1

RULE 6 PLEADINGS(GENRULE: VERIFIED)
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and
defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
(kelangan ng allegations and evidence or else judge will not grant it)
Ultimate Facts- Principal, determinate and constitutive facts upon the
existence of which, the entire cause of action rests
Evidentiary Facts- Details or probative matters or particulars of evidence by
which the material facts or elements are established.
2024 notes: Documents attached to the pleadings are parts of the latter,such
that if they are admitted ,there is no need to introduce them in evidence.
2024 notes: relief prayed for in the complaint is not a part of cause of action
since plaintiff is entitled to as much relief as to the facts warrant although
they are not specifically demanded.
Difference between Counterclaims filed in the Municipal Trial Court /
Metropolitan Trial Court and in the Regional Trial Court:
A counterclaim filed in the Municipal Trial Court or in the Metropolitan Trial
Court must be within the court’s jurisdiction both as to the nature and to the
amount of the claim. (Sec. 7, Rule 6). A counterclaim filed in the RTC may be
deemed compulsory regardless of the amount, but it must be within its jurisdiction
as to nature – i.e., the RTC cannot try an unlawful detainer case as a counterclaim,
but it may take cognizance of a counterclaim involving an amount below its
jurisdictional threshold. (Sec. 7, Rule 6).
Conflict between allegations of the Complaint and the documents attached
thereto:
Court should not dismiss complaint. Defendant should be made to answer the
same as to establish an issue and an opportunity be given to the plaintiff to
reconcile any apparent conflict between the allegations in the complaint and the
document attached to support the same and to give defendant ample opportunity to
refute and to show that said conflict is real, material and decisive.

2024 notes: motion and position papers are reliefs, it is not a pleading,so no Effect of Failure to Plead Defenses and Objections
need to verify.
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived. (Sec. 1, Rule 9).

Grounds Not Deemed Waived Failure to plead the following defenses does not
result in their waiver:

i. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;

KINDS OF DEFENSE:
ii. Litis pendentia;
iii. Res judicata
iv. Prescription or Statute of limitations. (Id.).
1. Negative Defense – specific denial of the material fact or facts
alleged in the pleading of the claimant
While not included in the above enumeration under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules
essential to his cause of action.
of Court, the Court has ruled in previous cases that laches need not be specifically
“what other party is saying is not true” pleaded and may be considered by the court on its own initiative in determining
the rights of the parties. (Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas, G.R. No. 157852, Dec. 15,
2. Affirmative defense – admit the allegation but you must present
2010).
new matters that would nevertheless prevent
or bar recovery by other party w/c includes
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO DISMISS:
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal.
a. Fraud Exception: Estoppel by laches
b. Statute of limitations
c. Release
d. Payment
e. Illegality Failure To Plead A Compulsory Counterclaim Or Cross-Claim
f. Statue of frauds
g. Estoppel Effect of Failure to Set Up Counterclaim or Cross-Claim
h. Former recovery
i. Discharge in bankruptcy A compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up at the time a defending
j. Any other matter by way of confession or avoidance. party files his answer, shall be BARRED. (Sec. 2, Rule 9).

Note, however, that this applies to a compulsory counterclaim. A permissive

4BLUE95. Court may conduct a SUMMARY HEARING within 15 days counterclaim will not be barred. (RIANO, 2019, p. 356).
from filing the answer and resolve the same within 30 days from the
termination of the summary hearing

How to Set Up Omitted Counterclaim or Crossclaim

GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO DISMISS:
4blue95. Resolve by the court Motu Propio when the grounds (including An AMENDED ANSWER is proper if the counterclaim or cross claim
prescription) appear from the pleadings or the evidence on record. ALREADY EXISTED at the time the original answer was filed, but due to
oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, it was not set up.

1. Pleading states NO CAUSE OF ACTION A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER is proper if the counterclaim or cross-claim
2. No Jurisdction over
matures or is acquired AFTER the answer is filed.

a. Person of Defendant: Only if Defendant not properly served with

summons
b. Subject Matter: MTQ must be on this ground (if other 2024 . A party who desires to plead a compulsory counterclaim should NOT file a
grounds,then it is waived) motion to dismiss. If he files a motion to dismiss and the complaint is dismissed,
then there will be no chance to invoke the counterclaim. The better move is to file
c. an answer with a counterclaim.
3. Venue IMPROPERLY laid If it is filed concurrently with the main action but in a different proceeding, it
would be abated on the ground of litis pendentia; if filed subsequently, it would
If REAL Action: Raise it on Motion to Dismiss
meet the same fate on the ground of res judicata. (Alba, Jr. v. Malapajo, G.R. No.
If PERSONAL Action: Raise it Anytime 198752, Jan. 13, 2016).
4. Another Action Pending (2nd action dismissed w/o prejudiced to file CC)
5. No LEGAL CAPACITY to sue
6. Res Judicata
7. Condition Precedent for Filing NOT COMPLIED
8. Claim

PLEADINGS ALLOWED BY THE RULES:
The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim,
third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a
claim against him.
An answer may be responded to by a reply
.
1.Complaint
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names
and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
2.Answer
An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses. Answer
may contain a counterclaim or cross claim.
Failure to answer a counterclaim would result in default of the non-answering
party, exceptions:
a.answer would merely repeat the material allegations in the complaint
b.failure to answer a complaint in intervention
c.condemnation proceedings
d.where issues raised in the counterclaim are inseparable from the complaint
e.counterclaim is compulsory
(INCLUDED IN THE COUNTERCLAIM TOPIC)
Q: X files a complaint in the RTC for the recovery of a sum of money with
damages against Y. Y files his answer denying liability under the contract of sale
and praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of
action because the contract of sale was superseded by a contract of lease executed
and signed by X and Y two weeks after the contract of sale was executed. The
contract of lease was attached to the answer. X does not file a reply. What is the
effect of non- filing of a reply? Explain. (2000 Bar)
A: A reply is generally optional. If it is not filed, the new matters alleged in the
answer are deemed controverted (Sec. 10, Rule 6). However, since the contract of
lease attached to the answer is the basis of the defense, by not filing a reply denying
under oath the genuineness and due execution of said contract, the plaintiff is
deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution thereof. (Secs. 7 and 8,
Rule 8; Toribio v. Bidin,G.R. No. L-57821 January 17, 1985)
Q: Mr. H filed a complaint against Mr. I to recover the amount of ₱500,000.00
based on their contract of services. In his answer, Mr. I admitted that he has yet to
pay Mr. H for his services based on their contract but nevertheless, interposed a
counterclaim alleging that Mr. H still owed him rental arrearages for the lease of his
apartment also amounting to ₱500,000.00. It has come to Mr. H's attention that Mr.
I did not pay any filing fees when he filed his answer. As such, Mr. H moved to
dismiss the counterclaim. In response to Mr. H's motion, Mr. I averred that the non-
payment of filing fees was purely based on inadvertence and that the said filing fees
had already been paid as of date, as evinced by the official receipt issued by the
clerk of court therefor.
a. What is the nature of Mr. l's counterclaim? Is the payment of filing fees required
for such counterclaim to prosper? Explain. A: Mr. I’s counterclaim is permissive. It
is permissive because the rental arrearages for the lease of his apartment amounting
to P500,000 does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim which is the recovery in the amount of
P500,000 based on their contract of service. Thus, permissive counterclaim of Mr. I
is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case.
(Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Ogsos, Sr., G.R. No. 221062, October 5, 2016)
b. Should Mr. I's counterclaim be dismissed? Explain. (2019 Bar) A: No. While the
rule in permissive counterclaims is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the
counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees. In this case, Mr. I had
already paid the docket fees as there was already an official receipt. The
counterclaim should not be dismissed for nonpayment of docket fees. Instead, the
docket fees required shall constitute judgment lien on the monetary awards in
respondent’s favor. In Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. Legasto (G.R.
No. 169108, April 18, 2006) citing Sec. 2, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the
Court held that in instances where a litigant’s non-payment of docket fees was
made in good faith and without any intention of defrauding the government, the
clerk of court of the court a quo should be ordered to assess the amount of deficient
docket fees due from such litigant, which will constitute a judgment lien on the
amount awarded on him, and enforce such lien.
2
3.Counterclaim
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing
party
2010 notes: A counterclaim need not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by
opposing party, but may claim relief exceeding the amount or differ in kind from
that sought by opposing party’s claim (claim for litigation expenses may properly
be made in a counterclaim)
2010 notes: RTC may entertain counterclaim below its jurisdiction provided that it
arise out of same transaction or occurrence constitutes subject matter of opposing
party
2022 notes: Counterclaim for unpaid wages is not proper since it is a labor claim,
so it is under NLRC.
2022 notes:A motion to dismiss w/ counterclaim is not sanctioned by the Rules
since a counterclaim is contained in an answer and not in a motion to dismiss. What
defendant should do is to plead the ground of his motion (except improper venue)
as an affirmative defense in his answer, together w/ his counterclaim, and ask for a
preliminary hearing on his affirmative defense as if a motion to dismiss has been
filed.
A counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant. Ex: A filed
action for sum of money against B who filed a counterclaim. A may file
counterclaim against b also.
(BAR) X filed a complaint against Y who filed an answer w/ counterclaim. X did
not answer the counterclaim, hence, he was declared in default. Can he still present
evidence on his cause of action?Yes, since default in counterclaim does not divest
him of a standing in court. This is different from default in main action.
Effect where counterclaim is filed beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC:
a. It need not be set up but if even it is set up ,it is done so only by way of
defense
(Calo v Ajax: A counterclaim, even if otherwise compulsory, but amount
exceeds the jurisdiction of the inferior court, will only be considered
permissive. Hence, fact that it is not set-up in the inferior court will not
bar plaintiff from instituting a separate action to prosecute it).
b. There is a waiver of the excess amount if such counterclaim is filed with a
motion to dismiss instead of an answer. Dismissal of complaint is
dismissal of counterclaim BUT he can file a SEPARATE ACTION FOR
HIS PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM.
c. Rules of jurisdiction in an independent action applies to counterclaims.
 Agustin vs. Bacalang
A court (if MTC) has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a set-off or
counterclaim in excess of its jurisdiction. A counterclaim beyond the
court’s jurisdiction may only be pleaded by way of defense, the purpose of
which is to defeat or weaken the plaintiff’s claim, but NOT to obtain
affirmative relief. MOREOVER, the amount of judgment obtained by the
defendant on appeal cannot exceed the jurisdiction of the court in which
the action began. Since the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
counterclaim in excess of the jurisdictional amount, the appellate court
likewise did not have jurisdiction over the same. In such a case, the award
in excess of the jurisdiction of the trial court is void.
2024 notes:if case is w/ MTC, you cannot raise a counterclaim recognizable by
RTC( but if in RTC, you can raise counterclaim recognizable by MTC—w/c
means you can go lower but not higher)
4blue95: Under RA 7691, MTC and other courts of first level have been vested
with exclusive original jurisdiciton in ALL CIVIL ACTION which involved
Title, Possession of Real Property or any interest therein regardless of interest,
damages ,atty’s fees, litigation expenses and cost (read notes on jurisdiction).
2008 BAR: F brought an action in MTC Pasay against M pleading 2 cause of action. The
first was a demand for recovery of physical possession of a parcel of land in Pasay with
an assessed value of P40,000,the second was a claim for damages of P500T for M’s
unlawful retention of the property. M filed a motion to dismiss on ground that the total
amount is P540,000 w/c is beyond the jurisdiction of MTC. Is M correct?
NO. F has only one cause of action which is the action for recovery of possession of land
against M with damages. MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the land since its assessed
value is P40T (the amount of damages which is P500T is not determinative of the court’s
jurisdiction)

PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM (an initiatory pleading)
Counterclaim is permissive when
a. the subject is FOREIGN but for avoiding multiplicity of suits, defendant is
permitted to raise this action and since it is foreign, then, it’s a separate action or an
initiatory pleading,so docket fee must be paid.
b.it does not require for its adjudication the presence of 3rd parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction
c.it must be w/in jurisdiction of the court wherein the case is pending and is
cognizable by the regular courts. (if beyond, defendant may it not as a
counterclaim but as an affirmative defense)
BAR:A filed an action against B for recovery of piece of land. B in his answer
specifically denied A’s claim and interposed as counterclaim the amount of P150,000
arising from another transaction, consisting of the price of the car he sold and delivered
to A and which the latter failed to pay. Is B’s counterclaim allowed? B’s counterclaim is
a permissive counterclaim in as much as it arises out of another transaction that is the
subject matter of A’s complaint. It is allowed since it is within court’s jurisdiction.
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM (not an initiatory pleading)
is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice
1)arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting
the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and
2)does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
3)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
An example of compulsory counterclaim is that of a banggaan whereby owner of
the cars involved merely alleged the very same facts and evidences ,so no need to
put them in separate trials, dapat isahin lang.
(From Rule 4)A,a resident of Pangasinan sued X a resident of La Union in RTC of
Quezon City for collection of debt of P1 mil. X did not file a motion to dismiss for
improper venue but filed his answer raising therein improper venue as an
affirmative defense. He also filed a counterclaim for P80,000 against A for
Attorney’s fees and expenses for litigation. X moved for a preliminary hearing on
said affirmative defense. For his part ,A filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim
for lack of jurisdiction. Rule on motion to dismiss counterclaim on ground of lack
of jurisdiction?
Motion should be denied. The counterclaim for attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation is a compulsory counterclaim because it necessarily arose out of and is
connected with the complaint. In an action before the RTC, the counterclaim may
be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.(continuation on Rule 16)
2024 notes: there is no docket fee if it is marriage payment and motions,
however, IT IS NOW A RULE THAT PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEE IS
MANDATORY for ALL COUNTERCLAIMS (whether compulsory,
permissive or cross claim) .
(BAR) A filed a complaint for sum of money against B in the amount of P500,000
now pending at the RTC Manila. B filed answer w/ counterclaim of P50T arising
out of the transaction subject matter of the action. How do you treat such
counterclaim?
HELD: It is a compulsory counterclaim even if it is within the inferior’s court’s
jurisdiction since the inferior court is a court of general jurisdiction (look at
meaning of compulsory counterclaim).
4blue95: its Compulsory since defendant is under COMPULSION to raise
such counterclaim otherwise he could not raise it anymore.
(BAR) X filed suit for sum of money against Y in the MTC for P190,000. In his
answer, Y filed a counterclaim in the amount of P600T against X. can MTC award
to Y the amount of P600,000?
HELD: NO, outside of its jurisdiction. It can award only P400t, the excess becomes
an affirmative defense.
4blue95: based on above question,no anwer from plaintiff is necessary.
3
Q: Antique dealer Mercedes borrowed P1,000,000 from antique collector
Benjamin. Mercedes issued a postdated check in the same amount to Benjamin to
cover the debt. On the due date of the check, Benjamin deposited it but it was
dishonored. As despite demands, Mercedes failed to make good the check,
Benjamin filed in January 2009 a complaint for collection of sum of money before
the RTC of Davao. Mercedes filed in February 2009 her Answer with
Counterclaim, alleging that before the filing of the case, she and Benjamin had
entered into a dacion en pago agreement in which her vintage P1,000,000 Rolex
watch which was taken by Benjamin for sale on commission was applied to settle
her indebtedness; and that she incurred expenses in defending what she termed a
"frivolous lawsuit." She accordingly prayed for P50,000 damages. a. Benjamin
soon after moved for the dismissal of the case. The trial court accordingly
dismissed the complaint. And it also dismissed the Counterclaim. Mercedes
moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal of the Counterclaim. Pass upon
Mercedes’ motion. A: Mercedes’ Motion for Reconsideration is impressed with
merit: the trial court should not have dismissed her counter-claim despite the
dismissal of the Complaint. Since it was the plaintiff (Benjamin) who moved for
the dismissal of his Complaint, and at a time when the defendant (Mercedes) had
already filed her Answer thereto and with counterclaim, the dismissal of the
Complaint should not carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim without the
conformity of the defendant-counterclaimant. Under Rule 15, Section 2, if a
counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the
plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.
The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute
his counterclaim. b. Suppose there was no Counterclaim and Benjamin’s
complaint was not dismissed, and judgment was rendered against Mercedes for
P1,000,000. The judgment became final and executory and a writ of execution was
correspondingly issued. Since Mercedes did not have cash to settle the judgment
debt, she offered her Toyota Camry model 2008 valued at P1.2 million. The
Sheriff, however, on request of Benjamin, seized Mercedes’ 17th century ivory
image of the La Sagrada Familia estimated to be worth over P1,000,000. Was the
Sheriff’s action in order? (2010 Bar)
A: No, the Sheriff’s action was not in order. He should not have listened to
Benjamin, the judgment obligee/creditor, in levying on the properties of Mercedes,
the judgment obligor/debtor. The option to immediately choose which property or
part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment, is vested by
law (Rule 39, Sec. 9[b]) upon the judgment obligor, Mercedes, not upon the
judgment obligee, Benjamin, in this case. Only if the judgment obligor does not
exercise the option is the Sheriff authorized to levy on personal properties if any,
and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer
for the judgment.
Q: Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the amount of P750,000.00 against
Salvador in the RTC in Quezon City for the latter's alleged breach of their contract
of services. Salvador promptly filed his answer, and included a counterclaim for
P250,000.00 arising from the allegedly baseless and malicious claims of Abraham
that compelled him to litigate and to engage the services of counsel, and thus
caused him to suffer mental anguish. Noting that the amount of the counterclaim
was below the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, Abraham filed a motion
to dismiss vis-a-vis the counterclaim on that ground. Should the counterclaim of
Salvador be dismissed? Explain your answer. (2017 Bar)
A: No, the counterclaim of Salvador should not be dismissed on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. In an original action before the RTC, the RTC has jurisdiction over
a compulsory counterclaim regardless of its amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6). Here
Salvador’s counterclaim for damages arising from the alleged malicious and
baseless claims of Abraham is a compulsory counterclaim as it arises from
Abraham’s complaint. Hence the RTC has jurisdiction over Salvador’s
counterclaim even if it did not exceed the jurisdictional amount of P400,000.
NOTE: R.A. No. 11576 was enacted in 2021 increasing the jurisdiction of the
RTCs in all actions and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds
P2,000,000.
Q: PX filed a suit for damages against DY. In his answer, DY incorporated a
counterclaim for damages against PX and AC, counsel for plaintiff in said suit,
alleging in said counterclaim, inter alia, that AC, as such counsel, maliciously
induced PX to bring the suit against DY despite AC’s knowledge of its utter lack
of factual and legal basis. In due time, AC filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim as against him on the ground that he is not a proper party to the case,
he being merely plaintiff’s counsel. Is the counterclaim of DY compulsory or not?
Should AC’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim be granted or not? Reason. (2004
Bar)
A: Yes. The counterclaim of DY is compulsory because it is one which arises out
of or is connected with 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 (Sec. 7, Rule 6). The motion to dismiss of plaintiff’s
counsel should not be granted because bringing in plaintiff’s counsel as a
defendant in the counterclaim is authorized by the Rules. Where it is required for
the grant of complete relief in the determination of the counterclaim, the court
shall order the defendant’s counsel to be brought in since jurisdiction over him can
be obtained (Sec. 12, Rule 6; Aurelio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90742, May 6,
1991). Here, the counterclaim was against both the plaintiff and his lawyer who
allegedly maliciously induced the plaintiff to file the suit.

4.Crossclaim
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 include a claim that the party against
whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a
claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
2005 notes: cross claim is not a matter of right since it must arise out of the subject
matter of complaint, it can be filed only against a co-party and it is proper only
where cross-claimant stands to be prejudiced by the filing of the action against hm.
2005 notes: If complaint is dismissed, the cross claim should also be dismissed
(Bisaya Trans v Republic) and it cannot be filed also after declaration of default of
defendant .
(BAR) X filed suit vs Y under document where Y&Z are solidarily liable. Y wants
to file a cross-claim against Z but he has not yet been summoned. If he files his
answer w/o the cross claim,what happens to it? It is not barred since a cross claim
of defendant against a co-defendant in an action where liability is in solidum is not
barred even when the latter is not summoned.
Q: B and C borrowed P400,000.00 from A. The promissory note was
executed by B and C in a joint and several capacity. B, who received the
money from A, gave C P200,000.00. C, in turn, loaned P100,000.00 out of
the P200,000.00 he received to D.
a. In an action filed by A against B and C with the RTC of Quezon
City, can B file a crossclaim against C for the amount of P200,000.00?
A: Yes. B can file a cross-claim against C for the amount of
P200,000.00 given to C. A cross-claim is a claim filed by one party
against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the original action or a counterclaim therein and may
include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be
liable to the cross- claimant for all or part of a claim asserted against
the cross-claimant (Sec. 8, Rule 6).
b. Can C file a third-party complaint against D for the amount of
P100,000.00? (1997 Bar) A: No. C cannot file a third-party complaint
against D because the loan of P100,000 has no connection with the
opponent’s claim. C could have loaned the money out of other funds in
his possession.
2024 notes:if main action is dismissed: the counterclaim can be prosecuted in same
or separate action (pero dapat before dismissal of main action, the party already
have filed a counterclaim coz if not ,then di yan pwede magpatuloy)
2006 notes:if main action is dismissed: the cross claim is also dismissed.
5.Reply (not mandatory)
it only becomes mandatory if answer is premised on actionable document.
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 by way of defense in the answer and
thereby join or make issue as to such new matters.(it is questioning the genuiness
and due execution of an actionable document.
If a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are
deemed controverted.
Another remedy if no reply is that 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.
(BAR)X filed complaint against y who instead of consulting a lawyer wrote letter
to court stating his position in the suit. can he be declared in default?
NO, letter is sufficient as an answer (Cayetano v ceguerra) and it is a substantial
compliance with the requirement as to responsive pleadings.
4
6.Third-party (fourth…) complaint (W/ LEAVE OF COURT)
A third (fourth, etc.) party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with
leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
etc.) party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in
respect of his opponent's claim.
Purpose is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits and
of disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from
one particular set of facts (Samala v Victor)
Arises like when you own property and you lease it to X and X sublease it to Y,
when you inspect it ,you notice that it was partly destroyed, so you cannot sue Y
since it is X to whom you have the contract of lease with, so X’s only remedy is to
file third party complaint against Y.
A person not a party to an action (like Y above) may be impleaded by the
defendant (X) either :
a.to an allegation of liability of the latter (covered by the phrase: for contribution,
indemnity or subrogation)
b.on ground of direct liability to the plaintiff
c.both a and b
Y may bring defense not only against X but even against the owner or as against
the original complaint.
Third Party complaint would be disallowed when:
1.resolution of main case would be delayed as when the third party defendant
cannot be located
2.when there are extraneous matters that would be raised
3.when main action is for declaratory relief
Answer to third (fourth, etc.) party complaint. A third (fourth, etc.) party
defendant may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims,
including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff may have against
the original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a counterclaim
against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the third-party
plaintiff.
How may new parties be impleaded and for what purpose: When the presence
of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of
complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court
shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be
obtained.
Complaint-In-Intervention
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, who is not originally impleaded in
a proceeding, becomes a litigant for purposes of protecting his or her right or
interest that may be affected by the proceedings. (Neptune Metal Scrap Recycling,
Inc. v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. 204222, July 4, 2016)
If the purpose of the motion for intervention is to assert a claim against either or all
of the original parties, the pleading shall be called a COMPLAINT-IN-
INTERVENTION. Meanwhile, if the purpose is to unite with the defending party
in resisting a claim against the latter, the pleading is called an ANSWER-IN-
INTERVENTION. (Rule 19, Sec. 3)
Intervention is not an absolute right but may be granted by the court when the
movant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing
intervention. (Executive Secretary v. Northeast Freight Forwarders, Inc., G.R. No.
179516, March 17, 2009)
The allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is within the sound
discretion of the court.
Procedure for Intervention
1. The motion for intervention must be filed before judgment (Rule 19, Sec.
2);
2. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and
served on the original parties. (Rule 19, Sec. 2).
3. The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within 15
calendar days from the notice of the order admitting the complaint-
inintervention, unless otherwise fixed by the court. (Rule 19, Sec. 4).
Effect of Dismissal of the Original Action on the Complaint-in-intervention
It has been held that the simple fact that the trial court properly dismissed
plaintiff’s action does not require dismissal of the action of the intervenor. An
intervenor has the right to claim the benefit of the original suit and to
prosecute it to judgment. The right cannot be defeated by dismissal of the suit
by the plaintiff after the filing of the petition and notice thereof to the other
parties
 5

RULE 7 PARTS OF A PLEADING

Supporting affidavits of merit required:
FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF PLEADINGS:
a. Caption a. Motion to postpone for absence of evidence (30.3)
b. Title b. Motion to postpone for illness of a party or counsel (30.4)
c. Body c. Motion for summary judgment or opposition thereto (35.1,2,3,5)
d. Motion for new trial on the ground of FAME or opposition thereto
(37.2)

The body of the pleading sets forth its designation, the allegations of the e. Petition for relief from judgment (38.3)
party's claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading. f. Third-party claim (39.16)
g. Proof required of a redemptioner (39.30)
h. Motion for preliminary attachment (57.3)
(a) Paragraphs. - The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided
into paragraphs so numbered as to be readily identified, each of which shall i. Motion for dissolution of preliminary injunction (58.6)
contain a statement of a single set of circumstances so far as that can be
j. Application for writ of replevin (60.2)
done with convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its number in all
succeeding pleadings. k. Claim against the estate of the decedent (86.9)
l. Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence in criminal
(b) Headings. - When two or more causes of action are joined, the statement
cases (121.4)
of the first shall be prefaced by the words "first cause of action," of the
second by "second cause of action," and so on for the others.

When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed to one of several What pleadings have to be verified:
causes of action in the complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words
"answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to the second cause of
action" and so on; and when one or more paragraphs of the answer are a. Petition for relief from judgment (38.3)
addressed to several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by words to b. Appeal by certiorari from CA to SC (45.1)
that effect.
c. Complaint with prayer for preliminary attachment (57. 3)
(c) Relief. - The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add a d. Complaint for injunction (58.4)
general prayer for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or
equitable. e. Complaint for replevin (60.2)
f. Petition for certiorari (65.1)
(d) Date. - Every pleading shall be dated.
g. Petition for prohibition (65.2)
h. Petition for mandamus (65.3)
i. Complaint for forcible entry or unlawful detainer (70.4)
j. Petition for appointment of general guardian (93.2)
d. Signature and address
k. Petition for leave to sell or encumber property of estate or guardian
Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him,
(95.1)
stating in either case his address which should not be a post office box.
l. Petition for declaration of competency of the ward (97.1)
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the
pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is m. Petition for habeas corpus (102.3)
good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. (so if n. Petition for change of name (103.2)
there’s blatant lie and lawyer knew about it,then he can be administratively
liable) o. Petition for voluntary dissolution of a corporation (104.1)
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court p. Petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry
may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall (108.1)
appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended
for delay. q. Petition to take deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam (before
Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in action or pending appeal) (24.2)
violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or r. Motion to set aside a default order of an inferior court
fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject
to appropriate disciplinary action. s. Motion for dissolution of preliminary injunction on the ground of
irreparable damage to the movant while the adverse party can be
fully compensated
t. Petition for appointment of receiver
e. Verification in some cases
u. Petition for review of the decision of an RTC in cases within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the inferior court, by and elevated
Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need to the CA.
not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. Verification must
be based on personal knowledge whereby such is based on authentic v. Pleadings that need not be verified but must be under oath:
record. w. Denial of the genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document (8.8)
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on x. Denial of allegations of usury (8.11)
"information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or
y. Answer to written interrogatories (25.2)
lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
z. Answer to request for admission (26.2)
HOW A PLEADING IS VERIFIED: aa. Notice of appeal from administrative tribunals to the CA
By an affidavit stating that
-Affiant (person verifying) has read the pleading
-Allegations therein are true and correct as of his personal knowledge or
based on authentic records. (SC Circular 48-2000, effective May 1, 2000)

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING:
Plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading or in a sworn certification annexed and filed therewith:
a. That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving
the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; to the
best of his knowledge no such other claim or action pending;
b. If there is such other pending action, a complete statement of the
present status thereof;
c. If he should thereafter learn that same or similar action or claim is
filed or pending, he shall report the same within 5 days therefrom to
the court where he filed his complaint.
NOTE: FAILURE TO COMPLY NOT CURABLE BY MERE AMENDMENT
OF THE COMPLAINT OR PLEADING BUT SHALL BE CAUSE FOR
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
4blue 95: This arises when lawyer has no knowledge of any forum shopping
during filing but after filing during the pendency of the case he knew that his
client committed forum shopping and he did not report it.
IF THE ACTS OF PARTY OR COUNSEL CLEARLY CONSTITUTE
WILLFUL & DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING, GROUND FOR SUMMARY
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT.
4blue 95:this arises when the lawyer already knew before filing that the client
committed forum shopping.
4blue 95: For Forum-Shopping to exist, there must be:Same transactions
involved;Same essential facts and circumstances; andActions raise identical cause
of action, subject matter, and issues
4blue 95:it must be the party (all of them except if husband and wife since signing
of 1 constitutes the signing in behalf also of the other) who must not the
certification and not the lawyer (except if such is an in-house lawyer of a
corporation)
ALL INITIATORY PLEADING MUST HAVE CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING ( INCLUDING PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM )
Q: What is Forum Shopping? (2006 Bar)
A: Forum-shopping is the act of filing multiple suits involving the same parties
for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the
purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. (Executive Secretary v. Gordon,
G.R. No. 134171, November 18, 1998)
Q: Honey filed with the Regional Trial Court Taal, Batangas, a complaint for
specific performance against Bernie. For lack of certification against forum
shopping, the judge dismissed the complaint. Honey’s lawyer filed a motion for
reconsideration, attaching thereto an amended complaint with the certification
against forum shopping. If you were the judge, how will you resolve the motion?
(2006 Bar)
A: If I were the judge, the motion should be denied after hearing because, as
expressly provided in the Rules, failure to comply with the requirement of
forum shopping is not curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading, but shall be cause for dismissal of the case, without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided (Sec. 5, Rule 7). However, the trial court
in the exercise of its sound discretion, may choose to be liberal and consider the
amendment as substantial compliance. (Great Southern Maritime Services
Corp. v. Acuna, G.R. No. 140189, February 28, 2005; Chan v. RTC of
Zamboanga del Norte, G.R. 149253, April 15, 2004; Uy v. Land Bank, G.R.
136100, July 24, 2000)
6
Q: As counsel for A, B, C and D, Atty. XY prepared a complaint for recovery of
possession of a parcel of land against Z. Before filing the complaint, Atty. XY
discovered that his clients were not available to sign the certification of non-forum
shopping. To avoid further delays in the filing of the complaint, Atty. XY signed
the certification and immediately filed the complaint in court. Is XY justified in
signing the certification? Why? (2000 Bar)
A: No, counsel cannot sign the anti-forum shopping certification because it
must be executed by the “plaintiff or principal party” himself (Sec. 5, Rule
7), since the rule requires personal knowledge by the party executing the
certification, unless counsel gives a good reason why he is not able to secure
his client’s signatures and shows that his clients will be deprived of
substantial justice (Ortiz v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 127393, December 4,
1998) or unless he is authorized to sign it by his clients through a special
power of attorney.
Q: Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against Ms.
Dumpty for damages. The RTC, after due proceedings, rendered a decision
granting the complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages to Mr. Humpty.
Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning
the RTC decision. Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Humpty’s motion for
execution pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTC’s order granting execution
pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty filed with the CA another case, this time a special
civil action for certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a violation of the rule
against forum shopping considering that two (2) actions emanating from the same
case with the RTC were filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? Explain. (2014 Bar)
A: There is no violation of the rule against forum shopping. In Philippines
Nails and Wires Corporation v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (G.R. No.
143933, February 14, 2003), the Supreme Court held that one party may
validly question a decision in a regular appeal and at the same time assail the
execution pending appeal via certiorari without violating the rule against
forum shopping. This is because the merits of the case will not be addressed
in the Petition dealing with the execution and vice versa. Since Ms. Dumpty
merely filed a special civil action for certiorari, the same will not constitute a
violation of the rules on forum shopping because the resolution or a
favorable judgment thereon will not amount to res judicata in the subsequent
proceedings between the same parties (Benedicto v. Lacson, G.R. No.
141508, May 5, 2010).
Q: Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 from an adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) on the complaint for illegal dismissal against Empire Textile Corporation.
They were terminated on the ground that they failed to meet the prescribed
production quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC decision was assailed in a
special civil action under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the
verification and certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed the
verification and certification, while Atty. Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground of defective verification and certification. Decide
with reasons. (2016 Bar)
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. The verification and
certification against non-forum shopping were not signed by all petitioners.
There was no showing that Toto nor Atty. Arman were duly authorized by
the other petitioners through a special power of attorney to sign on their
behalf; hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The motion to dismiss should be denied,
because there is substantial compliance of the requirements of the rules.
Verification is not a jurisdictional but merely a formal requirement which the
court may motu proprio direct a party to comply with or correct, as the case
may be.
On the other hand, regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, the
general rule is that all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case should sign it.
However, the Supreme Court has time and again stressed that the rules on
forum shopping, which were designed to promote the orderly administration
of justice, do not interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under
justifiable circumstances.
As ruled by the Court, the signature of any of the principal petitioners or
principal parties, would constitute a substantial compliance with the rule on
verification and certification of non-forum shopping. And should there exist
a commonality of interest among the parties, or where the parties filed the
case as a collective, raising only one common cause of action or presenting a
common defense, then the signature of one of the petitioners or
complainants, acting as representative, is sufficient compliance (Irene
Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008).
Evidently, since there is a commonality of interest among tailors Toto,
Nelson and Yenyen, there is substantial compliance with the ruels on
verification and certification against forum shopping, when Toto signed the
verification and certification, and Atty. Arman signed the same for Nelson.