PERSONAL NOTE TO THE READERS

To my dear Remedial Law Review II Students for the 2nd Semester of AY 2019-2020:

In order to guide your readings, I am sharing my lecture notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Kindly read the notes and assimilate the
discussions herein and just envision that we are discussing matters inside the classroom, and I am
conducting recitations, giving my opinions and comments, less the jokes about Mr. Pido, or Besh
Debz, or Papi Mamitag, or Annabelle Gayaso or AvanGee – or even the most popular and
extraordinary person of your batch who happens not be enrolled in Remedial Law Review II    ,
and minus too the cacophonous sound of my voice   , since the notes are designed really as a
lecture.

I merely discussed in my notes the amendatory portions to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, less other amendments which can be undertaken by you on your own. It is best, though,
to read the primary source.

I tried to as much as possible simplify the notes, with the vision that it is as if I were
discussing matters personally with all of you.

I also request that only currently enrolled students in Remedial Law Review II shall have
EXCLUSIVE access on my notes - - - for the notes are especially customized to the current enrollees –
yes, I was thinking of the current enrollees when I was making these notes – as you will discover in
your readings. While sharing of materials and notes to our younger and not so young brothers and
sisters in the School of Law is altruism and an act of kindness, those not currently enrolled will
eventually enroll and study Remedial Law Review II. Let them fully enjoy – like a tabula rasa, the
experience and journey of learning with me, or with some other more adept and competent minds.

For those who will soon take the bar exams, I bequeath the notes to thee, and please accept
the notes as my parting gift – especially sealed with all the best wishes for your success!

Remember, success is “maktub” – it is written; but while it is written, we still have to build
our connecting bridge in attaining what is written.

Enjoy reading! See you after the forced furlough!

JG Gayya

05. April. 2020 CE

MRQ, BC
 Page 2 of 32

A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC

2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

A. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSIONS

1. What is the basis in promulgating the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (2019 Proposed Amendments)?

My Discussion:

Sec. 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which vests the SC the power to
promulgate rules concerning the pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.

My Comment / Observation:

But close scrutiny of the 2019 Proposed Amendments revolve around only on the rules on
pleading, practice, and procedure.

2. What is the thrust / purpose/ rationale/ reason for the 2019 Proposed Amendments?

My Discussion:

In order to make the disposition of every action and proceeding, particularly civil actions/
cases, more just, speedy, and inexpensive as well as to prevent delays and to decongest
courts of cases.

My Comment/ Observation:

Hopefully, the quality of trial will not be sacrificed, because speed does not necessarily
equate to quality. Thus, law students must be trained to think and act fast without
sacrificing quality of outputs – this requires serious training. As to practicioners, they have
to cope – that is the only choice.

3. How is the thrust/ purpose/ rationale/ reason for the 2019 Proposed Amendments given
effect in the Rules?

My Discussion:

In the following way:

First, it took into account the use of digital technology to ensure speed in the dispensation
of justice and prevent delays. This is especially seen under the Rule on Service and Filing
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 3 of 32

of Pleadings as well as in the Rule on Summons.

Second, it considered recent developments in procedural and substantive laws as well as

jurisprudence to ensure just and speedy dispensation of justice and to properly guide the
bench and the bar.

Third, it made clearer certain provisions the basis of which is either jurisprudence or latest
developments in procedural and substantive laws. Case in point, the rule on the filing a
reply. Another, the changes in the content for a verification. Further, the rule that the
grounds for a motion to dismiss must be raised as affirmative defenses, to name just a
few.

Fourth, international conventions are taken into account to ensure the just and speedy
disposition of cases.

Fifth, the wordings became gender inclusive and gender sensitive and non-sexist, for there
is a clear, deliberate, conscientious, and consistent use of the word “her” or “she” every
after the word “him” or “he”.

Sixth, it made clear that when the Rules speak of “days”, it means “calendar days”, which
is anyway, explained in our jurisprudence.

4. Do you think the 2019 Proposed Amendments will truly facilitate the speedy, inexpensive,
and just dispensation of justice?

My Personal Take:

The 2019 Proposed Amendments institutionalized mechanisms to ensure the speedy

dispensation of cases, which can be clearly seen from: one, the timeframes from the filing
of the complaint up to trial; two, the required completeness as to the contents of
pleadings, motions, and other documents as well as to the attachments thereto; three,
the allowed and prohibited motions; and four, the appropriate court actions, all designed
to facilitate a just and speedy disposition of cases. These institutionalized mechanisms
have been a product of best practices, some tested in the past, and have been in
existence, which the 2019 Proposed Amendments merely codified.

5. What do I think are the breeding grounds for Bar Exams questions?

My Forecast:

I think most questions would be taken from the amendments on the Rule on Filing and
Service, the Rule on Summons, and the Rule on Motion to Dismiss. That is why the bar
examinee must master those new rules. But that does not mean to say that bar examinee
will not study the entire 2019 Proposed Amendments.

6. What are my personal criticisms to the 2019 Proposed Amendments?

My Personal Take:

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 4 of 32

Let me point out that over-all, the 2019 Proposed Amendments is good for it is designed
to ensure the speedy and just dispensation of cases.

I have some minor issues though. One, there is an obvious attempt to inculcate upon the
minds of the people that this is Justice Bersamin’s brainchild as can be seen from the
second Whereas clause of the Resolution approving the same. I just think that when the
Supreme Court promulgates Rules, it should not be based on the policy of one Justice,
rather, from a shared and equally valued policy of the entire college of judges. Two, the
members of the Sub-Committee and the members of the reorganized Committee are
dominated by members of the Judiciary and only a few come from outside of Metro
Manila, worse, the gender composition of the membership is unevenly distributed, which
is male-dominated. Why am I pointing this out? Because diversity in the representation
gives a sense of ownership to the entire membership of the legal profession, may she/he
belong to the judiciary or otherwise and May she/he come from Metropolitan Manila or
not, and regardless of her/his gender. With a sense of ownership because of proper
representation from the planning -stage to the final parts of refinements and polishing of
the Rules, there would in turn be a natural sense of compliance if implemented because
there was proper representation throughout the process. More importantly, with proper
representations, there would be varying opinions and healthy airing of sentiments that
are essential ingredients to a desired equally shared output. Three, there seems to be a
generalized sweeping presumption, as can be seen from certain newly included provisions
in the Rules, that private practicioners contribute to the delay in the disposition of case.
This is not fair. While there are those who abuse remedial processes – which anyway are a
few, this is yet again a classic example that the fault of the few who abuse technicalities
have far-reaching implications to those who play it fair and square. But as it is, those are
just my personal sentiments. Looking at the over-all picture, the Rules have been designed
to ultimately meet the goal. The challenge now is the enforcement by the trial court
judges and the lawyers.

7. Could you give a general/ brief overview of the affected Rules?

My Discussion:

The affected Rules are: [1] the rules on pleadings (Rules 6 to 11), [2] the rule on filing and
service (Rule 13), [3] the rule on summons (Rule 14), [4] the rule on motions (Rules 15 and
16), [5] the rule on pre-trial (Rule 18), [6] the rule on trial (Rule 30), and [7] the rule on
Demurrer, Judgment on the Pleadings, and Summary Judgments (Rules 33, 34, and 35,
respectively).

Amendments in some rules may be considered as merely “minor” in the sense that they
merely pertain to the use of the word “calendar days” instead of the word “calendar” and
amendments so as to be gender sensitivity.

Particularly:

Rule 6 – minimal revision. The amendments are actually jurisprudential.

Rule 7 – minimal revision. The amendments are actually jurisprudential.
Rule 8 – minimal revision. The amendments are based on previous issuances of
the Supreme Court.
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 5 of 32

Rule 9 – minimal revision.

Rule 10 – minimal revision. The amendments are actually jurisprudential
Rule 11 – minimal revision. The amendments are designed in order to ensure
speedy disposition of cases.
Rule 12 – minimal revision, only with respect to the use of the word “calendar
days” and so that the rule is gender inclusive.
Rule 13 – substantial revisions. The amendments took into account the use of
digital technology in order to ensure unnecessary delays and the speedy
dispensation of justice.
Rule 14 –substantial revisions. The amendments took into account that since we
are living in a digital age, we might as well institutionalized digital ways of serving
summons. This is also in response to international conventions. Takeaway –
ensure unnecessary delay.
Rule 15 – substantial revisions. The amendments introduced are also designed to
ensure speedy disposition of cases and to avoid delaying tactics.
Rule 16 – absolutely deleted but some sections have been accordingly transposed
in earlier Rules. The purpose – to abbreviate proceedings.
Rule 17 – minimal revision, only with respect to the use of the word “calendar
days” and so that the rule becomes gender sensitive.
Rule 18 – substantial revisions, most especially that court-annexed mediation
(CAM) has been amended. The thrust – to truncate the proceedings. Highlights
the significance of the pre-trial, which is the guide to an organized and systematic
trial.
Rule 19 - minimal revision, only with respect to “days” and being gender sensitive.
Rule 20 – unscathed.
Rule 21 - minimal revision, only with respect to the use of the word “calendar
days”, being gender sensitive, and administrative costs.
Rule 22 – untouched.
Rules 23 to 29 - minimal revision, only with respect to the use of the word
“calendar days” and being gender sensitive, and there is a provision on
depositions as to “ex parte” motion.
Rule 30 – minimal revision. It merely ensured the time frames for the speedy
disposition of cases.
Rule 31 – untouched
Rule 32 - minimal revision, only with respect to the use of the word “calendar
days” and being gender sensitive.
Rules 33, 34, and 35 – minimal revision, amendments based on jurisprudence.
Rule 144 – ensures compliance to the amendments

B. RULE 6: KINDS OF PLEADINGS

8. Is a reply a mandatory pleading?

My Discussion:

Just like before, it is not.

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (1997 Rules), if a reply is not filed, the defenses
raised in the answer are controverted anyway. What confuses the students is if the

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 6 of 32

defending party attaches in his/her answer an actionable document, they think reply is
mandatory. The answer is still no. It is still the option of the plaintiff to file a verified reply.
But the implications are far-reaching if the plaintiff does not file a verified reply in such an
instance because if he /she opts not to, then he/she in turn admits the genuineness and
due execution of the actionable document. But if he/she files a verified reply, the matter
of genuineness and due execution of the actionable document is denied.

In the 2019 Proposed Amendments, filing a reply is no longer an option. There is only one
instance when a plaintiff MAY file a reply; i.e., if the defending party attaches an
actionable document to the answer. (§6, R6)

As a matter of logic, a rejoinder is not allowed in spite of the filing of the reply pursuant to
the exceptional circumstance, unless the one who filed the reply attaches an actionable
document thereto. In this instance, rejoinder MAY be filed. (last par., §10, R6)

9. Plaintiff Tharn received a copy of the Answer of Defendant Thype and there were new
matters alleged in the answer and he wants to interpose claims arising therefrom, but such
newly alleged matters are not based from an actionable document attached to the answer.
What pleading, if any, can Plaintiff Tharn file?

My Discussion:

Plaintiff Tharn can file an amended or supplemental complaint, but not a reply. (first par.,
§10, R6)

10. In what instances may the court deny admission of a third (fourth, etc.)- party complaint?

My Discussion:

In the following:

(1) When the third (fourth, etc.)- party defendant cannot be located within 30
calendar days from the grant of leave to file the third (fourth, etc.)- party
complaint;
(2) There are matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case which are
raised in the third (fourth, etc.)- party complaint; or
(3) When the effect in allowing the third (fourth, etc.)- party complaint would be
to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action. (2nd ¶, §11, R6)

My Comment / Observation on 2nd ¶, §11, R6:

Lifted from jurisprudence, this is but logical considering that the grounds for third (fourth,
etc.)- party complaint are: contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief, in
respect to the opponent’s claim. (1st ¶, §11, R6)

C. RULE 7: PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 7 of 32

11. What is the significance of the signature of the counsel in the pleading?

My Discussion:

Under the 1997 Rules, it constitutes as a certificate that he has read the pleading, that to
the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it, and
that it is not interposed for delay.

Under the 2019 Proposed Amendments, it constitutes as a certificate that he/she has read
the pleading, and to the best of his/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
after availment of the modes of discovery under the Rules; and (4) the denials of factual
contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably
based on belief or lack of information. (¶ b, §3, R7)

My Comment/ Observation on ¶ b, §3, R7:

This is jurisprudential.

12. How different is the verification part under the 1997 Rules from the 2019 Proposed
Amendments.

My Discussion:

Under the 1997 Rules, a pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the
pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge
or based on authentic records.

Under the 2019 Proposed Amendments, 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 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 reasonable opportunity for discovery. The signature of the
affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the
pleading. (§4, R7)

Under the 1997 Rules, this is how a verification looks like:

VERIFICATION

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 8 of 32

I, Bright Win, Filipino, of legal age, married, and

with address at New Lucban, Baguio City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with the law, hereby
depose and state that I am the plaintiff in the above-
entitled case, I have caused the preparation of the
complaint, the contents of which I have read and
understood, and all of which are true and correct to the
best of my personal knowledge and information and
based from authentic records.

Under the 2019 Proposed Amendments, it is suggested that the verification shall be:

VERIFICATION

I, Bright Win, Filipino, of legal age, married, and with

address at New Lucban, Baguio City, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with the law, hereby depose
and state that I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled
case. I have caused the preparation of the complaint, the
contents of which I have read and understood, all of
which are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge and information and based from authentic
records; that the above-entitled case is not filed to harass,
cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost
of litigation; and the factual allegations in the above-
entitled case have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after
reasonable opportunity for discovery.

My Comment / Observation on §4, R7:

This is jurisprudential, brought about by the filing of many complaints to vex, harass,
molest and oppress the defendant/s.

13. What must be included in the contents of every pleading?

My Discussion:

In addition to the body which must contain the paragraphs, headings, relief, and date ( §2,
R7), every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall 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; and (c) documentary
and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading. (§6, R7)

My Comment/ Observation on §6, R7 :

Now, the Rules advocate a “bare-it-all” or “fully lay one’s cards on the table” approach.

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 9 of 32

Once a complaint is filed, the theory of the complainant’s case must be complete
supported by evidentiary facts. Once the answer is filed, the defenses must be complete
supported by evidentiary facts, leaving no elbow room for adjustments during the course
of the trial.

14. Plaintiff Mew attached the judicial affidavits of Gulf and Sarawat in his Complaint. During the
trial, he moved that Korn – who happens to be a very important material and relevant
witness, be presented as a witness. Is Plaintiff Mew allowed to present Korn as a witness?

My Discussion:

It depends.

Generally, only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading, in this
case, the complaint, shall be presented during the trial. By way of exception, if a party, in
this case, Plaintiff Korn, presents meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of Korn as
an additional witness, Korn may be admitted as an additional witness by the court. (¶b,
§6, R7)

D. RULE 8: MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

15. What are the allowable affirmative defenses?

My Discussion:

They are:

Under §5(b), R6:

(1) The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause (litis pendentia, lis pendens, auteraction pendant);
(3) The action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata in the concept of bar by
prior judgment [claim preclusion] or conclusiveness of judgment [issue
preclusion]);

While under §12, R8:

(4) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(5) That venue is improperly laid;
(6) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(7) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(8) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not be complied with;

And under §13, R15:

(9) The cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations (prescription);

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 10 of 32

(10) The claim or demand set forth has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished; and,
(11)The claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable (statute of frauds).

My Comment/ Observation§12, R8 :

Other affirmative defenses under the 1997 Rules such as fraud, release, illegality,
estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance have been deliberately removed as allowable affirmative
defenses. However, can we not interpret them as included in the phrase “otherwise
extinguished”? Let us wait for jurisprudence considering that §12, R8 is clear in stating
that the grounds for the affirmative defenses are limited, making the intention exclusive. I
think if the enumeration is indeed exclusive, then those affirmative defenses under the
1997 Rules not included in the 2019 Proposed Amendments should be allowed as
defenses during trial.

The rule in raising affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity, akin to the omnibus
motion rule, is still in effect (¶b, §12, R8)

16. Atty. Ingrid Bautista, counsel for defendant Milan Pido, raised as an affirmative defense in
the answer lack of jurisdiction over the person of Milan Pido because there was failure to
comply with the proper service of summons. The trial court, without hearing and without
giving Mark Mamitag, the plaintiff, the opportunity to comment, resolved the affirmative
defense and granted the same. Plaintiff Mark Mamitag moved to reconsider on the ground
that there was violation of his right to procedural due process. Resolve.

My Discussion:

As the judge, I will deny. The court shall motu proprio resolve the affirmative defense of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, meaning without need on the part of
the plaintiff to comment, or without need for the court to conduct summary hearing. ( ¶c,
§12, R9)

Elaboration on ¶c, §12, R9:

Pursuant to (¶c, §12, R9), the court shall motu proprio resolve the following affirmative
defenses within 30 calendar days from the filing of answer: (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; (5) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not be
complied with.

17. Atty. Annabelle Gaya So, counsel for defendant Alta Maggonga, raised as an affirmative
defense in the answer lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The trial court, without
hearing and without giving Flynn Valak, the plaintiff, the opportunity to comment, resolved
the affirmative defense and granted the same because the trial court indeed has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 11 of 32

Flynn Valak moved to reconsider on the ground that there was violation of her right to
procedural due process. Resolve.

My Discussion:

As the judge, I will deny.

When the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, it only has one power – to
dismiss the same. The 2019 Proposed Amendments has not changed this well-entrenched
rule. While it is true that under ¶3, §12, R8 of the 2019 Proposed Amendments that a trial
court may conduct a summary hearing in case lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
is raised as an affirmative defense, the same is merely discretionary.

Extended Discussion on ¶3, §12, R8 :

Under ¶3, §12, R8 of the 2019 Proposed Amendments, a trial court may conduct a
summary hearing before resolving the following affirmative defenses: (1) The court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) that there is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia, lis pendens, auteraction pendant); (3)
the action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata in the concept of bar by prior
judgment [claim preclusion] or conclusiveness of judgment [issue preclusion]). Summary
hearing on these affirmative defenses are discretionary upon the trial court. Meaning,
even if there is no summary hearing, the trial court may still resolve the said affirmative
defenses.

18. Defendant’s affirmative defenses were all denied. He moved to reconsider, the trial court
denied. He filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, which was dismissed
outright by the higher court. Are the denials of the motion for reconsideration and the
outright dismissal of the petition correct?

My Discussion:

Yes.

Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration or
petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be matters which can raised on
appeal after a judgment on the merits. (¶e, §12, R8)

My Comment/ Observation on ¶e, §12, R8:

The rule is actually jurisprudentially lifted. Now, I still submit that if the denial is on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, motion for reconsideration, and if
denied, subsequent petition for certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus with a prayer
for preliminary injunction and even temporary restraining order, can still be availed of.

E. RULE 10: AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 12 of 32

19. In a Damages suit filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, plaintiff Isak moved with
leave to amend his complaint (meaning, not as a matter of right), because upon second hard
look, the total damages he wants to be awarded for is Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP
500,000) and not Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 400,000). Resolve.

My Discussion:

As the judge, I will deny.

While substantial amendments may be made with leave of court, such shall be refused if
the motion was made to confer jurisdiction on the court. Since the regional trial court
exercises exclusive original jurisdiction on cases for damages amounting to more than PhP
400,000 in Metro Manila pursuant to BP 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 (the law which expanded the jurisdiction of the first level
courts), the motion with leave of plaintiff Isak to increase the amount of damages by way
of relief he is seeking from the regional trial court is a tactically designed to confer
jurisdiction upon the trial court, which is prohibited, and must therefore be denied. (§3,
R10)

Extended Discussion on §3, R10:

Aside from the previous prohibition, §3, R10 does not also allow amendments with leave
if the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be amended.
Anyway, both additions are jurisprudentially anchored.

Now, an interesting point of discussion is can a complaint be amended in order to confer

jurisdiction if the amendment is a matter of right? Remember that experts answered in
the affirmative this question under the 1997 Rules. Would the answer still be same under
the 2019 Proposed Amendment? The answer seems to be in the affirmative because
amendments as a matter of right has not been substantially amended in the 2019
Proposed Amendment. (See §2, R10)

F. RULE 11: WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

20. What are the new time frames to file responsive pleadings?

They are:

1. Answer to Complaint – within 30 calendar days after service of summons;

2. Answer of a Defendant foreign private juridical entity – within 60 calendar
days after receipt of summons if summons was made upon the government
official designated by law to receive the same;
3. Answer to Amended Complaint as a matter of right - within 30 calendar days
after service of a copy thereof;
4. Answer to Amended Complaint not as a matter of right – within 15 calendar
days from notice of the order admitting the amended complaint ;
5. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim – within 20 calendar days from service;
6. Reply (if allowed) – within 15 calendar days from service of pleading
responded to;
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 13 of 32

7. Answer to supplemental complaint – within 20 calendar days from notice of

the order admitting the supplemental complaint;

My Observation/Comment:

Nos. 4 and 7 can be circumvented. If there is failure to file the answer to the amended
complaint filed not as a matter of right, the defendant may file an amended answer. Same
is true with the answer to supplemental complaint.

Please consider that the period to file is that required under the 2019 Proposed
Amendments, but the court may allow pleadings to be filed after the time fixed by the
very same Rules. (2nd ¶, §11, R10)

21. Atty. Micah, counsel for the defendant, moved for extension of time to file the answer on
June 1, 2015, which is a Monday. The last day to file the answer was May 31, 2015. Should
the motion be granted?

My Discussion:

No. Atty. Micah should have moved for extension before the lapse of the period to file the
answer, regardless if the last day fell on a Sunday. While the rule is when the last day to
file a pleading falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Holy Day, the same can be filed on the next
working day, that rule is not applicable in the given circumstance because Atty. Micah did
not file the required pleading but instead moved for extension.

Further Discussion:

The same rule applies under the 2019 Proposed Amendments.

22. Due to the voluminous judicial affidavits and the attachments on the Complaint, Atty.
Deborah, the retained counsel of the defendant, moved for extension of time for an
additional 30 days to file answer counted from the last day to file the same.

 First question: May the court grant the same?

 Second question: Assume that the motion was granted but still Atty. Deborah cannot
meet the deadline, can she successfully moved for a second extension?
 Third question: Assume that the motion for extension is with respect to the filing of
a reply, would your answer be same as that of your answer in the first question?

My Discussion:

As to the first question, the court may grant. A defendant may, for meritorious reasons, as
in this case – due to the voluminous judicial affidavits and attachments on the Complaint
which necessitates thorough and extensive study for the preparation of the answer, be
granted an additional period of not more than 30 calendar days to file an answer. (1 st
sentence, 1st ¶, §11, R10)

As to the second question, nego. A defendant is only allowed to file one (1) motion for
extension of time to file answer. (2nd sentence, 1st ¶, §11, R10)
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 14 of 32

As to the third question, my answer would be different. A motion for extension to file
pleading – in this case, a reply, is prohibited and considered a mere scrap of paper. (1 st
sentence, 2nd ¶, §11, R10)

G. RULE 13: FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

23. What is the coverage of the applicability of Rule 13?

My Discussion:

Rule 13, which is the Rule on the filing and service, shall govern all pleadings, motions, and
other court submissions, as well as their service, except those for which a different mode
of service is prescribed. (§1, R13)

Elaboration on §1, R13:

Note must be duly taken that the Rule on filing and service under the 2019 Proposed
Amendments made categorical that it is applicable to “motions and other court
submissions”, which is anyway, a matter of logic, because the rule under the 1997 Rules
equally applies to all documents submitted in court and served upon the other party.

24. Senator Motilla is a defendant in a civil case for collection of millions of pesos. He is
represented by one lead counsel and two collaborating counsels, and there was even a time
that he was represented by a counsel ad hoc (special counsel). To whom should the plaintiff
serve copies of his pleadings, motions, etc.?

My Discussion:

Only to the lead counsel.

When several counsels appear for one party, such party shall be entitled to only one copy
of any pleading or paper to be served upon the lead counsel if one is designated – such as
in this case, or upon any one of them if there is no designation of a lead counsel. (3rd ¶, §2,
R13)

Elaboration on 3rd ¶, §2, R13 :

I am not really certain if this is jurisprudential or based from an SC Circular. But the
purpose of the rule is aside from minimizing costs, to avoid confusion in the counting of
days of receipt and in order to ensure that there will be no delay. Imagine if all the
counsels are furnished, each receiving on different dates, and a reply or a comment
thereto is required, the quandary as to basis for the counting of days for purposes of
determining the deadline for the required submission arises.

25. What are the manners of filing pleadings and other court submission?

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 15 of 32

My Discussion:

They are:

(1) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the
court;
(2) Sending them by registered mail;
(3) Sending them by accredited courier; or
(4) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be
authorized by the Court in places where the court is electronically equipped.
(1st ¶, §3, R13)

My Comment/ Observation1st ¶, §3, R13 :

This is one of the amended provisions whereby the SC took into account the use of digital
technology and modern ways of filing court submissions – all of which ensures the fast
movement of the civil proceedings. The provision on electronic filing is very helpful in a
pragmatic way for parties who live distances away from the courts where cases are filed.
If before, the court submissions will be received many days after it is mailed, with this
rule, it can be received by the court in a matter of seconds if it were thru e-mail or
facsimile, a fast mode of teleporting submissions to the court.

26. What are the modes of service?

My Discussion:

They are: (1) personal; (2) through registered mail; (3) through accredited courier; (4)
through electronic mail; (5) through facsimile transmission; (6) through other electronic
means as may be authorized by the Court; and (7) through other means as provided for in
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party. (§5, R13)

My Comment/Observation on §5, R13:

Just like the provision on the modes of filing, this is one of the amended provisions
wherein the SC took into account the use of digital technology and modern ways of
service of pleadings, etc. The amended provision also recognizes our obligation to comply
with our international commitments.

Elaboration:

The priority mode of service is still personal service, just like under the 1997 Rules. Take
note that service thru electronic means and facsimile is allowed only if the concerned
party consents thereto (§9, R13), which I think is fair enough because not everyone has
equal access to technology and resources. Further note that is the obligation of the
concerned party who consented to the service thru electronic means and facsimile to
inform the court and the other parties of any change of e-mail address or of the facsimile
number, which must be made 5 days from the change of e-mail or facsimile number. (§11,
R13)

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 16 of 32

27. Twenty days prior to the hearing, the court sent notice of hearing upon the counsel of the
defendant. On the date of the hearing, neither the defendant nor his counsel was present.
Can the court presume that there was service of notice?

My Discussion:

It depends.

While a court may presume service of notice to a party, in this case, the defendant, of the
court setting, court records must be scrutinized. If it can be seen from the court records
that the notice has been mailed at least 20 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing
and the addressee, here the counsel of the defendant, is from the same judicial region of
the court where the case is pending, there is valid presumption of service; but if the
addressee is from outside the judicial region of the court where the case is pending, at
least 30 calendar days is needed in order to validly presume that there is service. (§10,
R13)

28. Are there orders, pleadings, and other documents which must be strictly served and filed
personally or by registered mail?

My Discussion:

Yes, such as: (1) initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings, such as an answer;
(b) subpoenae, protection orders, and writs; (3) appendices and exhibits to motions, or
other documents that are not readily amenable to electronic scanning; and (4) sealed and
confidential documents and records. (§14, R13)

H. RULE 14: SUMMONS

29. Are there instances when the trial court may not issue summons but instead motu proprio
dismiss the complaint?

My Discussion:

Yes, if on the face of the complaint, it is dismissible based on the following grounds: (1)
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, (3) that the action is barred by prior
judgment or the statute of limitations. (§1, R 14 in rel. to §1, R9)

My Comment/ Observation §1, R 14 in rel. to §1, R9:

This is still the same rule lifted from the 1997 Rules. But even if the trial court may motu
proprio dismiss a complaint, the ground for the dismissal must be apparent on the face of
the complaint and/or the attachments thereto.

30. How different is the contents of the summons under the 1997 Rules from the 2019 Proposed
Amendments?
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 17 of 32

My Discussion:

There is an additional statement to the effect that when authorized by the court upon ex
parte motion, the plaintiff may serve summons upon the defendant. (§2, R14)

Elaboration on §2, R14:

This means that in case of failure of service of summons by the sheriff or the deputy or
proper court officer, the court may authorize the plaintiff to serve the summons, but to be
accompanied by the sheriff, if the defendant is within the judicial region of the court
where the case is pending (1st¶, §3, R14); but if the summons is to be served outside of
the judicial region of the court where the case is pending, the plaintiff shall be authorized
– alone, to cause the service of summons (2nd ¶, §3, R14)

Comment/Observation on §2, R14:

The practice before was to endorse the summons to the ex-officio sheriff of the court
exercising territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the defendant. Perhaps, the
experience is that such practice does not guarantee service of summons within
reasonable period, that it why perhaps, the Sub Committee and the reorganized
Committee thought it best for the proactive participation of the plaintiff in such a dire
situation to serve the summons. Still, there is nothing in the 2019 Proposed Amendments
which excludes this practice.

31. For the reason that the sheriff faithfully attempted to personally serve summons upon the
defendant albeit in futility, and thereafter also faithfully attempted to serve summons
through the allowed substituted means, also in futility, the plaintiff was allowed to serve
summons directly upon the defendant, with proof of successful service submitted by the
plaintiff to the court. The defendant failed to file his answer and was declared in default and
eventually judgment was rendered favorably upon the plaintiff. Unbeknownst to the court,
the plaintiff misrepresented that there was successful service of summons. Before the
finality of judgment, the defendant surfaced and immediately filed a motion to dismiss,
which was granted and the entire proceedings, including the judgment rendered, were
nullified by the court. The plaintiff moved to reconsider because according to him, the
proper action that should have been undertaken by the court was to order the proper
service of summons because anyway, the defendant surfaced. Resolve the motion for
reconsideration.

My Discussion:

Deny it.

If the plaintiff misrepresents that the defendant was served summons, and it is later
proved that no summons was served – as in the present instance, the case shall be
dismissed – like what was done by the court in the given case, with prejudice, and the
proceedings shall be nullified – which was also done in the instant case. Fact is, the
plaintiff can be meted with appropriate sanctions. (4th¶, §3, R14)
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 18 of 32

32. Because the sheriff faithfully personally served summons upon the defendant albeit in
futility, and thereafter also faithfully served summons through the allowed substituted
means, also in futility, the plaintiff was allowed to directly personally serve summons, which
was unsuccessful, and thereafter, substituted – also unsuccessful, is there still a remedy for
the plaintiff to serve summons?

My Discussion:

Yes, the plaintiff can cause the service of summons by other means available under the
Rules (5th¶, §3, R14); such as service through publication - if possible.

Nota Bene:

Provisions on the service of summons thru publication under the 2019 Proposed
Amendments are the same as those of the provisions under the 1997 Rules.

33. What if all the means to serve summons have been exhausted - in futility, what shall happen
to the case?

My Discussion:

The case shall be archived, to be retrieved from the files when it is already possible to
serve the summons. It would have been different if the scenario were there was failure to
comply with the order to serve summons; in such case, the court shall cause the dismissal
of the initiatory pleading without prejudice (6th¶, §3, R14).

34. Summons was returned unserved and the complaint was archived. Eventually, it came to the
knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant is already at the given known address as stated
in the complaint, and moved that the complaint be retrieved from the archives. Considering
that the summons was returned unserved, should summons be issued anew or should an
alias summons be issued instead?

My Discussion:

Neither.

Summons shall remain valid until duly served, unless it is recalled by the court. Here the
summons was returned unserved and it was neither recalled at anytime by the court.
Also, an alias summons can only be issued in case of loss or destruction of summons, and
only upon motion, which is unavailing in the given situation. (§4, R14)

35. Is there a difference on how summons is served personally under the 2019 Proposed
Amendment from the 1997 Rules?

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 19 of 32

My Discussion:

In essence there is none; but in lieu of the phrase “tendering it to him” under the 1997
Rules, the 2019 Proposed Amendments used the phrase “ by leaving the summons within
the view and in the presence of the defendant”. (§5, R14)

My Comment/Observation on §5, R14:

The morph in phraseology is welcoming – it gives an impression that the SC wants to

simplify the language of the Rules, relatable even to the non-legalese.

36. When can substituted service of summons be availed of?

My Discussion:

Only if for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally after at least
three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates. (1st sentence, §6, R14)

37. What the ways of effecting substituted service of summons?

My Discussion:

They are:

(1) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence to a person at

least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein.
(2) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof.
(3) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her
authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners’
association or condominium corporation, or its chief security officer in charge
of the community or the building where the defendant may be found; and
(4) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if
allowed by the court. (§6, R14)

Further Discussions:

For the first mode of substituted service, the SC transformed the phraseology from
“sufficient age” to “at least eighteen (18) years of age”. This is to harmonize with the
definition of majority age under the Family Code. My personal preference though is the
use of the phrase “majority age” so that regardless of the amendments in substantive law
with respect to what the majority age is, the rule will stand. So in case there will be
amendments to the Family Code in the future with respect to the age of majority, and
summons is served to a person who is “at least eighteen years of age”, the substituted
service is valid. The SC retained “sufficient discretion”, this is especially true to individuals
who are “at least eighteen years of age”, but mentally challenged to understand the legal
implications of the act of receiving the summons.

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 20 of 32

For the second mode, the SC made categorical who a “competent person” in charge is – it
includes, but is not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences for the
defendant. It may be a persons’ clerk or secretary or personal assistant. So a person who
is on-the-job training or the so-called “practicumer” in an office may be considered
already a competent person.

For the third mode, this is something new. It was a problem area for the court sheriffs as
to whom to serve summons if the residence is inside a secured homeowners’ association
or so-called “subdivisions” or “exclusive villages” or within a tightly protected
condominium corporation and the policy thereat is “no to entry of unwelcomed
strangers”. In that instance, service of summons cannot really be successfully served
because the sheriff is denied access inside the subdivision or condominium building. Thus,
service can be made upon any of the current officers of the homeowners’ association or
condominium corporation or the chief security officer-in-charge (not just any security
officer). It is the task of the sheriff to explain to the officer or security officer the need to
indorse the summons to the defendant.

For the fourth mode, I submit this has an implication on the manner of alleging the
personal circumstances of the defendant. If before, it is as simple as stating:

“The Defendant is a Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of No. 99 New Lucban
Extension, Baguio City”

under the 2019 Proposed Amendments, this is how it could possibly phrased so that the
fourth mode could be effected:

“The Defendant is a Filipino, of legal age, single, a resident of No. 99 New Lucban
Extension, Baguio City, and with known active e-mail addresses as follows:
gandakono@yahoo.com and pangitmono@yahoo.com ”.

But this mode of substituted service of summons can only be made if allowed by the
court.

38. If there are other modes of service of summons pursuant to international conventions, can
they be availed of?

My Discussion:

Yes.

Service may be made through methods which are consistent with established
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party. (§9, R14)

My Comment/Observation:

Even if there are, we have to bear in mind that there the rule on the priority mode of
service of summons, and in case of failure, there is still substituted service of summons,
and in case of failure, there are other allowable modes of service of summons under the
Rule 14.

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 21 of 32

§9, R14 is couched in such a way that even future international conventions to which the
Philippines shall be a party are included.

39. In cases spouses are sued jointly, is service to one of them enough to acquire jurisdiction
over the person of another?

My Discussion:

No, since service of summons should be made to each spouse individually. (§11, R14)

My Comment/ Observation on §11, R14:

This is a response to the reality that there are spouses whose relationships are severely
strained and broken; where lines of communication are absolutely shut off even if the
matrimonio vinculum is not yet judicially decreed severed or while the marriage is subject
of a current annulment or declaration of nullity battle, but they are being sued for
obligations they are jointly liable for.

40. Beshie Ltd., Inc. is a duly organized Filipino corporation registered under Philippine laws to
undertake the production, distribution, and sale of cosmetic, aesthetic, and physical
enhancement products. The chieftess executive officer is Micah Beshie, the corporate
secretary is Tams Beshie, and the corporate treasurer is Eloisa Beshie, who has a personal
secretary cum bodyguard in the person of Hindi Umabante. Beshie Ltd., Inc. was sued in
Regional Trial Court of Makati City for Specific Performance by Royale Inc. Papi Mami - the
sheriff, served albeit unsuccessfully, the summons at the principal and only office of Beshie
Ltd., Inc., because it was always locked. Per chance, Papi Mami saw Tams Beshie inside a
concert hall at Glorietta, and served the summons upon Tams Beshie. Beshie Ltd., Inc.
eventually filed an answer and raised as an affirmative defense lack of jurisdiction on the
person of the defendant since the summons was served not at the corporation’s office.

 First question: Resolve the affirmative defense.

 Second question: Assume that when sheriff Papi Mami went to the corporation’s
office, the corporate officers were not around but Hindi Umabante was there and
the summons was received by him. Was summons validly served in this situation?
 Third question: Assume that when sheriff Papi Mami went to the corporation’s
office, the corporate officers were not around and no employees were around
except for Cutie Yog, the favorite employee of Micah Beshie to whom she has been
fancying for the longest time, whose job description is to receive communications
and other correspondence for Beshie Ltd., Inc., and who (Cutie Yog) received the
summons from Papi Mami. Was summons validly served in this instance?

My Discussion:

As to the first question, I will deny the affirmative defense, because when the defendant is
a corporation, like Beshie Ltd., Inc., service of summons may be made upon the corporate
treasurer – in this case, Tams Beshie, wherever she may be found. (1st¶, §12, R14)
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 22 of 32

As to the second question, summons was validly served, because when the defendant is a
corporation, like Beshie Ltd., Inc., service of summons may be made upon the corporate
secretary, here, Eloisa Beshie; and since she was absent and unavailable at the time of
service at the office which is also true to the other corporate officers, service may be done
to their secretaries, in this case, Hindi Umabante – the secretary of Eloisa Beshie. (1 st ¶,
§12, R14)

As to the third question, summons was validly served because service of summons cannot
be made upon any of Beshie Ltd. Inc.’s officers nor to any of their respective secretaries;
and taking into account of the fact that Cutie Yog is the person who customarily receives
correspondence for Beshie Ltd., Inc. at its principal and only office. (2nd¶, §12, R14)

My Comment/Observation on §12, R14:

This finally resolves the long-standing problem on corporations who try to use
technicalities institutionalized and tolerated by the 1997 Rules in order to delay cases. For
me, it is a very much needed amendment – fair and just.

Now, because the said rule allows service “wherever they may be found”, in the
preparation of the complaint, lawyers must also include all the addresses, main or
alternative, of all the corporate officers. By way of illustration:

“. . .

(2) The Defendant, Beshie Ltd. Inc., (BLT), is a domestic private juridical entity duly
established and existing under the laws of the Philippines, its principal and only office is at
the 7/F, Burgundy Towers, Ayala Avenue, Makati City, where it may be served with
summons, notices and other court processes. It is represented by its Chieftess Executive
Officer, Ms. Micah Beshie, Filipino, of legal age, single forever, and a resident of Unit 9,
9/F, Alta Grande Condominium, Pasong Tamo Extension, Makati City; or its Corporate
Secretary, Ms. Tams Mamitag Beshie, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of No.
99 Forbes Park Subdivision, Pasig City; or its Corporate Treasurer, Ms. Eloisa Beshie,
Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of No. 143 Avance Street, Manginga Village,
Bauko, Mt. Province.”

My Add-on Discussion re: §12, R14:

Please note that should there be a refusal on the part of the persons allowed to receive
summons for a domestic private juridical entity despite at least 3 attempts and on 2
different dates, service may be made electronically, if allowed by the court.

Of course, this is only possible if the domestic private juridical entity has an e-mail
address. If it has, then the one who prepares the complaint must include the e-mail
address in the personal circumstances portion of the domestic private juridical entity. To
illustrate:

“. . .

(2) The Defendant, Beshie Ltd. Inc., (BLT), is a domestic private juridical entity duly
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 23 of 32

established and existing under the laws of the Philippines, its principal and only office is at
the 7/F, Burgundy Towers, Ayala Avenue, Makati City, and with e-mail address
gagandanaminbesh@yahoo.com, where it may be served with summons, notices and
other court processes. It is represented by its Chieftess Executive Officer, Ms. Micah
Beshie, Filipino, of legal age, single forever, and a resident of Unit 9, 9/F, Alta Grande
Condominium, Pasong Tamo Extension, Makati City, and with e-mail address
gandakono@yahoo.com ; or its Corporate Secretary, Ms. Tams Mamitag Beshie, Filipino,
of legal age, single, and a resident of No. 99 Forbes Park Subdivision, Pasig City, and e-
mail address masmagandaakono@yahoo.com ; or its Corporate Treasurer, Ms. Eloisa
Beshie, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of No. 143 Avance Street, Manginga
Village, Bauko, Mt. Province, with e-mail address pinakamagandaakono@yahoo.com .”

41. The sheriff served summons upon the defendant through the substituted mode without
complying with the priority mode of service and such flaw was raised by way of an
affirmative defense in the answer prepared by Atty. Hannah Ortiz, who stated in the answer
that she merely entered by way of special appearance. The court granted the affirmative
defense and directed Atty. Hannah Ortiz to serve the summons. Atty. Hannah Ortiz moved
to partially reconsider with respect to the portion of the order directing her to serve the
summons. Resolve.

My Discussion:

I will deny the motion for partial reconsideration because a court may deputize the
counsel who entered by way of special appearance, here Atty. Hannah Ortiz who assailed
the improper service of summons for the defendant, in order to properly serve the
summons to the defendant. (§13, R 20)

My Comment/ Observation on §13, R 20:

This is based on legal ethics – the duty of a lawyer to the courts. Also, if a court can direct
a lawyer who entered by way of special appearance to properly serve summons within
the context of §13, R 20, all the more should it be applicable to lawyers who enter their
appearance other than by way of special appearance.

42. May summons be served upon a foreign private juridical entity not duly registered in the
Philippines, or has no resident agent, but has transacted or is doing business in the
Philippines?

My Discussion:

Yes, but only with leave of court, summons can be effected outside of the Philippines
through any of the following means:

(1) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign
country with the assistance of the department of foreign affairs;
(2) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country
where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons
and the court order by registered mail at the last known address of the
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 24 of 32

defendant;
(3) By facsimile;
(4) By electronic means with the prescribed proof of service; or
(5) By such other means as the court, in its discretion, may direct. (§14, R14)

My Comment/ Observation on §14, R14:

This provisions is actually an amendment on §12 of the 1997 Rules, pursuant to

Administrative Matter No. 11-3-6-SC, March 15, 2011, pursuant to internationally
accepted modes of service of summons consistent with established international
conventions to which the Philippines is a party.

Extended Discussion:

Now, what is the meaning of “doing business”?

I found a good article from the internet as an answer to this question, and I want to quote
the same in toto, attributing full ownership of the article to the author:

“Foreign nationals or investor companies thinking of opening a business in the

Philippines are well advised to know whether the planned business activity
would constitute “doing business” in the Philippines as defined under Philippine
law.

Under the Foreign Investments Act (FIA) of 1991 the term “doing business”
includes:

 soliciting orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether

called liaison offices or branches
 appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the
Philippines or who in any calendar year stay in the country for a
period or periods totaling one hundred eighty (180) days or
more
 participating in the management, supervision or control of any
domestic business, firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines
 any other acts or acts that imply a continuity of commercial
dealings or arrangements, and contemplate to that extent the
performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the
functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution
of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the
business organization

The Philippine Supreme Court has explained that the test of “doing business” is
not the number or quantity of transactions, but rather the intention of the
entity to continue its business in the country. 1

Thus, a foreign corporation is not “doing business” if it engages in an isolated

transaction, or, a transaction or series of transactions different from or
unrelated to the common business of the foreign enterprise in the sense that
there is no intention to engage in the progressive pursuit of the purpose and

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 25 of 32

object of the business organization. 2 Finally the Supreme Court cautioned that
since there is no hard-and-fast rule as to what constitutes “doing business”,
each case is to be judged according to its peculiar circumstances. 3

In addition, the Supreme Court listed other instances where a foreign

corporation is considered not “doing business” in the Philippines:

 investing as a shareholder in domestic corporations and/or the

exercising rights as a shareholder investor;
 maintaining a nominee director or officer to represent its
interest in domestic corporations;
 appointing a representative or distributor domiciled in the
Philippines to transact business in the representative’s or
distributor’s own name and account

Moreover, the FIA implementing regulations further list the following activities
as not “doing business”:

 publication of a general advertisement through any print or

broadcast media
 maintaining a stock of goods in the Philippines solely for the
purpose of having the same processed by another entity in the
Philippines
 consignment by a foreign entity of equipment with a local
company to be sued in the processing of products for export
 collecting information in the Philippines
 performing services auxiliary to an existing isolated contract of
sale which are not on a continuing basis, such as installing in
the Philippines machinery it has manufactured or exported to
the Philippines, servicing the same, training domestic workers
to operate it, and similar incidental services.

The Court noted that most of these activities do not bring any direct receipts or
profits to the foreign corporation, consistent with its earlier ruling that
“activities within Philippine jurisdiction that do not create earnings or profits to
the foreign corporation do not constitute doing business in the Philippines. 4

But why the need to draw the line between “doing business” and not doing
business? Under Philippine corporate law, a foreign corporation doing business
in the Philippine without securing the proper license from the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) “shall (not) be permitted to maintain or intervene
in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the
Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before
Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action
recognized under Philippine laws.” 5 In other words, a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines without a license cannot sue, although it may be
sued. By implication, a foreign corporation engaged in an isolated
transaction does not need an SEC-issued license to do business in order to file
legal action to assert or protect its rights arising from the isolated transaction.
1.
Eriks Pte. Ltd. vs. Delfin F. Enriques Jr., et al., G.R. No. 118843 dated

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 26 of 32

February 6, 1997
2.
Ibid.
3.
Top-Weld Manufacturing, Inc. vs. ECED, S.A., et. al., G.R. No. L-44944
dated August 9, 1985
4.
Cargill, Inc. vs. Intra Strata Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 168266
dated March 15, 2010
5.
Sec. 133, Philippine Corporation Code”

Source: https://www.sapalovelez.com/2014/06/20/new/, last accessed April 4,

2020

I. RULE 15: MOTIONS

43. Should all motions be in writing?

My Discussion:

The rule is all motions shall be in writing, except those made in open court or in the
course of a hearing or trial. (1st¶, §2, R15)

44. Within what time frame should motions be resolved?

My Discussion:

It depends.

Immediately if it is made in open court or made in the course of a hearing or trial, but
after the adverse party is given the opportunity to argue his or her opposition thereto.
(2nd¶, §2, R15)

Within five (5) calendar days from receipt by the court for non-litigious motions. (§4, R15)

Within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of opposition, or upon expiration of the
period to file opposition, for litigious motions. (§5, R15)

My Comment/Observation:

The time frames merely ensured the speedy resolution of the pending incidents with the
ultimate goal of attaining the speedy dispensation of justice.

45. If a motion is based on facts not appearing on record, must the trail court conduct hearing?

My Discussion:

Not necessarily.

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 27 of 32

The court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective
parties, but may direct the matter to be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions. ( last ¶, §2, R15)

46. What are non- litigious motions? What about litigious motions?

My Discussion:

Litigious motions are those which the court may immediately act upon without
prejudicing the rights of the adverse parties. (§4, R15) Meanwhile, litigious motions are
those which affect the rights of the adverse parties, and must therefore be resolved after
the adverse party is given the opportunity to comment/ oppose on the same.

47. Enumerate the litigious motions.

My Discussion:

They are:

(1) Motion for the issuance of an alias summons;

(2) Motion for extension to file answer;
(3) Motion for postponement;
(4) Motion for the issuance of a writ of execution;
(5) Motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution;
(6) Motion for the issuance of an order directing the sheriff to execute the final
certificate of sale; and,
(7) Other similar motions. (§4, R15)

48. Enumerate the litigious motions.

My Discussion:

They are:

(1) Motion for bill of particulars;

(2) Motion to dismiss;
(3) Motion for new trial;
(4) Motion for reconsideration;
(5) Motion for execution pending appeal;
(6) Motion to amend after responsive pleading has been filed;
(7) Motion to cancel statutory lien;
(8) Motion for an order to break in or for a writ of demolition;
(9) Motion for intervention;
(10)Motion for judgment on the pleadings;
(11)Motion for summary judgment;
(12)Demurrer to evidence;
(13)Motion to declare defendant in default; and
(14)Other similar motions.

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 28 of 32

49. Should the movant for litigious motions comply with the 3-day notice rule and 10-day
hearing rule?

My Discussion:

No need. Fact is, the rule in hearing of motion under the 1997 Rules have been altogether
slashed out in the 2019 Proposed Amendments. Further, it is the obligation of the
opposing party to file his/her opposition thereto within five (5) calendar days from receipt
thereof (letter c, §5, R15). Finally, it is the court’s obligation to call the motion for hearing,
if it deems necessary, and in such situation, is shall be the one to issue the corresponding
notice, specifying the time and date of hearing (§6, R15), which must be on a Friday (§8,
R15).

50. Considering that Rule 16 has been altogether removed under the 2019 Proposed
Amendments, is a motion to dismiss a prohibited motion?

My Discussion:

Not absolutely

It is allowed if anchored on the following:

(1) The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(2) There is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause;
(3) That the case of action is barred by prior judgment or statute of limitations.
(letter a, § 12, R15)

51. There were numerous affirmative defenses raised by the Defendant in his answer, but the
court did not hear the same and instead issued a notice of pre-trial. The Defendant moved
for the court to hear the affirmative defenses. Resolve.

My Discussion:

Deny, it is a prohibited motion. (letter b, §12, R15)

52. The court issued an order denying the dismissal of the complaint based on all the
affirmative defenses raised by the Defendant, thus, the latter moved for reconsideration.
Resolve.

My Discussion:

Deny, it is a prohibited motion. (letter c, §12, R 15) Possible remedies: certiorari,

prohibition, and/or mandamus under R65.

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 29 of 32

53. The court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, what is the remedy of
the Plaintiff?

My Discussion:

Appeal, for an order granting the dismissal of a complaint on such ground bars the refiling
of a complaint. (§13, R15)

My Comment/ Observation:

This is not new. This has been the case even prior to the 2019 Proposed Amendments.

54. What orders of dismissals may be appealed?

Dismissals on the following grounds either raised on a motion to dismiss or affirmative

defenses:

(1) the cause of action is barred by prior judgment;

(2) the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations;
(3) the claim has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; or
(4) the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable pursuant to the
provisions of the statute of frauds.(§13, R15)

My Comment/ Observation:

This is not new. This has been the case even prior to the 2019 Proposed Amendments.

J. RULE 18: PRE-TRIAL

55. Who has the ministerial duty to issue a notice of pre-trial?

My Discussion:

The branch clerk of court, who must issue the notice of pre-trial within five (5) calendar
days from filing of the last responsive pleading. (§1, R18)

56. Within what period should the pre-trial be scheduled by the court?

My Discussion:

It must be scheduled within sixty (60) calendar days from the filing of the last pleading.
(§1, R18)

57. The plaintiff and his counsel failed to appear during the court-annexed mediation without
justifiable reason. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, which order was subject
of a motion for reconsideration by the plaintiff, anchored on two (2) arguments: (1) the
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 30 of 32

dismissal is not warranted, the absence was not during pre-trial but during the court-
annexed mediation; and (2) the order of dismissal is a final order and the remedies are
either a motion for reconsideration in anticipation for a possible appeal in case of denial.
Discuss the merits of the grounds.

My Discussion:

Both grounds do not hold water.

Non-appearance during the setting for a court-annexed mediation merits the same
sanction as failure to appear during pre-trial (3 rd ¶, §3, R18), which is dismissal if the one
who failed to appear is the plaintiff and his/her counsel (§5, R18).

The remedy is to refile, since the dismissal was without prejudice. Plaintiff would have
been correct on this point if the dismissal were with prejudice.

58. The clerk of court issued a notice of pre-trial, scheduling first the court-annexed mediation,
and in case of failure, judicial dispute resolution, and in case of failure, pre-trial. Is the order
of the proceedings in compliance with the 2019 Proposed Amendments?

My Discussion:

No.

The order of the proceedings under the 2019 Proposed Amendments in now reversed,
pre-trial comes first, then court-annexed mediation, and in case the latter does not prove
successful, judicial dispute resolution. (§§ 8 and 9, R18)

59. During the pre-trial, it was observed by a keen and highly experienced judge that the parties
hated each other to the bones and neither parties are willing to bend for a possible
compromise. Regardless, the parties were referred for court-annexed mediation. True to the
envisioned outcome of the judge, there was no settlement that was forged during the court-
annexed mediation. Instead of referring the matter to the judge who was to conduct the
judicial dispute resolution, the trial judge proceeded to trial. Is the decision of the trial judge
to proceed to trial without the parties having been referred to judicial dispute resolution
sanctioned?

My Discussion:

Yes because only if the judge of the court to which the case was originally raffled, here the
trial judge, is convinced that settlement is possible can the parties be referred for judicial
dispute resolution.(§9, R 18)

60. After a thorough pre-trial proper, the court found out that there is no genuine factual issue,
and the parties confirmed the finding of the court. The court issued the pre-trial order and
stated that the case is submitted for judgment upon receipt of the respective memoranda of
the parties to be submitted within 30 days from notice.
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 31 of 32

 First question: Is the judge correct?

 Second question: Assume that the judge plainly stated in the pre-trial order that the
case is submitted for decision, the defendant moved to reconsider but the same was
denied. The Defendant filed a petition for certiorari. Resolve the petition.

My Discussion:

As to the first question: No. While a case may be submitted for summary judgment when
the court determines after the conduct of the pre-trial that there is no genuine issues of
fact, as in the given instance, the judge is not correct in including in the pre-trial order
that the case shall be submitted for resolution upon submission of the respective
memoranda of the parties because there is no need to require the parties to submit the
same. (§10, R18)

As to the second question: The petition must be dismissed outright. The order of the court
stating that the case is submitted for summary judgment cannot be subject of appeal
much more certiorari. (Last ¶, §10, R18)

My Comment/ Observation on §10, R18:

Such is the rule – remember that the thrust of the 2019 Proposed Amendments is to
ensure speed in the disposition of cases. Requiring the submission of Position Papers or
Memorandum within the context of the said provision negates such thrust.

K. RULE 30: TRIAL

61. What are the important time frames to remember for trial?

My Discussion:

They are:

1. Initial presentation of plaintiff’s evidence must be scheduled not later than

thirty (30) calendar days after the termination of the pre-trial; and plaintiff
must present his/her evidence within a period of three (3) months or ninety
(90) calendar days;
2. Initial presentation of defendant’s evidence must not be later than 30
calendar days after the court’s ruling on the plaintiff’s formal offer of
evidence; and defendant must present his/her evidence within a period of
three (3) months or ninety (90) calendar days;
3. The period for the presentation of evidence on the third (fourth, etc.)-party
claim, counterclaim or cross-claim shall be determined by the court but shall
not exceed 90 days; and
4. If deemed necessary, the presentation of the parties’ respective rebuttal shall
be completed within a period of 30 calendar days. (letter a, §1, R30)

Extended Discussion:
Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya
 Page 32 of 32

Looking at the time frames, the entire duration of trial is ten (10) months or three
hundred (300) calendar days - which duration must include the presentation of evidence
of all the parties. But if there are no third (fourth, etc.)-party claims and other claims, the
duration of trial is abbreviated by four (4) months, and that is less one hundred twenty
(120) days. (letter b, §1, R 30)

My Observation/ Comment:

This is lifted from SC issuances.

L. RULE 33: DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

62. The demurrer to evidence was denied. What is the remedy, if any, of the defendant?

My Discussion:

Defendant must proceed in presenting his evidence, and in case of unfavorable decision
on his/her part, he may assign as one of the errors on appeal such order of denial
considering that the order of denial cannot be a subject of appeal, or a petition for
certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus. (last ¶, §2, R33)

My Comment/ Observation on the last ¶, §2, R33:

This is jurisprudentially lifted.

M. RULES 33 and 34: JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS and SUMMARY JUDGMENT

63. Please note that the amendments incorporated are actually jurisprudentially- based, which
we have discussed in class.

N. RULE 144: EFFECTIVENESS

64. Please note that the 2019 Proposed Amendments shall govern ALL cases after its effectivity
on May 1, 2020. It shall also apply to all pending proceedings, unless if in the court’s opinion,
the application would not be feasible or would work injustice – in such case, the 1997 Rules
– the procedure under which the cases were filed, shall govern.

As parting words, remember what Socrates said: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Let us
live life with a purpose and a meaning. Recent studies show that humans become happy not when
they do things which they are passionate about, but when they do things for a purpose. So do not
chase your passion, chase your purpose.

JG Gayya

Personal Lecture Notes on the 2019 Proposed

Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
JG Gayya