 days including
the day you file the Motion for a Bill of Particulars. (the act that cause the interruption is not
counted - Rule 22, Sec. 2)

Rule 22, Section 2. Effect of interruption. - Should an act be done which effectively
interrupts the running of the period, the allowable period after such interruption shall start
to run on the day after notice of the cessation of the cause thereof.

The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be excluded in the computation of the
period. (2)
Example:
May 1- Summons
May 31 - Last day of filing an Answer
May 15 - Motion for a Bill of Particulars
From May 15 - 31 = 16 days + 1 day for the day you file the Motion for a Bill of Particulars =
17 days

➢ 17 days to file an Answer if the MBP is denied.

Trivia: The thinking in 2019 was to delete this provision. All pleadings now have JA’s, attachments
for evidence. Pleadings which are poorly crafted.

BAR Q: Can a Motion for a Bill of Particulars be denied outright?

Ans. Yes. Deny or grant outright.
➢ Section 2. Action by the court. - Upon the filing of the motion, the clerk of court must
immediately bring it to the attention of the court, which may either deny or grant it
outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be heard.

NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE PLAINTIFF

1. The court may strike out the pleading or portion thereof;
2. The court may dismiss the case.

➢ Section 4. Effect of non-compliance. - If the order is not obeyed, or in case of insufficient

compliance therewith, the court may order the striking out of the pleading or the
 portions thereof to which the order was directed[,]or make such other order as it deems
just.

➢ Rule 17, Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. - If, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the
complaint, or to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time, or to
comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed
upon motion of the defendant or upon the court s own motion, without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a separate
action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court. (3a)

NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE DEFENDANT

1. Upon motion of the Plaintiff, the defendant will be declared in default if he did not file an
Answer.

CASE: Virata v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 86926 October 15, 1991.

If petitioners perceive some ambiguity or vagueness therein, the remedy is not a motion to dismiss.
An action should not be dismissed upon a mere ambiguity, indefiniteness or uncertainty, for these
are not grounds for a motion to dismiss, but rather for a bill of particulars.

Bill of Particulars in Criminal Case - Rule 116, Sec. 9

Section 9. Bill of particulars. — The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of
particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the
alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

➢ Rule 116 deals with arraignment and plea

➢ Before the Information could be read against the accused, he can tell the court that the
Information is defective.
➢ This is also not mandatory in criminal cases.
➢ Effects of Motion for Bill of Particulars: suspension of arraignment in relation to Rule 11,
Sec. 11 - Suspension of arraignment in three instances: unsound mind, Petition for Review
with the DOJ & prejudicial question.
➢ This is under meritorious motions - in Guidelines of Mandatory Continuous Trial
➢ Another example that suspends arraignment - Motion to Quash before plea. Under the
Guidelines of Mandatory Continuous Trial the only grounds for a Motion to Quash are those
under Rule 117, otherwise the motion will be denied outright.

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law;

(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
justification; and

(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent.