2019 CIVIL PROCEDURE

LECTURER

JUSTICE CARLITO B. CALPATURA

Court of Appeals
Manila
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
LIBERAL APPLICATION OF THE RULES-
• EN BANC, [ G.R. No. 178158, December 04, 2009 ] STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, VS. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, ET AL,; AND ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD, INTERVENOR, [G.R. No.
180428] LUIS SISON VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND RADSTOCK
SECURITIES LIMITED.
• Is a case where intervention was allowed by the SC even after judgment has been rendered by the trial
court. in the interest of substantial justice and for compelling reasons, such as the nature and
importance of the issues raised in this case. The intervention was treated as a derivative suit which
sought for the annulment of a compromise agreement allegedly entered into by the corporation to the
prejudiced of the stockholder.
• DAVID LU v. PATERNO LU YM, ET AL., G.R. NO. 153690, FEB 15, 2011 AND COMPANION CASES- A
decision by a division of the SC was reviewed and reversed by the SC En Banc even after the period to
file MR has elapsed in the interest of substantial justice considering that the decision of the division is
unconstitutional as it overruled a principle of law decided by the SC, namely- the outright dismissal of
the complaint for non-payment of docket fee which contradicted the rulings of the SC En Banc in various
cases that failure to pay correct docket fee is not a ground for automatic dismissal of the complaint.
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Principle of judicial hierarchy -

• As a matter of policy such a direct to the SC is not be allowed. The Supreme Court is a court of
last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by
the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and should not be burdened with
the task of dealing with causes in the first instance.
• Its original jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs should be exercise only where
absolutely necessary or where important reasons exist therefore. Hence, that jurisdiction
should generally be exercised relative to actions or proceedings before the Court of Appeals, or
before constitutional or other tribunals, bodies or agencies whose acts for some reason or
another, are controllable by the Court of Appeals.
• Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the court of

appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the
writ’s procurement must be presented. This is and should continue to be the policy in this
regard, a policy that courts and lawyers must strictly observe.
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability-

• The doctrine of non-interference has been regarded as an elementary
principle of higher importance in the administration of justice that the
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified,
or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.

• The power to open, modify, or vacate a judgment is now only possessed by,
but is restricted to the court in which the judgment was rendered. It is
regarded as an elementary principle of high importance in the administration
of justice that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be
opened, or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability-
• At the outset, the Court emphasizes that under the doctrine of judicial stability or non-
interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court, the various trial courts of a
province or city, having the same equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to
interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments.  In 
Barroso  v. Omelio,  the Court had the opportunity to thoroughly explain the said
doctrine in this manner:
• ・ The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a
co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere
by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having
the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction.  The rationale for the rule is founded
on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders
judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate
courts, for its execution and over all incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the
conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.(G.R. No. 215348, June
20, 2016 , ELDEFONSO G. DEL ROSARIO AND JOSEFINO R. ORTIZ, VS. CRISTINA OCAMPO )
• 
JURISDICTION

• Jurisdiction defined (Continental Micronesia, Inc. vs. Basco, G.R. No.

178382-83, Sep 25, 2015; Barangay Mayamot vs. Antipolo City, G.R.
No. 187349. Aug 17, 2016).
• Extent of its exercise covers execution of judgment (Echegaray vs. SOJ,
301 SCRA 96, 108).
• Jurisdiction of regular courts vs. Special Court of the same level-
misfiling does not affect jurisdiction. i.e, if a commercial case is filed in
a regular court, the latter should not dismiss the case but should refer
it to the designated commercial court(Gonzales vs. GJH Land, GR No.
202664, Nov 20, 2015).
 JURISDICTION
•MOTU PROPRIO DISMISSAL
•G.R. No. 204753, March 27, 2019, UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK V. SPS. ALISON
ANG-SY AND GUILLERMO SY, RENATO ANG, NENA ANG, RICKY ANG, AND DERICK
CHESTER SY
•Oppositely, respondents Sps. Sy, et al. plainly and unmistakably questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC
over their persons due to improper service of summons. Hence petitioner UCPB's theory lacks any
jurisprudential support.
•As a final note, petitioner UCPB also made the argument that the CA purportedly committed an error
of law because it held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction with respect to the therein defendant
corporations even when such corporations failed to question the RTC's Order before the CA.
•Such argument fails to convince. The courts may dismiss an action when there is lack of jurisdiction,
even though the issue of jurisdiction was not raised by the pleadings or not even suggested by the
parties. Issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties. Even if a party does not
question the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the pending action, the courts are not prevented
from addressing the issue, especially where the lack of jurisdiction is apparent and explicit.
•Therefore, the Petition is without merit.
 JURISDICTION

• Presidential immunity.
• The concept of executive immunity was first tackled in 1910 by the Philippine Supreme Court in Forbes v.
Chuoco Tiaco.  The country was then still under American occupation. Chuoco Tiaco was a Chinese national
deported from the Philippines in 1909 on orders of then Governor-General W. Cameron Forbes. In 1910, he
returned to the Philippines and filed a suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Governor-General
Forbes and other government agents, seeking thereby a preliminary injunction to prevent them from deporting
him again, and demanding damages. Among the issues resolved was the question of whether or not the trial court
could assume jurisdiction of cases relating to the exercise of powers by the Chief Executive of the land.

Posing the question as whether or not the courts would ever intervene or assume jurisdiction in any case brought
against the Chief Executive as the head of government, the Court observed that although the subject had often
been discussed before courts of other jurisdictions and by various commentators, there had been no consensus
reached thereon. It considered to be settled that the courts would not interfere where the Chief Executive
exercised inherent, political, or discretionary duties, such as the power to deport or expel undesirable aliens; and
declared that the courts would not intervene for the purpose of controlling such power, nor for the purpose of
inquiring whether or not the Chief Executive was liable for damages in the exercise thereof.( EN BANC, G.R.
No. 227635, October 15, 2019, LEILA M. DE LIMA VS. PRESIDENT RODRIGO R. DUTERTE,
 JURISDICTION

• Unlike its American counterpart, the concept of presidential immunity under

our governmental and constitutional system does not distinguish whether or
not the suit pertains to an official act of the President. Neither does immunity
hinge on the nature of the suit. The lack of distinctions prevents us from
making any distinctions. We should still be guided by our precedents.
• Accordingly, the concept is clear and allows no qualifications or restrictions
that the President cannot be sued while holding such office. EN BANC,
G.R. No. 227635, October 15, 2019, LEILA M. DE LIMA VS.
PRESIDENT RODRIGO R. DUTERTE,
 JURISDICTION

How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

• over the nature of the action and subject matter is conferred by the
constitution [A.M. No. MTJ-04-1543.  May 31, 2004, ATTY. AUDIE C.
ARNADO, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARINO S. BUBAN, MTCC, Branch
1, Tacloban City, respondent) or by law
• -it is determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of
the claims asserted therein(Platinum Tours and Travels, supra.)
 JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction –

• G.R. No. 147082, January 28, 2008,HEIRS OF MAURA SO, namely, YAN LAM
LIM, JIMMY SO LIM, and FERDINAND SO LIM, vs.LUCILA JOMOC
OBLIOSCA, ET AL.
• Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished
from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a
case, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction
over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. And the errors
which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely
errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.
 JURISDICTION

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

• “The purpose of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not to divide
powers between courts and agencies, but to determine which tribunal
should take initial action. An agency which has primary jurisdiction
may in effect merely lay the foundation for a judicial determination. x x
x The reason for the primary jurisdiction doctrine is not a belief that an
agency’s expertise makes it superior to a court; the reason is that a
court confronted with problems within an agency’s area of
specialization should have the advantage of whatever contributions
the agency can make to the solutions” (Davis, Administrative Law, 381)
 JURISDICTION
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction /Illustrative case-
G.R. NO. 148106, JULY 17, 2006, EURO-MED LABORATORIES, INC. vs. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS
It was held that it is the COA and not the RTC which has primary jurisdiction to pass upon petitioner’s
money claim against the Province of Batangas. Reasons: 
• The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be within their
proper jurisdiction. 
• It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of
the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the
special competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to
be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for
its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice. 
• First, petitioner was seeking the enforcement of a claim for a certain amount of money against a local
government unit.  This brought the case within the COA’s domain to pass upon money claims against the
government or any subdivision thereof under Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the
Philippines: ‘The authority and powers of the Commission [on Audit] shall extend to and comprehend all
matters relating to x x x x the examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due
from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities. x x x x.’
 JURISDICTION
EURO-MED LABORATORIES, INC. vs. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS
• The scope of the COA’s authority to take cognizance of claims is circumscribed, however, by an unbroken
line of cases holding statutes of similar import to mean only liquidated claims, or those determined or
readily determinable from vouchers, invoices, and such other papers within reach of accounting officers.
 Petitioner’s claim was for a fixed amount and although respondent took issue with the accuracy of
petitioner’s summation of its accountabilities, the amount thereof was readily determinable from the
receipts, invoices and other documents. Thus, the claim was well within the COA’s jurisdiction under the
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.
•  Second, petitioner’s money claim was founded on a series of purchases for the medical supplies of
respondent’s public hospitals.  Both parties agreed that these transactions were governed by the Local
Government Code provisions on supply and property management and their implementing rules and
regulations promulgated by the COA pursuant to Section 383 of said Code. Petitioner’s claim therefore
involved compliance with applicable auditing laws and rules on procurement.  Such matters are not
within the usual area of knowledge, experience and expertise of most judges but within the special
competence of COA auditors and accountants.  Thus, it was but proper, out of fidelity to the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, for the RTC to dismiss petitioner’s complaint.
• Petitioner argues, however, that respondent could no longer question the RTC’s jurisdiction over the
matter after it had filed its answer and participated in the subsequent proceedings. To this, we need only
state that the court may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua sponte and its invocation cannot be
waived by the failure of the parties to argue it as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power
between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties. 
 JURISDICTION
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Limitation of its application
G.R. No. 132684.  September 11, 2002, HERNANI   N.   FABIA, vs. CA, DOJ, OCP-MANILA,
RTC-Br. 22, MANILA and THE MARITIME TRAINING CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES (MTCP)
• FACTS: Fabia, as corporate officer, was charged with estafa (315 1b RPC) with the RTC.
He moved to quash the information invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
reasoning that it is the SEC which should first take cognizance of the intra-corporate
dispute.
• Held: Therefore, since the alleged fraudulent acts committed by petitioner pertaining
to the non-liquidation of his cash advances amounting to P1,291,376.61 constitute the
offense of estafa under Art. 315 of The Revised Penal Code, the criminal case may be
prosecuted independently and simultaneously with the corporate/civil case that may
be filed for violation of Sec. 5 of PD 902-A, as amended by RA 8799.
• In light of the amendment brought about by RA 8799, the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction no longer precludes the simultaneous filing of the criminal case with the
corporate/civil case.
 JURISDICTION
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Limitation of its application-
G.R. NO. 159974, JESUS CAYABYAB, ET AL., vs. ROSEMARIE GOMEZ DE AQUINO
• Thus, if another case pending before another court of justice does not bar an
independent summary case for ejectment like forcible entry or unlawful
detainer, the Court likewise takes the view that neither should an ejectment
case be barred by another case pending before an administrative body, such as
the COSLAP, where the question of ownership over the subject property is
raised.  The Court views with disfavor petitioners’ contention that the COSLAP
case that was filed earlier than the MTC case for unlawful detainer barred the
latter court from taking jurisdiction.  Here, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
yields to the peculiar and special stature of a summary case for ejectment,
whose rationale is to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual
possession or the right to possession of the property involved.
 JURISDICTION
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Limitation of its application-
G.R. NO. 152651, AUGUST 7, 2006, ANDABAI T. ARIMAO vs. SAADE P. TAHER
• Neither is the petition for prohibition before the trial court violative of the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction.  Said doctrine precludes a court from arrogating unto itself the authority
to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative
body of special competence.   An exception to this rule is when the issue raised is a purely
legal question, well within the competence and the jurisdiction of the court and not the
administrative agency.
• In the instant case, the legal question of whether a memorandum of the ARMM Governor,
ordering the reinstatement of an employee declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls, was
issued in excess of  jurisdiction is  a legal question which should be resolved by the courts. For
the same reason that the issues to be resolved in this case are purely legal in nature,
respondent need not abide by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
 Besides, to allow the matter to remain with the Office of  the ARMM Governor for resolution
 would be self-defeating and useless and cause unnecessary delay since it was the same office
which gave the conflicting issuances on  petitioner’s reinstatement.
 JURISDICTION
• ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION-
• G.R. No. 206159, August 26, 2020, ALLIANCE OF NON-LIFE INSURANCE WORKERS OF
THE PHILIPPINES, et Al., VS. HON. LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, ET Al., AND STRADCOM
CORPORATION-Intervenor GSIS alleges that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies
because it should have given DOTC the opportunity to reconsider its own issuance.However, it is
settled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies finds no application when a
questioned act was done in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers: In questioning the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust
administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of the
administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when
the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. In  Association of Philippine
Coconut Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut Authority,  it was held:

• The rule of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a party may seek
judicial review, so strenuously urged by the Solicitor General on behalf of respondent,
has obviously no application here. The resolution in question was issued by the PCA in
the exercise of its rule-making or legislative power. However, only judicial review of
decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function
is subject to the exhaustion doctrine.  (Citation omitted)
 JURISDICTION

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction-

G.R. NO. 186308, OCTOBER 15, 2009, JOSELITO MENDOZA vs. COMELEC and R.M. PAGDANAGANAN
• We turn to the issue of the propriety of the COMELEC’s consideration of the provincial election contest
(specifically its appreciation of the contested ballots) at the SET premises and while the same ballots are
also under consideration by the SET for another election contest legitimately within the SET’s own
jurisdiction. 
• We state at the outset that the COMELEC did not lose jurisdiction over the provincial election contest, as
the petitioner seems to imply, because of the transmittal of the provincial ballot boxes and other election
materials to the SET.  The Constitution conferred upon the COMELEC jurisdiction over election protests
involving provincial officials. The COMELEC in this case has lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter, i.e., the provincial election contest, as well as over the parties.  After its jurisdiction attached, this
jurisdiction cannot be ousted by subsequent events such as the temporary transfer of evidence and
material records of the proceedings to another tribunal exercising its own jurisdiction over another election
contest pursuant to the Constitution.  This is the rule of adherence of jurisdiction. 
•  Thus, the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over provincial election contest exists side by side with the
jurisdiction of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, with each tribunal being supreme in their respective areas of
concern (the Senate election contests for the SET, and the regional, provincial and city election contests for
the COMELEC), and with neither one being higher than the other in terms of precedence so that the
jurisdiction of one must yield to the other.  
 JURISDICTION
ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION NOT APPLIED-
Encarnacion vs Dynasty Amusement Center Corp : 51289 : September 2, 1992 : J. Mel
o:
• FACTS: Petitioner Encarnacion filed with the CFI a case for damages arising from his
alleged illegal suspension from work. Pending action on his complaint, a law was
passed conferring upon the Labor Arbiters the jurisdiction to hear the case of such
nature. After answer was filed, the CFI dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
HELD: In the case of Abad vs. RTC of Manila (154 SCRA 664, 671), the Court held:
• "However, whereas before jurisdiction over money claims of laborers and employees
appertained to Courts of First Instance, the same are now to be taken cognizance of
by proper authorities in the Department of Labor and Employment.
• "The rule of adherence of jurisdiction until a cause is finally resolved or adjudicated
does not apply when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character.  Thus in the
instant case, there is nothing wrong in holding that Courts of First Instance/Regional
Trial Courts no longer have jurisdiction over aforesaid monetary claims of labor."
 JURISDICTION

Over the subject matter

 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, which may be either the constitution
or a statute.
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations made in the complaint.

 For purposes of determining jurisdiction in civil actions, the allegations and nature of the
principal action, character of relief asked, is controlling, not those of incidental or ancillary
claims. (Geronimo vs. Calderon, GR 201781, Dec 10, 2014; Cabling vs. Dangcalan, GR 187696,
June 15, 2016). The outcome is initially immaterial(Continental Micronesia, Inc. vs. Basco,
Supra).
 In criminal actions, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by:

a. The nature of the offense and the penalty attached thereto; and
b.The fact that the offence was committed within the TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION of
the court.
 JURISDICTION

• MATTERS THAT DO NOT AFFECT JURISDICTION

• Caption (Sps. Erotica vs. Sps. Dumlao. GR 195477,Jan 25, 2016);
• Defenses and evidence (Balibago Faith Baptist Church, Inc., et al. Vs. Faith
in Christ Jesus Baptist Church, GR 191527, Aug 22, 2016); Exception: In an
ejectment case where the defendant raised the issue of tenancy, and after
hearing tenancy relationship was proven, the court has to dismiss the case
for lack of jurisdiction (Dela Cruz vs. CA, GR 510 SCRA 103, 116).
• The actual amount awarded (Dionisio vs. Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471, 477).
•
 JURISDICTION
ALLEGATION OF ASSESSED VALUE IN REAL ACTION-
•2ND DIV., G.R. No. 234255, October 02, 2019,GENOVEVA G. GABRILLO, REP. HEREIN
BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MEDARDO G. CADIENTE, JR., V. HEIRS OF OLIMPIO
PASTOR REP. BY CRESENCIANA MANGUIRAN VDA. DE PASTOR --
•In the case at bench, petitioner's complaint did not allege the disputed property's assessed value, but
instead stated its market value pegged at P50,000.00. Settled is the rule that the courts cannot take
judicial notice of the assessed value or even the market value of the land.  The assessed value of the
realty in question must be clearly set forth in the complaint to prompt the court whether it can or
cannot take cognizance of the case. Thus, for petitioner's failure to  allege  the  assessed  value  in the
complaint, the RTC cannot be said to have gravely erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction.
• The Court is not unmindful of the liberal application of the above rule. In  Foronda-Crystal v.
Son,  it was held that the failure to allege the real property's assessed value in the complaint would
not be fatal if, in the documents annexed to the complaint, an allegation of the assessed value
could be found. It justified the relaxation of the rule by echoing the Court's pronouncement in 
Tumpag v. Tumpag,
 JURISIDCITION
ALLEGATION OF ASSESSED VALUE IN REAL ACTION
• Thus, a complaint for accion publiciana was dismissed for failure to allege the assessed
value of the property. The court held: Not even a tax declaration was presented before
the court  a quo  that would show the valuation of the subject property. As such,
there is no way to determine which court has jurisdiction over the action or whether
the court  a quo  has exclusive jurisdiction over the same. Verily, the court  a
quo  erred in denying the motion to dismiss filed by [respondents] and in taking
cognizance of the instant case.
• ・ Indeed, nowhere in the complaint was the assessed value of the subject property
ever mentioned. On its face, there is no showing that the RTC has jurisdiction exclusive
of the MTC. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the
property, it cannot readily be determined which court had original and exclusive
jurisdiction over the case at bar. The courts cannot take  judicial  notice  of
the assessed or market value of the land.(3rd Div., G.R. No. 215640, November 28,
2016,NESTOR CABRERA, VS. ARNEL CLARIN AND WIFE, et Al.).
 JURISDICTION
ALLEGATION OF ASSESSED VALUE IN REAL ACTION-
•But, a ”Real Property Tax Order of Payment”(instead of tax
declaration)is sufficient to prove the assessed value of the real property
subject of the action ((G.R.  No.  197825, January 11, 2016,
CAMILO SIBAL VS. PEDRO BUQUEL, ET AL., REPRESENTED BY
FRANCISCO BUQUEL).
OBJECTIVE TEST-
• G.R NO.204970, Feb. 1, 2016 Spouses Claudio and Carmencita Trayvilla vs. Bernando Sejas and
Juvy Paglinawan.
• A Complaint for specific Performance but the objective is to Execute Final Deed of Sale of
Transfer of Property to them – it is a real action. Hence, the assessed value must be alleged.
Thus, it can dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because assessed value was not alleged.
• Note: In this case, plaintiffs were also asking for the cancellation of Title and Plaintiff were in
actual possession of the property.
 JURISDICTION
Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter-
• Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law,
and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the
case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, a party
may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the
purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said
party invoking the plea. (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29 (1968).
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter –
• Motion to Dismiss;
• Raise as affirmative defense in the answer;
• Appeal(Rules 41, 42, 43, 45);
• Certiorari(Rule 65);
• Annulment of judgement(Rule 47)
 JURISDICTION

ERROR OF JURISDICTION
• One where the court ,officer or quasi-judicial body acts without or in excess of
jurisdiction
• Render judgment and proceedings void or voidable
• Reviewable only by Certiorari
ERROR OF JUDGMENT
• One that the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction, it include errors
in the courts findings
• Does not render the court’s decision void
• Reviewable by appeal
 JURISDICTION
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction-
G.R. NO. 147406, JULY 14, 2008, VENANCIO FIGUEROA y CERVANTES vs. PEOPLE
• The general rule should, however, be, as it has always been, that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.  Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from
asserting the court’s absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu
of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.  Indeed, the fact that a person attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does
not estop him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject matter, since such jurisdiction must arise by
law and not by mere consent of the parties.  This is especially true where the person seeking to invoke unauthorized
jurisdiction of the court does not thereby secure any advantage or the adverse party does not suffer any harm.
•  Applying the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the
jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal before the appellate court.  At that
time, no considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach.  True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not
sustain the defense of “estoppel by laches” unless it further appears that the party, knowing his rights, has not sought
to enforce them until the condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that he cannot
be restored to his former state, if the rights be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of
equities, and other causes.  In applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy, the
Court therein considered the patent and revolting inequity and unfairness of having the judgment creditors go up
their Calvary once more after more or less 15 years.  The same, however, does not obtain in the instant case.
• We note at this point that estoppel, being in the nature of a forfeiture, is not favored by law.  It is to be applied rarely
—only from necessity, and only in extraordinary circumstances.  The doctrine must be applied with great care and the
equity must be strong in its favor.  When misapplied, the doctrine of estoppel may be a most effective weapon for the
accomplishment of injustice.
 JURISDICTION

Over the issues –

De Joya vs Marquez : 162416 : January 31, 2006 : J. Azcuna : Second Division
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case:  This is determined and conferred by :
• A)the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or
• B) by their agreement in a pre-trial order or
• C) stipulation, or,
• D) at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule
10.
• 
 JURISDICTION

Over the res or property in litigation

De Joya vs Marquez : 162416 : January 31, 2006 : J. Azcuna : Second Division
•  This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question,
thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or
• by provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or
subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits
involving civil status or real property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant.
• In two cases, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the case, even if it has not acquired
jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction over
the res, as when the action involves the personal status of the plaintiff or property in the
Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest.  In such cases, the service of
summons by publication and notice to the defendant is merely to comply with due process
requirements. 
 JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
2.1 Over the parties (Rule 14)
• Plaintiff
• Defendant
2.1.1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
• By the allegations in the complaint and the applicable statute;
2.1.2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
• By voluntary appearance;
• By a valid service of summons
 JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of courts
Supreme Court
A. Original
1. Exclusive
• Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against:
• 1.1. CA (R.A. 296, Sec. 17, Revised Judiciary Act of 1948);
• 1.2.COMELEC En Banc (Art. 9-A, Sec. 7, 1987 Const.)
• 1.3. COA (Ibid.);
• 1.4. Sandiganbayan (PD 1606, Sec. 7, R.A. 8249, Sec. 12).
• 1.5. CTA En Banc (R.A. 1125, Sec. 19. as amended by R.A. 9282, Sec. 12;
• Ombudsman in criminal and non-administrative disciplinary cases (Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA
470).
 JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of courts
Supreme Court
2. Concurrent
2.1. with the CA-
a)Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus against the CSC (R.A. 7902);
b) Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus against the NLRC under the Labor Code, but
must first filed with the CA (A.M. No. 99-2-01);
2.2. with the CA and RTC-
a) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto (but pet. For habeas corpus involving custody of
minors must be filed with a Family Court, except if there is no judge or family court in the place, in
which case it can be filed with SC, CA or members thereof-A.M. 03-04-04, May 15, 2003;
b) Pet for writ of Amparo (A.M. 07-9-12-SC);
c) Pet for issuance of writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 3, A.M. 08-1-16)
2.3 with the RTCs- actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls (Art.8,
Sec. 5 (1), 1987 Const., BP 129, Sec. 21 (2);
 JURISDICTION

Supreme Court
B. APELLATE-
1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal- from CA, in all criminal cases
involving offenses for which:
a) the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or
b) a lesser penalty is imposed for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to
the more severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed
(Sec. 13-c, Rule 124, as amended by A.M. 00-5—03-SC, Oct 15, 2004,
Sec. 13-b, Rule 124).
 JURISDICTION

Supreme Court
B. APELLATE-
2. By Petition for Review on Certiorari
2.1. Appeals from the CA (R.A. 296, Sec. 17, as amended by R.A. 5440,
Art 8, 1987, Sec. 5 (2); Rule 45, Rules of Court);
2.2. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan on pure question of law, except
cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment, or death (P.D. 1606, Sec. 7, as amended by R.A. 8249;
Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433);
 JURISDICTION
Supreme Court
B. APELLATE-
2. By Petition for Review on Certiorari
2.3. Appeals from judgments or final orders of the RTCs exercising original jurisdiction in the following:
• (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
• (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
• (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
• (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
• (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved (Art. 8, Sec. 5, 2-a, b, c, 1987 Const.,;
R.A. 296, Sec. 17, as amended; B.P. 129, Sec. 9(3); Id., Rule 45; Id., Rule 41, Sec. 2-C; Id., Rule 122, Sec.
3-e.
2.3.1. Appeals from decisions or final orders of the CTA En Banc (Rule 16, Sec. 1, A.M. 05-11-07-CTA,
Revised Rules of the CTA; Sec. 1, Rule 45, as amended by A.M. 07-7-12-SC, Dec. 12, 2007; see also R.A.
9282, 2004).
 JURISDICTION

Court of Appeals –
A.Original Jurisdiction–
1.Exclusive-
• a)Actions for annulment of judgments of the Regional Trial Courts (BP 129, Sec. 9
(2); Rule 47, Rules of Court);
• b). Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus involving an act or omission
of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law (Rule 65, Sec. 4, as
amended by A.M. 07-7-12-SC, dated Dec 12, 2007).
2. Concurrent-
• a) with the SC;
• b) with the SC and RTC
• c)with the SC, Sandiganbayan, and RTCs.
 JURISDICTION
Court of Appeals –
B.APELLATE JURISDICTION
1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal or with Record on Appeal
a)Appeals from the RTCs, except those appealable to the SC;
b)Appeals from the RTCs on constitutional, tax, jurisdictional questions of fact or mixed questions
of fact or mixed questions of fact and law or which should be appealed first to the CA (R.A. 296,
Sec. 17, par.4.4, as amended, which was not intended to be excluded by BP 129, Sec. 9 (3);
c)Appeals from decisions and final orders of the Family Courts (R.A. 8369, Sec. 14);
d)Appeals from the RTCs , where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which
arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty
of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed( Rule 122, Sec. 3-C, as amended by A.M. 00-
5-03-SC, Oct 15, 2004; People v. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640);
e)Direct appeal from Land Registration and Cadastral cases decided by the MTCs based on
delegated jurisdiction (BP 129, Sec. 34, as amended by RA 7691).
 JURISDICTION
. Court of Appeals –
B.APELLATE JURISDICTION
2. Special Civil Action of certiorari (Rule 65) against decisions and final resolutions of the NLRC
(A.M. 99-2-01-SC; St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, GR 13086, Sep 16, 1998; Torres, et al v.
Specialized Packaging Dev Corp.. GR 149634, July 6, 2004);
3. Automatic Review (Intermediate Review) in cases where the RTCs imposed the death penalty
(Secs. 3-d and 10, Rule 122, as amended by A.M. 00=5-03-SC, Oct 15, 2004; Pp v. Mateo);
4. Petition for Review
a)Appeals from CSC (R.A. 7902(1995); Rule 43, Rules of Court);
b)Appeals from RTCs in the latters exercise of appellate jurisdiction (Rules 42 & 122, Sec. 3-b; BP
129, Sec. 22);
c)Appeal from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of, or authorized by, QJAs in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial functions. Among these are: SEC; OP, LRA, SSC, CAB, IPO, NEA,
ERB, NTC, DAR (R.A. 6657), GSIS, ECC, AIB (Ag Inv Board), IC, PAEC, BOI, CIAC, VA authorized by
law, Special Agrarina Courts.
 JURISDICTION

APELLATE JURISDICTION
4. Petition for Review(Rule 43)
d) Appeals from the NCIP (RA 8371 (1997), Sec. 67);
e)Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases( A.M. 99-2-02-SC; Fabian v. Desierto, GR 129742,
Sep 16, 1998);
 JURISDICTION
Sandiganbayan
A. Original Jurisdiction-
1. Exclusive
a)Violations of R.A. 3019, R.A. 3379, and Chap II, Sec. 2, Title VII of the RPC; and other offenses
committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office, and private individuals charged
as co-principals, accomplices, and accessories including those employed in government owned or
controlled corporations, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in government, whether in a permanent, acting, or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense:
1.Officials of the Executive Branch xxx classified as SG 27 or higher xxx specifically including-
2) Members of Congressxx;
3) Members of the Judiciary xxx;
4)Members of the Constitutional Commissions xxx;
5)All other national and local officials classified as SG 27 and higher;
(R.A. 7975 (1995), Sec. 2, as amended by R.A. 8249 (1997);
Note: If there is no allegation in the info that the offense was committed in relation to thepublic office,
the RTC or MTC have original jurisdiction(Lacson v. ES, GR 128096, Jan 20, 1999).
 JURISDICTION

Sandiganbayan
A. Original Jurisdiction-
1. Exclusive
b) Civil and Criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-
A (Sec. 2, R.A. 7975, as amended by R.A. 8249;
c)Violations of R.A. 9160 (AMLA 2001), as amended by RA 9194, when committed by public
officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers.
2. Concurrent with SC
Petition for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and
injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto
arising in cases falling under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 24-A (Id., as amended by RA 8249).
 JURISDICTION
Sandiganbayan
Original jurisdiction-
3. Concurrent with SC, CA and RTCs
a)Pets for Amparo and Habeas Data when action involves public data files of govt offices
(Sec. 3, A.M. 07-9-12-SC; Sec. 3, A.M. 08-1-16-SC);
b) Pets for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus relating to an act or omission of
Municipal Corporations, Board, Officers or persons (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended by A.M.
07-7-12-SC.

B. APPELLATE-
Decisions and final orders of the RTCs in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction under PD 1606, as amended(Rule 122;RA 8249, Sec. 5; R.A. 6758; R.A.
10660, April 16, 2015 );
 JURISDICTION

Court of Tax Appeals

JURISDICTION UNDER R.A. 1125, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 9282-
A. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION/CIVIL-
Jurisdiction over tax collection cases –
• "1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final
and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties:
Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than
One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper
Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.
 JURISDICTION

Court of Tax Appeals

JURISDICTION UNDER R.A. 1125, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 9282-
B. EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION/CRIMINAL CASES-
1. Over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or
Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or
the Bureau of Customs where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges
and penalties, claimed is NOT less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
Note: Where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than P1,000,000.00 or where there is no specified amount claimed the criminal
action shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate.
Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action
and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall
at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding
by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing
of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the
criminal action will be recognized.
 JURISDICTION

CTA EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE/CIVIL-

• Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
• "a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by
them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
• "b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders
of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction."
 JURISDICTION

Court of Tax Appeals

JURISDICTION UNDER R.A. 1125, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 9282-
A. EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE/CIVIL
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
• "1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
• "2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code
provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial.
 JURISDICTION

CTA/EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE/CIVIL:
• "3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local tax cases originally decided
or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
• "4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for
customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of
property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau
of Customs;
• "5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real
property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
 JURISDICTION

CTA/ EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE/CIVIL:

• 6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to
him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of
the Tariff and Customs Code;
• "7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of
nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of
Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article,
involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and
302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard
measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal
the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
 JURISDICTION

CTA/EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE/CRIMINAL-
• Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
• a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTCs
in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial
jurisdiction.

• "b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders

of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the First Level Courts
in their respective jurisdiction.
 JURISDICTION
CTA-
• ・ whether the complaint filed by Klub Don Juan should be treated as an action for declaratory
relief and not injunction is of no moment. Since the issue in this case is the validity of the
provision of the TRAIN Law on the higher DST rate, the RTC is still devoid of  jurisdiction 
because in  Banco de Oro v. Republic of the Philippines,[36]  the Court settled the question
of which court has the  jurisdiction  to determine the constitutionality or validity of tax
laws, rules and regulations, and other administrative issuances of the BIR. The case  Banco
De Oro  made it clear that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) not only has  jurisdiction  to
pass upon the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation when raised by the taxpayer
as a defense in disputing or contesting an assessment or claiming a refund, but also, the CTA
has  jurisdiction  on cases directly challenging the constitutionality or validity of a tax law,
or regulation or administrative issuance such as revenue orders, revenue memorandum circulars,
revenue regulations and rulings. The case of  Banco De Oro  intends the CTA to have
exclusive  jurisdiction  to resolve all tax problems except in cases questioning the legality
or validity of assessment of local taxes where the RTC has  jurisdiction.(G.R. No. 252189,
November 03, 2020, GAMES AND AMUSEMENT BOARD AND BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE VS. KLUB DON JUAN DE MANILA, INC., AND CESAR AVILA, JR., MANILA
JOCKEY CLUB, INC. PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB, INC., AND METRO MANILA TURF
CLUB, INC.)
 JURISDICTION

CTA -
• G.R. No. 219340, November 07, 2018 ,COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE VS. STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., the RTC not only
grossly erred in giving due course to the petition for declaratory relief,
and in ultimately deciding to permanently enjoin the enforcement of
the specified provisions of the NIRC against the respondent, but even
worse acted without jurisdiction. Reason: Lack of Jurisdiction and
impropriety (Secs. 11. and 218, R.A. 1125).
 JURISDICTION
Regional Trial Courts/Regular Courts
A. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION/CIVIL
1. EXCLUSIVE-
2. All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds P2,000,000.00;
3. Probate proceedings, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
P2,000,00.00;
4. In all other cases In which the demand, exclusive of IDALEC or the value of the property in controversy
exceeds P2,000,000.00 or the value of the property in controversy exceeds P2,000,000.00. ( BUT if the
main action is for damages the total amount determines jurisdiction (Adm. Circular 09-94, June 14,
1994);
5. Actions involving the title to or possession of real property or any interest therein, where the
assessed value of the property involved exceeds P2,000,000.00, EXCEPT actions for forcible entry and
unlawful detainer:
6. Subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
7. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;(BP 129 as amended by RA 11576, July 30, 2021)
 JURISDICTION
Regional Trial Courts/Commercial Courts
A. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION/CIVIL
1. EXCLUSIVE-
a)Devices or schemes employed by, or any acts of, the board of directors, business
associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud or misrepresentation xxx;
b)Controversies arising out of intra-corporate partnership relations xxx;
c)Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers
of such corporation, partnership, or association; and
d)Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in a state of
suspension of payments xxx(RA 8799, July 19, 2000)
e)Application for issuance of search warrants in civil actions for infringement of intellectual
property rights (Sec. 3, A.M. 02-1-06-SC, Feb 15, 2002);
f)Violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act by private persons not in conspiracy with a
public officer (R.A . 9160, as amended by RA 9194
 JURISDICTION

Regional Trial Courts/Regular Courts

A. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION/CIVIL
2. CONCURRENT-
a)With SC- Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls(BP 129, Sec. 21(1);
b)With SC and CA- Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto;
c)With SC, CA and Sandigan
1.Petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data;
2.Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, if they relate to
an act or omission of a municipal trial court, corporation, board, officer, or
person(Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended by A.M. 07- 7-12-SC, Dec 12, 2007).
 JURISDICTION

Regional Trial Courts/Regular Courts

A. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION/CIVIL
2. CONCURRENT-
d)With First Level Courts- in application for Protection Order under RA
9282, Sec.10, if there is no Family Court in the residence of the
petitioner;
e)With the Insurance Commission- on claims not exceeding
P100,000.00(Sec. 416, PD612) and the subject of the action is incapable
of pecuniary estimation. Otherwise, jurisdiction is concurrent with the
First Level Courts;
 JURISDICTION
Regional Trial Courts/Regular Courts
ORIGINAL/CRIMINAL/EXCLUSIVE-
1.Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court tribunal or body
• a. Includes offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 6 years irrespective of the fine(BP
129, Sec. 20; RA 7691);
• b. Includes criminal cases not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the sandiganbayan where
none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or there is no
JURISDICTION
allegation of government’s damage or where the alleged danage or bribe is less than one million
pesos (RA 7975 & RA 8249; RA 10660).
• C.Cases where the only penalty is fine exceeding P4000 (RA 7691 & A.C. 09-94);
• d.Other laws which specifically lodge jurisdiction in the RTC
• a. law on written defamation or libel
• b. Intellectual property code.
• c. violations of Dangerous Drug Act except when offenders are under 16 and there are
juvenile and Domestic Relations courts ;
• 4. Cases falling under the Family Courts in areas where there are no Family Courts
 JURISDICTION
RTC/Regular courts
B. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
All cases decided by First Level Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdiction(BP 129, Sec. 22);
 JURISDICTION
Family Courts
A. ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE/CIVIL
1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the
latter(Sec. 3,A.M. 03-04-04-SC, May 15, 2003; Sec. 3, A.M. 03-02-05-SC, April 15,
2003);
2. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof (Secs. A.20 and B.28, A.M.
02-6-02-SC, Aug 22, 2002; RA 9523, March 12, 2009, amending RA 8552 and RA 8043,
and PD 603, DSWD’s issuance of Certifcate of Legally Available for Adoption);
3. Annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to martial status
and property relations of husband & wife or those living together under different status
and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains (Sec.2,
A.M. 02-11-10-SC, March 15, 2003);
4. Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for removal of custody against child-
placement or child-caring agency, or individual, and for commitment of disabled child
(A.M. 02-1-19-SC, April 15, 2002);
 JURISDICTION
Family Courts
A. ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE/CIVIL
5.Petition for support and/ or acknowledgement;
6.Summary judicial proceedings under Family Code;
7.Declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected,
petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, matter relating
to parental authority and other cases under PD 603 and other related laws;
8.Constitution of family home;
9.Violation of VAWC Law (RA 9262)
 JURISDICTION
Family Courts
A. ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE/CRIMINAL
10.One or more of the accused is below 18 years of age but not less than 15 years of
age(RA 9344, RA 9208);
11.One of the victim is a living minor at the time of the commission the crime (People v
Hon. Ma. Theresa L. Dela Torre- Yadao, et al., GR No. 162144-54, Nov 13, 2012).
12.Cases against minors under the Dangerous Drug Act(RA 9165; A.M. 07-8-2-SC);
13.Violations of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and discrimination Act) as amended by RA 7658 and RA 9231);
14.Violation of RA 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009);
15.Cases of domestic violence against women and children (RA 9262).
 JURISDICTION
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
A. ORIGINAL/EXCLUSIVE /CIVIL
1. Actions involving personal property valued at not more than P2,000,000.00;

2. Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding P2,000,000.00; Admiralty and

maritime cases included.
Note: amount of sums of money demanded is exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind , attorney’s fees ,litigation expenses and costs (IDALEC), the amount
of which must be specifically alleged but the filing fees thereon shall be paid
Note: damages will only be excluded if it is merely incidental to a principal action.
If the claim for damages is the principal action then the amount of damages claimed
shall be determinative of jurisdiction. Totality rule applies.
3. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value of the estate does not
exceed P2,000,000.000(BP 129, Sec. 33, as amended by RA 11576);
 JURISDICTION
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
A. ORIGINAL/EXCLUSIVE /CIVIL

4. Actions involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein where
the assessed value does not Exceed P400,000.00;
5. Provisional remedies in principal actions within their jurisdiction

6. Inclusion and exclusion of voters(Sec. 38, BP 881);

7. Cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure

a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions, with jurisdiction to resolve the issue of ownership
only to determine the issue of possession; irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
sought to be recovered. Where attorney’s fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed P20,000
8. Small claims.
 JURISDICTION
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
DELEGATED-
• Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by the supreme court
where there is no controversy or opposition or in case of contested lands.
The value does not exceed P100,000
SPECIAL
• Petition for Habeas Corpus or application bail in criminal cases in the city
or province where the RTC judge is absent;
• Application for bail for offenses cognizable by the RTC, in the absence of
RTC judges (BP 129, Sec. 35).
 JURISDICTION
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
ORGINAL/EXCLUSIVE/CRIMINAL CASES
1.Offenses, NOT COGNIZABLE BY RTC, punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years regardless of the fine,
accessory penalties and civil liability
2.Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence
3.Offenses where the only penalty is a fine not exceeding P4,000
4.Offenses covered by rules on Summary Procedure
• a. Violations of rental laws;
• b. Violations of city municipal and ordinances in their territorial jurisdiction;
• c. Violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Check Law)
• d. All other criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months and/or P1000 fine
irrespective of other penalties or civil liabilities therefrom and offences involving damage to property through
criminal negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00.
5. Crimes committed by public officers not falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the Sandiganbayan
 JURISDICTION
SHARIA CIRCUIT COURTS (1ST LEVEL COURTS)
(1) All cases involving offences defined and punished under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws
(2) All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims or have been married in accordance
with article 13 involving disputes relating to:
a. Marriage;
b. Divorce recognized under this Code;
c. Betrothal or breach of contract to marry;
d. Customary dower (mahr);
e. Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce;
f. Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts, (mut’a); and
g. Restitution of marital rights.

(3) All cases involving disputes relative to communal properties

 JURISDICTION
SHARIA DISTRICT COURTS (APPELLATE COURTS)
1.) The Shari' a District Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over:
a. All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under
this code;
b. All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the state of deceased Muslims,
probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment of administrators or
executors regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of the property
c. Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the cancellation or correction of
entries in the Muslim registries mentioned in Title VI of Book Two of this code
d. All actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have
not specified which law shall govern their relations; and
e. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other
auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
 ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION VS. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
EN BANC, G.R. No. 232579, September 08, 2020, DR. NIXON L. TREYESVS. ANTONIO L. LARLAR,
•Given the clear dictates of the Civil Code that the rights of the heirs to the inheritance vest immediately at the
precise moment of the decedent's death even without judicial declaration of heirship, and the various Court En
Banc and Division decisions holding that no prior judicial declaration of heirship is necessary before an heir can
file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession through the
nullification of deeds divesting property or properties forming part of the estate and reconveyance thereof to
the estate or for the common benefit of the heirs of the decedent, the Court hereby resolves to clarify the
prevailing doctrine.
• 
•Accordingly, the rule laid down in Ypon, Yaptinchay, Portugal, Reyes, Heirs of Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, and
other similar cases, which requires a prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding as a
prerequisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of
succession, is abandoned.
• 
•Henceforth, the rule is: unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent's
estate or for the determination of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary
civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other action in
the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior
and separate judicial declaration of their status as such. The ruling of the trial court shall only be in relation to
the cause of action of the ordinary civil action, i.e., the nullification of a deed or instrument, and recovery or
reconveyance of property, which ruling is binding only between and among the parties.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE
Personal actions/real actions/ mixed actions
As to cause:
 
REAL ACTION PERSONAL ACTION MIXED ACTION
Ownership or possession ofPersonal property is Both real and personal
real property is involved sought to be properties are involved
recovered or where
damages for breach of
contract are sought
Founded on privity of real Founded on privity of Founded on both
state contract
Filed in the court where Filed in the court The rules on venue of
the property or any part where the plaintiff or real actions shall
thereof is situated
any of the defendants govern
resides, at the option
of the plaintiff
 PERSONAL ACTION
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
G.R. NO. 152808, September 30, 2005, ANTONIO T. CHUA, VS. TOTAL OFFICE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
(TOPROS), INC., -A complaint for annulment of fictitious contract was held to be a personal action
because the title and/or possession has not yet passed on to the mortgagee; Action to annul loan and
its accessory real estate mortgage is a personal action. Pascual case WAS NOT APPLIED in this case
because in Pascual, though it is also an annulment of an alleged fictititious contract, the title to and
possession of the subject fishpond had already passed to the vendee.  There was, therefore, a need to
recover the said fishpond.  Here, ownership of the parcels of land subject of the questioned real estate
mortgage was never transferred to petitioner, but remained with TOPROS.  Thus, no real action for the
recovery of real property is involved.  This being the case, TOPROS' action for annulment of the
contracts of loan and real estate mortgage remains a personal action.
Hernandez case which held that with respect to mortgage, the rule on real actions only mentions an
action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage.  It does not include an action for the cancellation of a
real estate mortgage.  Exclusio unios est inclusio alterius. The latter thus falls under the catch-all
provision on personal actions under paragraph (b), Sec. 2 of Rule, was not also applied. Thus, Pasig
court has jurisdiction.
Case dismissed for improper venue it being a personal action. Hence, the venue for personal action
must be followed.
 PERSONAL ACTION
G.R. No. 130991, March 11, 2004 -DIMO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND LUZ M. DIZON VS.
LEONARDO P. DIMACULANGAN- Action to compel delivery of title of a lot where plaintiff is already in
possession of the same is a personal action.
The complaint alleges that sometime in 1967 to 1968, petitioners engaged the services of respondent
as geodetic surveyor to subdivide (into subdivision lots) two (2) parcels of land situated in Barrio
Namuco, Rosario, Batangas covered byTCT Nos. T-25972 and T-24294 of the RD of that province.  As
payment for respondent’s services, petitioner agreed to give him one (1) subdivision lot (Lot 19, Block
17 covered by TCT No. T-25972) at Villa Luz Subdivision and pay him P9,200.00 in cash.  After the
completion of respondent’s work, petitioners paid him P9,200.00 in installments and delivered to him
possession of the lot.  However, despite respondent’s demands, petitioners failed to deliver the title of
the lot, prompting him to file with the RTC a complaint for specific performance and damages.
It bears emphasis that respondent does not allege in his complaint that he is seeking to recover the lot
from petitioners.  This is because he has been in possession thereof.  In fact, petitioner Dimo Realty
even filed with the MTC of Rosario, Batangas two (2) separate complaints for unlawful detainer and
forcible entry against respondent’s buyers.  It is thus clear that what is being claimed by respondent is
simply the delivery of the title to him as payment for his services. 
It follows that the complaint below is not a real action, but a personal action.
 PERSONAL ACTION

G.R. No. 154489, July 25, 2003, FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (FEBTC)
AND/OR BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. SPOUSES ROMULO PLAZA AND
WILMA PLAZA-An action to compel the mortgagee to accept payment and for the
consequent cancellation of a real estate mortgage is a personal action if the
mortgagee has not foreclosed the mortgage and the mortgagor is in possession of the
premises since neither the mortgagor's title to nor possession of the property is in
question.
Contrary to petitioners' contention, respondents do not question the validity of the
real estate mortgage they entered into. In fact they uphold its validity since they are
willing to pay their obligation under the contract after which the contract should then
be declared without legal effect. Also, there is as yet no transfer of title from
respondents to petitioners. Respondents maintain that the title remains in their name
and they are still in actual physical possession of the property. There is no foreclosure
yet of the mortgage. Hence, there is no title to the land to be affected by the action.
 REAL ACTION
G.R. NO. 155736, March 31, 2005- SPOUSES DANILO AND CRISTINA DECENA, VS.
SPOUSES PEDRO AND VALERIA PIQUERO- If the principal claim is for recovery of real
property as a result of breach of contract, the claim for damages are but incidental,
there is only one cause of action which is a real action.
The sole issue is whether or not venue was properly laid by the petitioners in the RTC of
Malolos, Bulacan. The resolution of this issue is, in turn, anchored on whether Section 5,
Rule 2 of the Rules of Court invoked by the petitioners is applicable in this case.
Under the said Rule, a party may, in one pleading, assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party subject
to the conditions therein enumerated, one of which is Section 5(c) which reads:
Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. --(c) Where the causes of action are between
the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be
allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within
the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein;
 REAL ACTION

G.R. NO. 155736, March 31, 2005- SPOUSES DANILO AND CRISTINA DECENA, VS. SPOUSES
PEDRO AND VALERIA PIQUERO-
In declaring whether more than one cause of action is alleged, the main thrust is whether more
than one primary right or subject of controversy is present. Other tests are whether recovery on
one ground would bar recovery on the other, whether the same evidence would support the
other different counts and whether separate actions could be maintained for separate relief; or
whether more than one distinct primary right or subject of controversy is alleged for
enforcement or adjudication.
• A cause of action may be single although the plaintiff seeks a variety of remedies. The mere
fact that the plaintiff prays for multiple reliefs does not indicate that he has stated more than
one cause of action. The prayer may be an aid in interpreting the petition and in determining
whether or not more than one cause of action is pleaded. If the allegations of the complaint
show one primary right and one wrong, only one cause of action is alleged even though other
matters are incidentally involved, and although different acts, methods, elements of injury,
items of claims or theories of recovery are set forth. Where two or more primary rights and
wrongs appear, there is a joinder of causes of action.
 REAL ACTION
G.R. NO. 155736, March 31, 2005- SPOUSES DANILO AND CRISTINA DECENA, VS. SPOUSES PEDRO AND VALERIA
PIQUERO-
After due consideration of the foregoing, we find and so rule that Section 5(c), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court does not
apply. This is so because the petitioners, as plaintiffs in the court a quo, had only one cause of action against the
respondents, namely, the breach of the MOA upon the latter’s refusal to pay the first two installments in payment of
the property as agreed upon, and turn over to the petitioners the possession of the real property, as well as the house
constructed thereon occupied by the respondents. The claim for damages for reasonable compensation for the
respondents use and occupation of the property, in the interim, as well as moral and exemplary damages suffered by
the petitioners on account of the aforestated breach of contract of the respondents are merely incidental to the main
cause of action, and are not independent or separate causes of action.
The action of the petitioners for the rescission of the MOA on account of the respondents breach thereof and the
latter s failure to return the premises subject of the complaint to the petitioners, and the respondents eviction
therefrom is a real action. As such, the action should have been filed in the proper court where the property is located,
namely, in Paranaque City, conformably with Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court which reads:
SECTION 1. Venue of real actions. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
  Since the petitioners, who were residents of Malolos, Bulacan, filed their complaint in the said RTC, venue was
improperly laid; hence, the trial court acted conformably with Section 1(c), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court when it
ordered the dismissal of the complaint.
 TEST TO DETERMINE IF ACTION IS REAL OR PERSONAL-

G.R. No. 49475.  September 28, 1993 JORGE C. PADERANGA vs. Hon. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN,
Presiding Judge, CFI of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch III and ELUMBA INDUSTRIES COMPANY, -
where the ultimate purpose of an action involves title to or seeks recovery of possession, partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, such an action must be deemed a
real action even if the principal claim is for damages and recovery of possession is merely incidental.
Private respondent instituted an action for damages which, at the same time, prayed for the fixing
of the period of lease at five (5) years, before the then CFI of Zamboanga based in Dipolog City.
Petitioner, a resident of Ozamiz City, moved for its dismissal contending that the action was a real
action which should have been filed with the CFI of Misamis Occidental stationed in Ozamiz City
where the property in question was situated.
HELD: Real action. While the action is for damages arising from an alleged breach of the lease
contract, it likewise prays for the fixing of the period of lease at five (5) years.  If found meritorious,
private respondent will be entitled to remain not only as lessee for another five (5) years but also to
the recovery of the portion earlier taken from him as well.  This is because the leased premises
under the original contract was the whole commercial space itself and not just the subdivided
portion thereof.
 LOCAL ACTION VS. TRANSITORY ACTION
LOCAL ACTION
Must be brought in a particular
place where the subject property
is located, unless, there is an
agreement to the contrary
(Section 4, Rule 4)
e.g. Action to recover
real property.
TRANSITORY ACTION
Dependent on the place where
the party resides regardless of the
place where the cause of action
arose subject to Sec. 4, Rule 4’
e.g. Action to recover sum of
money.
 NATURE OF ACTIONS
IN REM IN PERSONAM QUASI IN REM
Directed against the thing Directed against a Directed against particular
itself particular person persons
Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction over the person
person of the defendant is person of the defendant of the defendant is NOT
NOT required IS required required as long as
jurisdiction over the res is
acquired

A proceeding to An action to impose a A proceeding to subject the

determine the state or responsibility or liability interest of a named
condition of a thing upon a person directly defendant over a particular
property to an obligation or
lien burdening it

Judgment is binding on Judgment is binding onlyJudgment binding upon

the whole world upon parties impleaded particular persons
or their successors in
interest
E.g. Probate proceeding; E.g. Action for specific E.g. An action for partition;
cadastral proceeding performance; action for action to foreclose REM
breach of contract
 ACTION IN REM

Jesse U. Lucas vs. Jesus J. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011- petition to establish illegitimate
filiation is an action in rem.
An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is
directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as
defendant, but its object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien or
obligation. A petition directed against the "thing" itself or the res, which concerns the status of a
person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of marriage, or correction of entries in the birth
certificate, is an action in rem.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to
validly try and decide the case.  In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has
jurisdiction over the res.  Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property
under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law, or (b) as a result of the
institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
 CAUSE OF ACTION
Cause of Action
• Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
CAUSE OF ACTION – The act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another.
REQUISITES OF A CAUSE OF ACTION (ROVID):
• 1.LEGAL RIGHT of the plaintiff.
• 2.CORRELATIVE OBLIGATION of the defendant to respect plaintiff’s right; and
• 3.Act or omission of the defendant in VIOLATION of the plaintiff’s legal right.
• 4. INJURY and Damages is sustained by the plaintiff.
RIGHT OF ACTION – Right of a person to bring and prosecute action to obtain judgment.
 REQUISITES OF THE RIGHT OF ACTION:
• 1. There must be a GOOD CAUSE;
• 2. Compliance with all the CONDITIONS PRECEDENT; and
• 3. Action must be instituted by the PROPER PARTY.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation
of the primary right of the plaintiff
The reason for the action
The formal statement of the operative
facts that gives rise to remedial right
A matter of procedure and depends on
the pleadings filed by the parties
Not affected by affirmative defenses
(fraud, prescription, estoppel, ect.)
vs. RIGHT OF ACTION
Remedial right or right to relief granted by law to a
party to institute an action against a person who has
committed a delict or wrong against him. Right of
action springs from the cause of action.
There can be no right of action until there
has been a violation of a legal right.
The remedy or means afforded or the consequent
relief
The remedial right given to a person because of the
occurrence of the alleged facts
A matter of right and depends on substantive law
Affected by affirmative defenses
 CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to state a cause of action

• Exists if any of the elements of a cause of action is absent.
Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action
a) Determined from the facts alleged in the complaint, if motion to dismiss
is filed;
b) The test is whether, assuming the allegations of facts in the complaint
are true, a valid judgment could be rendered in accordance with the prayer
in the complaint.
Exception: If defendants permits plaintiff to introduce evidence without
objection, the defects of insufficiency is cured.
 CAUSE OF ACTION
Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
• SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION - The act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several
parts or claims and bringing several actions thereon . IT IS NOT ALLOWED.
• Splitting prohibition applies NOT only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims, third-
party claim, and the likes.
• A single act/delict may sometimes violate several rights of a person. Nevertheless the plaintiff has only
one cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated (Joseph v. Bautista 170 SCRA 540 (1989))
Remedies against splitting a single cause of action:
• A)Motion to dismiss on the ground of:
• 1)Litis pendentia (Sec. 12, Rule 15); or
• 2)Res judicata (Sec. 12, Rule 15]).
• B) Plead in the answer as an affirmative defense. (Sec. 5(B), Rule 6)
• GENERAL RULE: A contract embraces only one cause of action even if it contains several stipulations.
• EXCEPTION: A contract to do several things at several times is divisible, and judgment for a single
breach of a continuing contract is not a bar to a suit for a subsequent breach. (e.g. promissory note
payable in several installments so long as there is no acceleration clause)
 CASUE OF ACTION

DOCTRINE OF ANTIPACITORY BREACH

• An UNQUALIFIED and POSITIVE REFUSAL to perform a contract,
though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the
renunciation goes into the whole contract, be treated as a complete
breach.
• This breach entitles the injured party to bring his action at once. The
anticipatory breach committed by the defendant entitles the plaintiff
to only one cause of action for damages. (Blossom & Co. v. Manila
Gas Corp. 55 Phil 226 (1930))
 JOINDER OF CASUES OF ACTION
Joinder of causes of action
• JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION – is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have
against another in one pleading alone. It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of
action in one action. It is not compulsory but merely permissive. The plaintiff can always file separate
actions for each cause of action
REQUISITES FOR JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION:
• a) The party who is joining the causes of action must comply with the RULES ON JOINDER OF
PARTIES:
• A right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transaction; and
• There exists a common question of law or fact . (Sec. 6, Rule 3);
• b) The joinder shall NOT include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
• c) Where the causes of action are between the SAME PARTIES but pertain to DIFFERENT VENUES OR
JURISDICTION, the joinder may be allowed in in the RTC, provided that;
• One of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC; and
• Venue lies thereon
• d) Where the claims in the causes of action are principally for RECOVERY OF SUM OF MONEY, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Totality Rule)
 JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
RESTRICTIONS ON THE JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION:
• Jurisdiction;
• Venue; and
• Joinder of parties.
• If for sum of money, totality rule.
Misjoinder of causes of action
• It is NOT a ground for dismissal of an action, but may be severed and proceeded separately upon
motion by a party OR upon court’s own initiative.
Example: Proper joinder of plaintiffs-
• PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. VS. STANDARD INSURANCE CO., G.R. NO. 140746, March 16,
2005- there was proper joinder because the single accident giving rise to several injuries involves a
common question of fact and law though there are separate claims for damages.
• In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantranco’s bus hitting the rear
side of the jeepney.  There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether Pantranco was negligent. 
There being a single transaction common to both respondents (plaintiffs), consequently, they have the
same cause of action against petitioners. There being a single transaction common to both
respondents, consequently, they have the same cause of action against petitioners.
 JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

TOTALITY RULE-
Application of the totality rule under Section 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 11 of the Interim Rules is subject
to the requirements for the permissive joinder of parties.
G.R. No. 66620, September 24, 1986, REMEGIO V. FLORES VS. HON. JUDGE HEILIA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS, IGNACIO
BINONGCAL & FERNANDO CALION-
• Order appealed from states that the first cause of action alleged in the complaint was against Ignacio Binongcal for refusing
to pay the amount of P11,643.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner on various
occasions from August to October, 1981; and the second cause of action was against Fernando Calion for allegedly refusing to
pay the amount of P10,212.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner on several
occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982.
• Needless to state, if the causes of action are separate and independent, their joinder in one complaint is permissive and not
mandatory, and any cause of action where the amount of the demand is twenty thousand pesos or less may be the subject of
a separate complaint filed with a metropolitan or municipal trial court;
• Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes of action
against a defendant join in a single complaint, as well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two
or more defendants joined in a single complaint. However, the causes of action in favor of the two or more plaintiffs or
against the two or more defendants should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there should be a
common question of law or fact, as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.
• In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder of parties
pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that after a careful scrutiny of the complaint,
it appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against respondents Binongcal and Calion are
separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction.
 PARTIES
PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
•A natural person;
•A juridical person; or
•An entity authorized by law (even if it lacked juridical personality)
•PLAINTIFF- one having an interest in the matter of the action or in obtaining the relief demanded and is one who
files the complaint.
•DEFENDANT- one claiming an interest in the controversy or the subject thereof adverse to the plaintiff.
•The term defendant may include:
•1.An unwilling plaintiff or one who should be joined as plaintiff but refuses to give his consent thereto (Sec. 10,
Rule3)
•2.The original plaintiff becoming a defendant to original defendant ‘s counterclaim; or
•3.One necessary to a complete determination or settlement of the question involved therein.
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANT-
•Where the plaintiff is uncertain against whom of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any OR all of
them in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right against the other.
•Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that an action must brought in the name but NOT necessarily “by”
the real party in interest. In fact, the practice is for an attorney in fact to bring the action, e.g. to file complaint in
the name of the plaintiff. (Tuason v. Bolanos 95 Phil 06 (1954)).
•The prosecution of an action in the name of one who is not the real party in interest may be a ground for
dismissal on account of the failure to state a cause of action
 
 PARTIES
CLASSIFICATION OF PARTIES IN INTEREST:
• 1.)INDISPENSABLE PARTIES- Those without whom no final determination can be had of an action
(must be joined under all conditions)
• 2)NECESSARY (OR PROPER) PARTIES- Those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as
parties if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, of for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action (may or may not be joined)
• 3)REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES- Those acting in fiduciary capacity such as trustees, guardian,
executors, or administrators. The beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
deemed to be real part in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent
acting in his own name and or the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without
joining the principal EXCEPT when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
• 4)PRO FORMA PARTIES –Those who are required to be joined as co-parties in suites by or against
another party as may be provided by the applicable substantive law or procedural rule such as in
the case of spouses under Section 4, Rule 3.
• 5) QUASI PARTIES – Those in whose behalf a class or representative suit is brought.
 PARTIES
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES VS. NECESSARY PARTIES
Must be joined under any and all Should be joined whenever possible,
conditions, their presence being a sinethe action can proceed even in their
qua non for the exercise of judicial absence
power

No valid judgment if indispensable party The case may be determined in court but
is not joined; PROCEEDINGS VOID, and the judgment therein will not resolve the
the action should be dismissed. His absence entire controversy if a necessary party is
renders all subsequent actuations of the court not joined
void, for want of authority to act, not only as
to the absent parties but even as to those
present.

IP has an interest in the controversy thatNP is one whose presence is necessary to

a final determination would necessarilyadjudicate the whole controversy but whose
affects his rights so that the court cannotinterests are so far separable that a final
proceed without their presence decree can be made in their absence
without affecting them
 PARTIES
REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES/PRO FORMA PARTIES-
• In marriages governed by the rules of conjugal partnership of gains, an obligation entered
into by the husband and wife is chargeable against their conjugal partnership and it is the
partnership, which is primarily bound for its repayment. Thus, when the spouses are sued
for the enforcement of the obligation entered into by them, they are being impleaded in
their capacity as representatives of the conjugal partnership and not as independent
debtors, such that the concept of joint and solidary liability, as between them, does not
apply.
• When the spouses are sued for the enforcement of the obligation entered into by them,
they are being impleaded in their capacity as representatives of the conjugal partnership
and not as independent debtors.
• Hence, either of them may be sued for the whole amount, similar to that of a solidary
liability, although the amount is chargeable against their conjugal partnership property.
Thus, Alipio v. Court of Appeals, the two sets of defendant-spouses therein were held
liable for P25,300.00 each, chargeable to their respective conjugal partnerships. (G.R. NO.
160347, November 29, 2006- ARCADIO AND MARIA LUISA CARANDANG, , VS. HEIRS OF
QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN, NAMELY: MILAGROS DE GUZMAN, VICTOR DE GUZMAN,
REYNALDO DE GUZMAN, CYNTHIA G. RAGASA AND QUIRINO DE GUZMAN, JR)
 PRO FORMA PARTIES

General Rule: Spouse should sue or be sued jointly

Exceptions:
1. Judicial separation;
2. Separation of at least one year;
3. Separation of property agreed upon in the marriage settlement;
4. Administration of all properties in the marriage has been transferred to the wife;
5. Litigation is between husband and wife;
6. Suit concerns her paraphernal property;
7. Action is upon a civil liability arising from a criminal offense;
8.. Litigation is incidental to the profession, occupation or business in which she is
engaged;
9. Civil action under Arts. 25 to 35 of the Civil Code;
10. Quasi –delict(Art. 2176).
 PARTIES
Real Party In Interest:
• The party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit; or
• The party entitled to the avails of the suit (Rule 3, Sec. 2).
• All principal parties to an action whether as plaintiff or defendant must be a real party- in-
interest;
The purposes of this provision are:
• 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the
case;
• 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action;
• 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and
• 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to sound public
policy. A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not
the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action (G.R. No.
164703, May 04, 2010, ALLAN C. GO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE
"ACG EXPRESS LINER," VS. MORTIMER F. CORDERO, and G.R. No. 164747] MORTIMER F.
CORDERO VS. ALLAN C. GO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE "ACG
EXPRESS LINER," FELIPE M. LANDICHO AND VINCENT D. TECSON)
 PARTIES
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST-
G.R. NO. 160347, November 29, 2006- ARCADIO AND MARIA LUISA CARANDANG, , VS. HEIRS OF QUIRINO A.
DE GUZMAN, NAMELY: MILAGROS DE GUZMAN, VICTOR DE GUZMAN, REYNALDO DE GUZMAN, CYNTHIA G.
RAGASA AND QUIRINO DE GUZMAN, JR.,- Failure to include the wife as co-plaintiff in action to recover sum
of money is not a ground for dismissal. As co-owner, she is not an indispensable party-
•The spouses Carandang claim that, since three of the four checks used to pay their stock subscriptions were
issued in the name of Milagros de Guzman, the latter should be considered an indispensable party. Being
such, the spouses Carandang claim, the failure to join Mrs. de Guzman as a party-plaintiff should cause the
dismissal of the action because "(i)f a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest.
•While it is correct that "(i)f a suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion
to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action." However, what dismissal
on this ground entails is an examination of whether the parties presently pleaded are interested in the
outcome of the litigation, and not whether all persons interested in such outcome are actually pleaded. The
latter query is relevant in discussions concerning indispensable and necessary parties, but not in discussions
concerning real parties in interest. Both indispensable and necessary parties are considered as real parties in
interest, since both classes of parties stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit.
•credits loaned during the time of the marriage are presumed to be conjugal property. Consequently,
assuming that the four checks created a debt for which the spouses Carandang are liable, such credits are
presumed to be conjugal property. There being no evidence to the contrary, such presumption subsists. As
such, Quirino de Guzman (as co-owner of specific partnership property) is certainly a real party in interest
and can file suit without joining his wife (co-owner) pursuant to Artilce 487 in relation to Article 1811 of the
civil code.
 PARTIES
PERMISSIVE JOINDER of Parties-
• Permissive joinder of parties can be joined in one single complaint or may
themselves maintain or be sued in separate suits.
Requisites of permissive joinder of parties:
1)Right to relief arises out of the SAME TRANSACTION or SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS.
2)There is a QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT COMMON to all the plaintiffs or defendants;
and
3)Such joinder is NOT OTHERWISE PROSCRIBED by the provisions of the rules on
jurisdiction and venue.
• SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS- Separate transactions which are directly connected with
the same subject matter of the suit.
COMPULSORY JOINDER OF PARTIES
• Normally, a joinder of parties is permissive. The joinder of a party becomes
compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party.
 
 PARTIES
DUTY OF A PLEADER WHENEVER A NECESSARY PARTY IS NOT JOINED OR
IMPLEADED:
• 1)State the name of the necessary party, if known; and
• 2)State why necessary party is omitted in the pleading.
• Should the court find the reason for the omission UNMERITORIOUS, it may order
the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be
obtained by ordering plaintiff to file an amended complaint impleading the
necessary party therein as co-defendant.
Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
• Are not grounds for dismissal of the action.
• Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion OR on its own
initiative at ANY stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
• Objections to defects in parties should be, made at the earliest opportunity by a
MOTION TO STRIKE THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES impleaded.
• Objections to misjoinder cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
 PARTIES
CLASS SUIT
•An action where one or more may sue for the benefit of all, implying that if the parties are
numerous and it is impractical to bring them to court, one or more may sue for their
benefit.
•Whether the suit is or is not a class suits depends upon the attending facts.
REQUISITES OF A CLASS SUIT:
1.Subject matter of the controversy is one of COMMON or GENERAL INTEREST to many
persons;
2.The parties affected are so NUMEROUS that it is impracticable to join them all as parties;
3. Parties bringing the class suit are SUFFICIENTLY NUMEROUS AND REPRESENTATIVE of the
class and can fully protect the interests of all connected and;
4. The complaint must specifically state that the same is being brought IN BEHALF of others
with whom the parties share a common interest.
•NOTE: Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual
interest.
•Rule 17, Sec. 2- class suit cannot be compromised or dismissed without the approval of the
court.
 
 
 PARTIES
CLASS SUIT
• Claimants of different portions embraced in a big tract
of land cannot bring class suit because each one of
them has a particular interest in his own portion,
separate and different from the others (Rallonza vs.
Villanueva, 15 Phil. 531).
 PARTIES
CLASS SUIT
• Example: Taxpayer’s suit, stockholder’s derivative suit.
Locus standi TEST-
• is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.” In private suits, Section 2, Rule 3
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest,” Succinctly put, a party’s standing is based on his own right to the relief sought.
• Even in public interest cases such as this petition, the Court has generally adopted the “direct injury” test that
the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have “a personal and substantial interest in the case
such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.” Thus, while petitioners assert a public right
to assail CB Circular No. 905 as an illegal executive action, it is nonetheless required of them to make out a
sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the securing of relief. It is significant that in this
petition, the petitioners do not allege that they sustained any personal injury from the issuance of CB Circular
No. 905.
• In Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, involving the on-line lottery contract of the PCSO, there was no allegation that
public funds were being misspent, which according to the Court would have made the action a public one,
“and justify relaxation of the requirement that an action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-
interest.” The Court held, moreover, that the status of Kilosbayan as a people’s organization did not give it the
requisite personality to question the validity of the contract. ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING, INC. vs. BSP,
infra.)
 PARTIES

LOCUS STANDI/TAXPAYER’S SUIT-

In Prof. David v. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court summarized the requirements before
taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators can be accorded a standing to sue, viz:
• (1) the cases involve constitutional issues;
• (2)for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax
measure is unconstitutional;
• (3)for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in
question;
• (4)for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental
importance which must be settled early; and (5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the
official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.(EN BANC, G.R. No.
192986, January 15, 2013, ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING, INC. and EDUARDO B.
OLAGUER VS. BSP MONETARY BOARD , ET AL.,).
 PARTIES

LOCUS STANDI/TAXPAYER’S SUIT- EXCEPTION TO LOCUS STANDI:

• where the transcendental importance of the issues has been established,
notwithstanding the petitioners’ failure to show a direct injury.
• In CREBA v. ERC, the Court set out the following instructive guides as determinants on
whether a matter is of transcendental importance, namely:
• (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in the case;
• (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or statutory prohibition
by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the government; and
• (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions
being raised.
• (4)Further, the Court stated in Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive
Secretary that the rule on standing will not be waived where these determinants are
not established (Ibid., supra).
 PARTIES
ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY
Suits against entities without juridical personality
REQUISITES:
1. There are two or more persons NOT ORGANIZED AS A JURIDICAL ENTITY;
2. They enter into a TRANSACTION ;and
3. A wrong or DELICT is committed against a third person in the course of such transaction.
• NOTE: Persons associated in an entity without juridical personality may be sued under the name by
which they are commonly known, but they cannot sue under such name.
• Service of summons upon a non-juridical entity-
• Rule 14, Sec. 8- Service of summons can be made upon any of them, or upon the person in charge
of office or place of business maintained in such name. The person/s who severed their relations
with notice are not bound by the service of summons.
• In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity
must all be revealed.
 
 PARTIES

Suits against entities without juridical personality

GENERAL RULE: All members of an association of natural persons not
organized as a juridical entity are to be made parties to a suit.
Exceptions:
• a. When the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring
them all before the court;
• b. When two or more persons associated in business, transact such
business under a common name; or
• c. Co-ownership.
 PARTY SUBSTITUTION
Effect of death of party litigant
• INSTANCES WHERE SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IS PROPER:
• i. Death of a party.
• ii. Incompetency or incapacity of a party;
• iii. Transfer of interest ; or
• iv. Action on contractual money claims.
• Rule 3, Sec. 16 (Substitution of party) applies where the claim is NOT thereby extinguished (ACTION THAT
SURVIVES) as in cases involving property and property rights such as:
• 1. Recovery of real and personal property or interest therein against the estate;
• 2. Enforcement of liens on such properties; and
• 3. Recovery for an injury to person or property by reason of tort or delict committed by the deceased (Rule 87,
Sec.1).
• DUTY OF THE COUNSEL UPON THE DEATH OF THE CLIENT:
• 1. To inform the court of his client’s death within 30 days after such death; and
• 2. To give the name and address of the legal representative/s, IF NONE name of heirs;
• 3. To take steps necessary to safeguard the decedent’s interest. (Rule 3, Sec. 16).
 PARTY SUBSTITUTION
DEATH OF A PARTY-
G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009, ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA VS. FE VDA. DE TE, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT, FAUSTINO CASTAÑEDA-This is a case for recovery of motor vehicle. An action that survives.
• the rule on substitution by heirs is not a matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. The rule on
substitution was crafted to protect every party's right to due process.
• It was designed to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be properly represented in the suit
through his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.
• non-compliance with the Rules results in the denial of the right to due process for the heirs who, though not
duly notified of the proceedings, would be substantially affected by the decision rendered therein. Thus, it is
only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is not represented by any legal
representative or heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the resulting judgment therein.
• In the case before us, it appears that respondent's counsel did not make any manifestation before the RTC as
to her death. In fact, he had actively participated in the proceedings. Neither had he shown any proof that he
had been retained by respondent's legal representative or anyone who succeeded her.
• such failure of counsel would not invalidate the proceedings that have long taken place before the RTC. The
Court has repeatedly declared that failure of the counsel to comply with his duty to inform the court of the
death of his client, such that no substitution is effected, will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment
rendered thereon if the action survives the death of such party. The trial court's jurisdiction over the case
subsists despite the death of the party.
 PARTIES
The estate of deceased person-
The deceased or his estate may not be named a defendant in a civil action. A deceased person does not have the capacity to be sued and may not
be made a defendant in a case. Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court unequivocally states that "[o]nly natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action."

Ventura v. Militante, declared that neither a deceased person nor his estate has capacity to be sued, thus:

•Parties may be either plaintiffs or defendants. A proper party plaintiff is essential to confer jurisdiction on the court. In order to maintain an action
in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is, he, she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as
either a natural or an artificial person, and no suit can be lawfully prosecuted save in the name of such a person.

•The rule is no different as regards party defendants. It is incumbent upon a plaintiff, when he institutes a judicial proceeding, to name the proper
party defendant to his cause of action. In a suit or proceeding in personam of an adversary character, the court can acquire no jurisdiction for the
purpose of trial or judgment until a party defendant who actually or legally exists and is legally capable of being sued, is brought before it. It has
even been held that the question of the legal personality of a party defendant is a question of substance going to the jurisdiction of the court and
not one of procedure.
•x x x

Neither a dead person nor his estate may be a party plaintiff in a court action. A deceased person does not have such legal entity as is necessary to
bring action so much so that a motion to substitute cannot lie and should be denied by the court. An action begun by a decedent's estate cannot be
said to have been begun by a legal person, since an estate is not a legal entity; such an action is a nullity and a motion to amend the party plaintiff
will not likewise lie, there being nothing before the court to amend. Considering that capacity to be sued is a correlative of the capacity to sue, to
the same extent, a decedent does not have the capacity to be sued and may not be named a party defendant in a court action. (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted)
• Hence, a deceased person or his estate may not be impleaded as defendant in a civil action as they lack legal personality. Thus, when Anthony
died, his legal personality ceased and he could no longer be impleaded as respondent in the present ordinary civil suit for collection. As such,
the complaint against him should be dismissed on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action or for failure to
state a cause of action. Moreover, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person or estate of Anthony as Summons cannot be served.(2nd
Div., [ G.R. No. 219408, November 08, 2017, DONALD FRANCIS GAFFNEY VS. GINA V. BUTLER)
 PARTIES
• SUBSTITUTE PARENT UNDER Article 216 OF TH FC-
• Abejar's right to proceed against Caravan(based on Art. 2176, NCC) , therefore, is based on two grounds.
• First, Abejar suffered actual personal loss. With her affinity for Reyes, it stands to reason that when Reyes
died, Abejar suffered the same anguish that a natural parent would have felt upon the loss of one's child.
It is for this injury—as authentic and personal as that of a natural parent—that Abejar seeks to be
indemnified.
• Second, Abejar is capacitated to do what Reyes' actual parents would have been capacitated to do.
• In  Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,  Tapdasan, Jr. v. People,  and Aguilar, Sr.
v. Commercial Savings Bank,  this court allowed natural parents of victims to recover damages for the
death of their children. Inasmuch as persons exercising substitute parental authority have the full range of
competencies of a child's actual parents, nothing prevents persons exercising substitute parental authority
from similarly possessing the right to be indemnified for their ward's death.
• 
•It is particularly noticeable that Article 1902 (now Art. 2176, Civil Code) stresses the passive subject of the
obligation to pay damages caused by his fault or negligence.  The article does not limit or specify the active
subjects, much less the relation that must exist between the victim of the culpa aquiliana and the person who
may recover damages, thus warranting the inference that, in principle, anybody who suffers any damage from
culpa aquiliana,  whether a relative or not of the victim, may recover damages from the person responsible
therefor[.] 2ND dIV.,G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016,CARAVAN TRAVEL AND TOURS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
VS. ERMILINDA R. ABEJAR)
 PARTIES
• PAPUPER LITIGANT-
• Plaintiff must produce affidavits and supporting documents showing that he satisfies the twin
requirements on gross monthly income and ownership of real property under Rule 141.
Otherwise, the trial court should call a hearing as required by Rule 3, Section 21 to enable
plaintiff-appellee to adduce evidence to show that he does not have property and money
sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for him and his family. In that
hearing, the defendants would have the right to also present evidence to refute the allegations
and evidence in support of the application of plaintiff to litigate as an indigent litigant.
• To recapitulate the rules on indigent litigants, if the applicant for exemption meets the salary
and property requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of his application is
mandatory. On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both
requirements, then the application should not be denied outright; instead, the court should
apply the  indigency test  under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in
determining the merits of the prayer for exemption.
•   (1st Div., G.R. No. 194412, November 16, 2016,SAMSODEN PANGCATAN V. ALEXANDRO
"DODONG" MAGHUYOP AND BELINDO BANKIAO and Companion case);
 PARTIES

• RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE PAO LAW-

• The exemption of clients of the PAO from the payment of the legal fees under
Republic Act No. 9406 and OCA Circular No. 121-2007 was retroactively applied in
PANGCATAN V. ALEXANDRO "DODONG" MAGHUYOP AND BELINDO BANKIAO
case even if the case is already on appeal with the SC.
VENUE VS JURISDICTION

Place where the action is instituted Power of the court to hear and decide a case.

Maybe waived (BUT NOT IN CRIMINAL CASES) Jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the
nature of the action is conferred by the law and
cannot be waived

Procedural Substantive

May be changed by the written agreement of the Cannot be the subject of the agreement of the
parties. parties.
 VENUE

The rule on VENUE IS NOT APPLICABLE in cases:

• 1. Where a specific rule or law provides otherwise (e.g. an action for damages arising
from libel); or
• 2. The parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action in the
exclusive venue thereof (Section 4).
• REQUISITES FOR VENUE TO BE EXCLUSIVE:
• 1. A valid WRITTEN agreement;
• 2. Executed by the parties BEFORE the filing of the action; and
• 3. EXCLUSIVE nature of the venue.
• A restrictive stipulation on venue is not binding if validity of contract is at
issue(Briones vs. CA, GR 204444, Jan 14, 2015).
• More recent stipulation on venue supplants earlier one (Paglaum Management Dev
Copr. Vs. Uniion Bank, GR 179018, April 17, 2018).
 VENUE
VENUE IN REAL ACTION:
• a)In real action, the venue in this place where the real property or any portion thereof is located.
• b)If property is located at the boundaries of two places: venue is in either place at the option of the
plaintiff.
• c) If two properties are located in two different places:
• 1. If the properties are the object of the same transaction, in any of the two places. (El Hogar Filipino
vs. Seva, 57 Phil. 873).
• 2. If they are the subjects of two or more distinct transactions, separate actions should be filed in each
place unless properly joined. (Mijares vs. Piccio, 101 Phil. 142).
VENUE IN PERSONAL ACTION-
• Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides;
• Where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides; or
• In the case of a non-resident defendant, the action may be brought in the place where he may be
found.
• In case of a corporation, the place where the principal office is located.
• NOTE: ALL AT THE ELECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF.
• Residence should be viewed in its popular sense, meaning the personal, actual, or physical habilitation
of a person, actual residence, or place abode.(Raymond v. Court of Appeals 166 SCRA 50 (1988))
 VENUE

VENUE-
• 1. NON-RESIDENT FOUND IN THE PHILIPPINES-
• Personal actions- Where the plaintiff resides;
• Real actions- Where the property is located.
• 2. NON-RESIDENT NOT FOUND IN THE PHILIPPINES- An action may be
filed only if the case involves:
• a. Personal status of plaintiff- Where plaintiff resides;
• b. Any property of said defendant located in the Philippines- Where
the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
 VENUE

EFFECT OF FILING IN WRONG VENUE-

• Case can be dismissed upon motion to dismiss or if pleaded as
affirmative defense in the answer.
• But court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio for improper venue.
The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to object
to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the
case. (G.R. No. 74854.  April 2, 1991, JESUS DACOYCOY vs. HON.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ANTONIO V. BENEDICTO)
 VENUE

VENUE STIPULATIONS-
G.R. No. 104649.  February 28, 1994, PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, vs. HON. SALVADOR S.
TENSUAN, Judge of RTC, Branch 146 Makati, MADE summary of Non restrictive venue stipulations,
thus:
1. Engel v. Shubert Theatrical Co., stipulation which read:  “In case of dispute, both contracting parties
agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Vienna courts”;
2. In case of litigation arising out of this agreement, the venue of any action shall be in the competent
courts of the Province of Rizal”
3. that any and all actions arising out of the condition and provisions of this ticket, irrespective of where
it is issued, shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu”;
Rules on interpretation-
• venue stipulation in a contract, while considered valid and enforceable, do not as rule supersede the
general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. 
• In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, they should be considered merely as an agreement on
additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.  They are not exclusive but, rather
permissive.  For, to restrict venue only to that place stipulated in the agreement is a construction
purely based on technicality which, on the contrary, should be liberally construed. 
 PLEADINGS
PLEADINGS VS MOTION

The purpose is to submit a claim or defense The purpose is to apply for an order not
for appropriate judgment. included in the judgment.

May be initiatory Cannot be initiatory as they are always made

in a case already filed in court.

Always filed before judgment May be filed after judgment

Only 9 kinds of pleading are allowed by the Many kinds of motion are allowed
rules

Must be written May be oral when made in an open court or

in the course of a hearing or trial
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
Section 2 Pleadings allowed. - 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 or her.
An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party
attaches an actionable document to the answer.

Section 3 Complaint. - The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or

claiming party’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the
plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
Section 4 Answer. - An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets
forth his or her defenses.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

G.R. NO. 167724, June 27, 2006, BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., VS. MARGARITA VDA.
DE COSCOLLUELA – Election of remedies in a single cause of action. Cause of action cannot
be splitted so as to file EJF and later an action for sum of money arising from the same
credit obligation of defendant. The latter action is deemed waived and should be
dismissed. Decisive of the principal issue is the ruling of this Court in Bachrach Motor Co.,
Inc. v. Esteban  Icarañgal and Oriental Commercial Co., Inc. in which it ruled that on the
nonpayment of a note secured by a mortgage, the creditor has a single cause of action
against the debtor- consists in the recovery of the credit with execution of the suit.  In a
mortgage credit transaction, the credit gives rise to a personal action for collection of the
money.  The mortgage is the guarantee which gives rise to a mortgage foreclosure suit to
collect from the very property that secured the debt.
The action of the creditor is anchored on one and the same cause: the nonpayment by the
debtor of the debt to the creditor-mortgagee.  Though the debt may be covered by a
promissory note or several promissory notes and is covered by a real estate mortgage, the
latter is subsidiary to the former and both refer to one and the same obligation.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

G.R. NO. 167724, June 27, 2006, BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., VS. MARGARITA VDA. DE
COSCOLLUELA
• In the present case, petitioner opted to file a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real
estate mortgage but only for the principal amount of P4,687,006.08 or in the total amount of
P7,755,733.64 covering only 31 of the 67 promissory notes.  By resorting to the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage, petitioner thereby waived its personal action to
recover the amount covered not only by said promissory notes but also of the rest of the
promissory notes.  This is so because when petitioner filed its petition before the Ex-Oficio
Provincial Sheriff on June 10, 1999, the entirety of the loan account of respondent under the
67 promissory notes was already due.  The obligation of respondent under Promissory Note
Nos. 1 to 33 became due on February 9, 1998 but was extended up to March 11, 1998,
whereas, those covered by Promissory Note Nos. 34 to 67 matured on December 28, 1998. 
Petitioner should have caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage for
the recovery of the entire obligation of respondent, on all the promissory notes.  By limiting
the account for which the real estate mortgage was being foreclosed to the principal amount
of P4,687,006.68, exclusive of interest and penalties, petitioner thereby waived recovery of
the rest of respondent's agricultural loan account.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

G.R. NO. 167724, June 27, 2006, BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., VS.
MARGARITA VDA. DE COSCOLLUELA
• It must be stressed that the parties agreed in the Real Estate Mortgage that
in the event that respondent shall fail to pay the mortgage obligation "or any
portion thereof when due, the entire principal, interest, penalties and other
charges then outstanding shall become immediately due, payable and
defaulted," thus:
• Petitioner cannot split the loan account of respondent by filing a petition for
the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage for the principal
amount of P4,687,006.68 covered by the first set of promissory notes, and a
personal action for the collection of the principal amount of P12,672,000.31
covered by the second set of promissory notes without violating the
proscription against splitting a single cause of action against respondent.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
• G.R. No. 223404, July 15, 2020, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. MARCIANO S. BACALLA, JR., EDUARDO
M. ABACAN, ERLINDA U. LIM, FELICITO A. MADAMBA, AND PEPITO M. DELGADO -
• The rule against splitting the cause of action does not apply in a Petition for Certiorari
• A Writ of Certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65 will issue when there is grave abuse of discretion
committed by a tribunal, board or officer who in the exercise of its judicial or quasi-judicial functions, has
acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. In the instance of grave abuse of discretion, the court may annul or modify the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and grant such incidental reliefs as the law and justice may
require.
• Verily, a Petition for Certiorari cannot be based on a cause of action. First, the parties involved in
such petition would be the petitioner and the tribunal, board or officer who purportedly exceeded its
discretion in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In a cause of action, the parties would be the
plaintiff and the defendant who violated the right of the former which he (defendant) had the obligation to
respect.
• Second, a Petition for Certiorari cannot arise from a violation of a right belonging to the petitioner that
the tribunal, board or officer has the concomitant obligation to respect. To reiterate, a certiorari writ
will only lie when the tribunal, board of officer commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or
excess of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the existence of a cause of action will be the basis of every ordinary
civil action.
• Third, a Writ of Certiorari results in the annulment or modification of the proceedings. However, the
violation of a right of a plaintiff or breach of obligation by the defendant would give rise to a cause of action
that will provide the plaintiff with the right to file an action in court for the recovery of damages or other
relief.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
• (BPI VS. BACALLA, JR.)-
• Finally, a Petition for Certiorari, being a special civil action, may only be availed of when there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Meanwhile, a cause
of action is the basic requirement in an ordinary civil action.
• Petitioner filed the first petition (CA-G.R. 127072) to question the November 28, 2011 and August 10,
2012 Orders upon the belief that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to declare
FITI and Bacalla as not suited. On the other hand, the second petition (CA-G.R. No. 129574) now
subject of the instant case, arose from the August 10, 2012 and January 14, 2013 Orders of the trial
court which petitioner maintains to have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion due to the
application of the Interim Rules. Clearly, the said petitions did not allege the RTC to have violated
petitioner's right which may be the basis for a cause of action. Instead, petitioner alleged separate
occasions of grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in not declaring FITI and Batalla as
not suited and in applying the Interim Rules. Both petitions will give rise to an annulment or
modification of the proceedings below and will not afford the petitioner with a remedy of damages
against the RTC.
• Moreover, a Writ of Certiorari may only be availed when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

Section 5 Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or

affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts
alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his or her cause or
causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while
hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the
claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her. The
affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy,
and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

• Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for

dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another
action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
• a. COMPLAINT- The pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. It
should contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s
cause of action, not evidentiary facts or legal conclusions.
• ULTIMATE FACTS- Essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is
essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of
action insufficient.
• WHAT ARE NOT ULTIMATE FACTS?
• Evidentiary or immaterial facts;
• Legal conclusions, conclusions or inferences of facts stated;
• The details of probative matter or particulars of evidence, statements of law,
inferences and arguments ; or
• An allegation that a contract is valid or void is a mere conclusion of law.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
b. ANSWER- The pleading where the defendant sets forth his affirmative or negative defenses.
It may likewise be the response to a counterclaim or a cross claim.
• 1. Affirmative Defenses- Allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar the
recovery by him. Affirmative defenses include fraud, prescription, release, payment and any
other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
• 2.Negative Defenses- Specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of
the claimant essential to his cause of action.
• Insufficient denial that amounts to admission:
• 1. General Denial; and
• 2. Denial in the form of negative pregnant, that is a denial pregnant with the admission of
the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It is, in
effect, an admission of the averment it is directed to (PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines, Inc. (1992).
• 3. Denial not under oath regarding actionable document.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

DENIAL-
The following are not deemed admitted even if not denied:
• a) Unliquidated damages because it must always be proven ( Sec. 11, Rule 8);
• b) Averments that are immaterial to the causes of action(Worcester vs.
Lorenzo, 104 Phil. 134;
• c) All allegations in the complaint where no answer is filed ( Lopez vs.
Mendoza,11 Phil. 209).
The following allegations are deemed admitted even if denied, if the denial
was not made under oath:
• 1. Allegation as to usury;
• 2. Actionable documents.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS
Section 12. Affirmative defenses-
(a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or her
answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5 (b),
Rule 6, and the following grounds:

(1)That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(2)That the venue is improperly laid;
(3)That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(4)That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
(5)That the condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied
with.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 8

b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute
a waiver thereof.

(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty
(30) calendar days from the filing of the answer.

(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule
6, the court may conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from
the filing of the answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court
within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing.

(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for
reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be
among the matters to be raised in appeal after a judgement on the merits.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6-AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

BASED ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT BASED ON EVIDENCE

1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter 1) Statutes of Limitation (Rule 6)

2) Res judicata 2) Fraud (Rule 6)

3) Litis Pendentia 3) Release (Rule 6)

4) Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (Rule 8) 4) Payment (Rule 6)

5) Illegality (Rule 6)
5) Improper Venue (Rule 8)

6) Lack of legal capacity to sue 6) Statutes of fraud (Rule 6)

(Rule 8)

7) Failure to state a cause of action 7) Estoppel (Rule 6)

(Rule 8)

8) Failure to comply with a condition precedent (Rule 8) Discharge in bankruptcy

8) (Rule 6)

9) Former recovery (Rule 6)

 PLEADINGS
Rule 8
• Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments substantially changed the concept of
affirmative defenses. Under the new rule, affirmative defenses are not limited to those
matters stated in Section 5 (b), Rule 6. Affirmative defenses must now include the
different grounds for a motion to dismiss under Section 1, Rule 16 of the old Rules.
• Section 12, Rule 8 should therefore be read in conjunction with Section 5, Rule 6.

• What is the effect of failure to plead those grounds as affirmative defenses?

• Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a
waiver thereof (Section 12, Rule 8).

• What should be the action of the court on the affirmative defenses?

• The court shall motu proprio resolve the affirmative defenses under Section 12 within
thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer. (Section 12, Rule 8). It is not
necessary for the Court to conduct a hearing before it can resolve these grounds.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
• NOTE:

• With respect to affirmative defenses Section 5 (b), Rule 6, the Court

shall resolve the same within thirty (30) calendar days from the
termination of the summary hearing.
• Hearing, therefore, may be required by the court which must be
summary.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
c. Counterclaims
• Counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party.
• A counterclaim before the MTC must be within the jurisdiction of said court, both as to the
amount and nature thereof.
• Counterclaims may either be:
• a. Compulsory; or
• b. Permissive.
• In an original action, before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount ( Section 7, Rule 6).
• If a counterclaim filed in the MTC in excess of its jurisdictional amount, the excess is considered
waived. (Agustin v. Bacalan 135 SCRA 340 (1985))
• The remedy where a counterclaim is beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC is to set off the claims
and file a separate action to collect the balance
• (Calo v. Ajax international 22 SCRA (1968)
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

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

cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and
does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both
as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the
Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the
amount. A compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless
otherwise allowed by these Rules.
Comment:
The 2019 Amendments included in the definition of compulsory counterclaim the admonition
that failure to raise the compulsory counterclaim in the same action shall be considered barred
unless otherwise allowed by the rules.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 11

Instances where the Rules allow the prosecution of a compulsory counterclaim even
it was not raised in the same action-
1)Rule 11, Section 9.
Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. – A counterclaim or a cross-claim
which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his or her pleading
may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or cross-claim
by supplemental pleading before judgment.
• 2) Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim.
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he or she may, by leave
of court, set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim by amendment before judgment.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM VS PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM

One which arises out of or is necessarily It does not arise out of nor is it necessarily
connected with the transaction orconnected with the subject matter of the opposing
occurrence that is the subject matter ofparty’s claim
the opposing party’s claim

It does not require for its adjudicationIt may require for its adjudication the presence of
the presence of third parties of whomthird parties over whom the court cannot acquire
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction jurisdiction

It is barred if not set up in the action It is NOT barred even if not set up in the action

Need NOT be answered; no default Must be answered, otherwise, the defendant can
be declared in default
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

Compulsory counterclaim-
• REQUISITES OF A COMPULSORY COUNTER CLAIM:
• It must arise out of, or be necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the
SUBJECT MATTER of the opposing party’s claim;
• It does NOT REQUIRE for its adjudication the presence of THIRD PARTIES of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction; and
• It must be WITHIN THE JURISDICTION of the court both as to nature and amount.
GENERAL RULE: To set up a compulsory counterclaim, the court where the original action was filed
must have jurisdiction to entertain both as to amount and nature
• EXCEPTION: Despite the lack of jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the counterclaim, the
same may nevertheless be pleaded in the same action, not to obtain affirmative relief because the
court, for want of jurisdiction cannot do so. The purpose would merely be as a defense to weaken
the plaintiff's claim (Maceda v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 83545 August 11, 1989)
• Note: OCA CIRCULAR 51-2011(April 6, 2011)- pursuant to A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-Philja (Jan 11, 2011),
complaint, answer with mediatable permissive counterclaim or cross claim, complaint-in-
intervention, third party comp, etc, to pay mediation fee of Php. 500.00.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

GENERAL RULE: A compulsory counterclaim not set up in the answer is deemed

barred.
• EXCEPTION: If it is a counterclaim which either matured or was acquired by a
party after serving his answer. In this case, it may be pleaded by a supplemental
answer or pleading before judgment (Sec. 9, Rule 11).
• NOTE: The filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory
counterclaim are incompatible remedies. In the event that a defending party has
ground for dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim not set up, he must choose
only one remedy. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he will lose his
counterclaim, he may so plead his ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in
his answer.
Effect on the Counterclaim when the complaint is dismissed
• Defendant must notify the court within 15 days whether to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same case or in another case.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

• Section 2. Rule 9 – A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim not

set up shall be barred.
• Rule 6, Section 8 Cross-claim. - A cross-claim is any claim by
one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action
or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may cover all or
part of the original claim.
• Note: No substantial change in the concept cross-claim under the
2019 amendment. Instead, it was even simplified; thus, “Such cross-
claim may cover all or part of the original claim.”
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

d. CROSS-CLAIM
REQUIREMENTS:
• A claim by one party AGAINST a co-party;
• It must arise out of the SUBJECT MATTER of the complaint or of the counterclaim.
• The cross-claimant is prejudiced by the claim against him by the opposing party.
• If not set up in the action, it is barred EXCEPT:
• When it is outside the jurisdiction of the court; or
• If the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the third parties whose presence is necessary
for the adjudication of the said cross-claim;
• Cross claim that matured or acquired after the service of the answer. In which case, the
cross-claim is considered PERMISSIVE.
• The dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of a cross-claim which is purely
defensive, but not a cross-claim seeking an affirmative relief.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

• COUNTER-COUNTERCLAIMS - A claim asserted against an original

counterclaimant.
• COUNTER-CROSS-CLAIMS - A claim filed against an original cross-
claimant.
• e. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints
• THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT – A claim that a defending party may, with
leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of
his opponent’s claim. There could also be a fourth, etc, -party
complaint with the same purpose and function.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
CROSS CLAIM COUNTERCLAIM 3RD PARTY COMPLAINT

Against a co-party Against an opposing party Against a person not a party to

the action.
Must arise out of the May arise out of or be Must be in respect of the
transaction that is the subject necessarily connected with the opponent’s claim (Plaintiff).
matter of the original action or transaction or that is the
a counterclaim therein. subject matter of the opposing
party’s claim in which case, it
is called a compulsory
counterclaim, or it may not, in
which case is called a
permissive counterclaim.

No need for leave of court No need for leave of court Leave of court is required
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

Section 10 Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are

deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims
arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set
forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the
plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an
actionable document to his or her answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege
facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said
actionable document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the
defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely on an
actionable document
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
• Section 10, Rule 6 of the 2019 Amendments retains the idea that all
new matters alleged in the Answer are deemed controverted. In this
respect, the filing of Reply is optional or not even necessary.
• However, the filing of Reply may be required if the defending party
attaches an actionable document to his or her answer. The plaintiff,
therefore, has to file a Reply to deny under oath the due execution or
genuineness of the actionable document attached to the Answer of
the defending party. Otherwise, there will be implied admission.
• This idea of filing a Reply cascaded in the definition of Reply. Thus,
reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege
facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to,
said actionable document.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

• Under the former Rule, the filing of the Reply is not mandatory
because the matters asserted in the Answer are deemed
controverted.
• However, a problem may arise if the defendant’s defense is based on
an actionable document. Should the plaintiff file a Reply in order to
deny under oath the due execution and genuineness of the
actionable document which is the basis of the defense of the
defendant?
• Such lacuna is already clarified in Section 2, Rule 6 of the 2019
Amendments.
• Section 2, Rule 6 must be read in conjunction with Section 10 hereof
with respect the new concept of Reply.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

Reply
• The response of the plaintiff to the defendant’s answer the function of which is to deny or
allege facts in denial or in avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the
answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters.
• Filing of a reply is optional (Rile 6, Sec. 9), except if there is an allegation to be denied
under oath.
GENERAL RULE: Filing a reply is merely optional. New facts were alleged in the answer are
deemed controverted should party fail to reply thereto.
• EXCEPTION: Reply is required in the following instances:
• Where the answer is based on an actionable document (Sec. 8, Rule 8) see. Casent
Realty Dev. Corp vs. Philbanking , GR No, 150731, Sept 14, 2007.- failure to reply to
an answer which attached an actionable document amounts to admission of the due
execution of said document. Rule 129, Sec. 4 and Rule 8, Sec.8, prevailed over Rule 6,
Sec. 10.
• Allegation of usury in a complaint (Sec. 11, Rule 8);
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

• Section 11 Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — 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 or her opponent's claim.
• The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied
admission, and the court shall require the defendant to institute
a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth, etc.)- party
defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days
from the grant of such leave; (b) matters extraneous to the
issue in the principal case are raised; or (c) the effect would be
to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

• As now amended, the third (fourth, etc.,) party complaint must at least
be related to the main action because the new Section 11 provides that
when the matters are extraneous to the issues in the principal case or
the effect of the third (fourth, etc.,) party complaint would be to
introduce a new and separate controversy into the action, then the
third (fourth, etc.,) party complaint must be denied admission.

• Trial courts are not especially enjoined by law to admit a third-party

complaint. They are vested with discretion to allow or disallow a party
to an action to implead additional party. Thus, a defendant has no
vested right to file a third-party complaint (China Banking Corp. vs.
Padilla, 514 SCRA 35, 42).
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT COMPAINT IN INTERVENTION

Brings into the action a third Same

person who was not originally a
party.

Initiative is with the person already Initiative is with a non-party who

a party to the action seeks to join the action.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
TESTS to determine whether the third-party complaint is in respect of plaintiff’s claim:
• Whether it arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiff’s claim is
based, or although arising out of another or different transaction, is connected
with the plaintiff’s claim;
• Whether the third-party defendant would be liable to the plaintiff or to the
defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant; and
• Whether the third party defendant may assert any defenses which the third-party
plaintiff has or may have to the plaintiff’s claim.
ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION OVER 3RD PARTY DEFENDANT-
• Summons on third, fourth etc-party defendant must be served for the court to obtain
jurisdiction over his person, since he is not an original party.
• Where the trial court has jurisdiction over the main case, regardless of the amount
involved as a third party complaint is merely auxiliary to and is a continuation of
the main action. (Republic v. Central Surety & Insurance, 25 SCRA 641 (1968))
• NOTE: A third-party complaint is not proper in an action for declaratory relief, or
under RSP and SCA.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

ANSWER TO 3RD 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.
• The time to answer a third-party complaint shall be governed by the
same rule as the answer to the complaint, hence with 15 days from
service of summons (Sec. 5, Rule 11).
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6

Complaint-in-intervention
• DISTINGUISHED FROM A 3RD PARTY COMPLAINT:
• A third-party complaint is proper when not one of the third party defendants therein is a party to the
main action.
• If one or more of the defendants in a counterclaim or cross-claim is already a party to the action, then
the other necessary parties may be brought in under this section as defendant, if jurisdiction over
them can be obtained (Sec. 12, Rule 6).
• A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties,
or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be
allowed to intervene in the action.(Rule 19, Sec.1).
• A Complaint or Answer- In- Intervention can filed at any time before judgment.
• Period to file answer to the intervention is 15 days from notice admitting the same, unless a different
period is fixed by the court.
 PLEADINGS
Rule 6
• Basis of the above provision:
• 1. Veluz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139951, November 23, 2000
• 2. Casent Realty Dev. Corp. v. Philbanking Corp., G.R. No. 150731.
September 14, 2007
• 3. Toribio v. Bidin, No. L-57821, January 17, 1985.
 PLEADINGS UNDER SPECIAL RULES

Pleadings allowed in small claim cases and cases covered by the rules on summary
procedure
• SMALL CLAIMS
• A small claims action is commence by filing with the court an accomplished and
verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a Certification
of Non-forum Shopping (Form 1-A, SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the
actionable document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and
other evidence to support the claim.
• Defendant answer to the claim is through a RESPONSE made under oath.
• SUMMARY PROCEDURE
• The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaints, compulsory
counterclaims and cross-claims’ plead in the answer, and the answers thereto.
 RULE 7, Section 3
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING
Section 3 Signature and address.
(a) Every pleading and other written submissions to the court must be signed by the party or
counsel representing him or her.
(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the
pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence,
or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;
(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will
likely have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under these
rules; and
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so
identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
 SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE SIGNATURE
RULE
• (c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and
hearing, that this rule has been violated, it may impose an appropriate
sanction or refer such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action,
on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible
for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be
held jointly and severally liable for a violation committed by its partner,
associate, or employee. The sanction may include, but shall not be limited
to, non-monetary directive or sanction; an order to pay a penalty in court;
or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order
directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s
fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation, including
attorney’s fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law
firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the client.
 RULE 7, Section 3 & 4
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING
• Under the 2019 Amendments, there is no specified procedural consequence
when a party filed an unsigned pleading. However, it is submitted that an
unsigned pleading would still produce no effect despite the absence of such
consequence under the amendments.
Section 4 Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required
by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized
to sign said verification. The authorization of the affiant to act on
behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or
a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading,
and shall allege the following attestations:
 RULE 7
ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE VERIFICATION
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 after

reasonable opportunity for discovery.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on
“information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,”
or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING
• Section 5 Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof; and
(c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a
secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the
pleading.
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING
• Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable
by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but
shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of
a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings
therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to
the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of
the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING
• Consistent with Section 4, Rule 7, Section 5 likewise mandates that
the authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in
the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney,
should be attached to the pleading.
• In Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc., vs. Kemper Insurance Co, 670
SCRA 343, it was held:
“We have consistently held that the certification against forum
shopping must be signed by the principal parties. If, for any reason, the
principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf
must have been duly author
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING

SUMMARY OF GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON COUNSEL IN THE FOLLOWING

CASES:
• Deliberately filing an unsigned pleading.
• Deliberately signing a pleading in violation of the Rules;
• Alleging scandalous or indecent matter in pleading; or
• Failing to promptly report a change of his address.
Verification and certification against forum shopping
• Rule: Pleadings need not be verified EXCEPT when otherwise provided by law or 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 documents.
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING

• FORUM SHOPPING – consist of filling multiple suits in different courts, either

simultaneously or successively, involving the same parties, to ask the courts to
rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the
same relief on the supposition that one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition or increase a party’s chances of obtaining a favorable
decision or action.
• TEST TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF FORUM SHOPPING:
• Whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of (a) parties, (b)
rights or causes of action, and (c) relief sought.
• There is forum shopping when:
• 1)Litis pendentia exists;
• 2)Res judicata exists;
• 3)Splitting a cause of action
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING

• FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATE-

• The certificate is to be executed by petitioner, and not by counsel.
• It is required ONLY for complainants or initiatory pleadings such as permissive
counterclaim, cross-claim, etc.
• Certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a compulsory counterclaim.
A counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading (UST Hospital v. Suria 294 DCRA 382
(1998))
• Only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. In addition, the
Court has required that proof of non-forum shopping is sufficient ground to
dismiss the petition. Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification
was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory’s authority.
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING
Effect of submitting false CNFS-
• Indirect contempt; and
• Without prejudice to the filing of administrative and criminal actions.

EFFECT OF WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING:

• Shall be ground for summary dismissal of the case with prejudice;
• Direct contempt; and
• A cause for administrative sanctions

• Insofar as verification is concerned, there is SUBSTANIAL COMPLIANCE

if the same is executed by an attorney, it being presumed that facts
alleged by him are true to his knowledge and belief. However, the same
does not apply as regards the requirement of a certificate against forum
shopping. The certification must be made by the petitioner himself and
not by the counsel. (Santos vs CA 360 SCRA 532 (2001))
 RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF PLEADING
Section 6. Contents. — Every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall,
in addition to those mandated by Section 2, Rule 7, state the following:
(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party’s claim or defense;
(b) Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, provided that the judicial
affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral
part thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading
shall be presented by the parties during trial. Except if a party presents
meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of additional witnesses, no other
witness or affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court; and
(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the
pleading.
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Section 1 In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a

methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement
of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party
pleading relies for his or her claim or defense, as the case may be.
If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on law, the
pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him or her
shall be clearly and concisely stated.
• Note: This is to be consistent with Section 6, Rule 7, and Section 3, Rule
3 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
Allegations in a pleading
• In general
• Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts, INCLUDING the
statement of mere evidentiary facts.
• Statement of the relevant laws.
• ULTIMATE FACTS
• Those which directly form the basis of the right sought to be enforced
or the defense relied upon. If the ultimate facts are NOT alleged, the
cause of action would be insufficient.
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
• EVIDENTIARY FACTS
• Those which are necessary to prove the ultimate fact or which furnish evidence
of the existence of some other facts.
• a. Manner of making allegations
• (1) Condition precedent
• Pleading must state conditions precedent of the cause of action and a general
averment of the performance or occurrence thereof, e.g. conciliation process at
the barangay level.
• Failure to state the conditions precedent will make the complaint defective and
vulnerable to dismissal, even on appeal, on ground that a condition precedent for
filing the claim has not been complied with(Sec. 1 [j], Rule 16).
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

• (2) Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of

the mind, judgments, official documents or acts
• Fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity while malice or
intent must be averred generally.
• The defendant may move for a BILL OF PARTICUALARS when the
allegations of fraud, etc. are merely conclusions of law, and are
without statement of the facts to which such terms have reference.
• If after the granting the motion for bill of particulars, the plaintiff still
refuses to do so, the court may simply dismiss the complaint.
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

• Pleading an actionable document

• ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT-
• Written instrument upon which the action or defense is based; main object of the action.
(e.g. Promissory note, deed of mortgage, written contract)
• TWO WAYS OF PLEADING AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT:
• 1. By setting forth the substance of such document in the pleading and attaching said
document thereto as an exhibit ( contents of the document annexed are controlling, in
case of variance in the substance of the document set forth in the pleading and in the
document attached); or
• 2. By setting forth said document verbatim in the pleading.
• A NON-ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT is some other extraneous document which is not the
main object of the action. (e.g. demand letter)
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

HOW TO CONTEST AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT:

• By specific denial under oath; and
• By setting forth what is claimed to be the facts.
• Note: Where the actionable document is properly alleged, the failure to specifically deny under oath the
same results in:
• 1. The admission of the genuineness and due execution of said document, EXCEPT that an oath is not
required:
• When the adverse party was not a party to the instrument ; or
• When compliance with an order for an inspection was refused.
• 2. The document need not be formally offered in evidence.
• GENUINENESS- The instrument is not spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face from the
one executed by the party or that the party whose signature it bears has signed it and that at the time it
was signed, it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleadings.
• DUE EXECUTION- The document was signed voluntarily and knowingly by the party whose signature
appears thereon, that if signed by somebody else such representative had the authority to do so, that it
was duly delivered, and that the formalities were complied.
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

SPECIFIC DENIAL UNDER OATH, HOW MADE

• Mere denial is insufficient. It must be specific denial. In the early case of Songco vs. Sellner, the Court
expounded on how to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, viz.:
• . . . This means that the defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that it
is otherwise false or fabricated.  Neither does the statement of the answer to the effect that the
instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its genuineness or due
execution.  On the contrary such a plea is an admission both of the genuineness and due execution
thereof, since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.
• Hence, defendants’ averment that they deny generally and specifically under oath the genuineness and
due execution of the promissory note and by way of special and affirmative defenses herein states that
he (MORALES) never signed the promissory note attached to the complaint (Exh. A) in his personal 
and/or individual capacity” is not a proper denial. Consequently, it amounted to an admission (G.R. NO.
143338, August 29, 2005, THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION (SOLIDBANK) VS. DEL
MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC., NARCISO G. MORALES, AND SPOUSE).
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

EXCEPTION TO ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT RULE:

• Non- party to the document are not obliged to make a denial under oath.
Hence, even if they did not deny under oath, there can be no implied
admission on the due execution and genuineness of the document (G.R.
No. 75502.  November 12, 1987, KALILID WOOD INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION, ET AL vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
and PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION);
• Similarly, no implied admission can be had when compliance with an order
for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.“(KALILID WOOD
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, ET AL vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT and PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION).
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

DEFENSES NOT WAIVED DESPITE FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY DENY UNDER OATH:

• Payment;
• Want or illegality of consideration;
• Fraud;
• Mistake;
• Compromise;
• Statute of Limitations;
• Estoppel;
• Duress; and
• Minority or imbecility.
The aforementioned defenses are NOT inconsistent with the genuineness and due execution of
the document.
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
BUT THE FOLLOWING DEFENSES ARE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO DENY UNDER OATH AN ACTIONABLE
DOCUMENT:
• Forgery in the signature;
• Unauthorized signature, as in the case of an agent signing for his principal;
• The corporation was not authorized under its charter to sign the instrument;
• Want of delivery; or
• At the time the document was signed, it was not in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading.
WAIVER OF BENEFIT-
• IMPLIED ADMISSION IS DEEMED WAIVED if the party asserting the same has allowed the adverse party to
present evidence contrary to the contents of such document without objection. (Central Surety v.
Hodges, G.R. No. L-28633, March 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 159).
• But a request for admission does not result to a waiver of benefit, for as held in Yu Chuck, and the same is
true in other cases of identical factual settings, such a finding of waiver is proper where a case has been
tried in complete disregard of the rule and the plaintiff having pleaded a document by copy, presents oral
evidence to prove the due execution of the document and no objections are made to the defendants'
evidence in refutation. (G.R. No. 81039.  December 26, 1990 INVESTMENT AND UNDERWRITING
CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. COMPTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC. and GENE V. TAMESIS).
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
• Section 6 Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision of a
domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board
or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting
forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it. An authenticated copy of
the judgment or decision shall be attached to the pleading.
• Note:
• Local judgment-certified copy;
• Foreign judgment: apostilled copy (Convention of 5 October 1961
Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public
Documents (HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention), adopted by RP on May 14,
2019) or consularized copy.
 PROVING FOREIGN DOCUMENT

• APOSTIL CONVENTION; APPLICABIITY TO:

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS SUCH AS-
• 1.Those documents emanating from an authority or official connected
with a court or tribunal
• 2.Administrative documents
• 3.Notarial acts
• 4.Official certificates
 PROVING FOREIGN DOCUMENT

• APOSTILLE DOES NOT RELATE TO THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT

BUT ONLY CERTIFIES
• GEUNINESS of the signature,
• The capacity in which the person signing the document has acted, and
• The identity of the seal or stamp which the document bears.
WHO MAY ISSUE THE APOSTILLE CERTIFCATE?
• Member state shall designate a competent authority.
• In the Philippines- It is the DFA-OCA
 RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
SPECIFIC DENIAL
• Section 11 Allegations not specifically denied deemed
admitted. — Material averments in a pleading asserting a
claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to
recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied
under oath.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
• Section 1 Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses
and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that
the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of
limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
• Section 2 Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up
barred. — A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set
up shall be barred.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
• Section 3 Default; declaration of. — If the defending party fails
to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon
motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party,
and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default.
Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting
the claimant such relief as his or her pleading may warrant,
unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit
evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
clerk of court.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
• (a) Effect of order of default. — A party in default shall be entitled to
notice of subsequent proceedings but shall not to take part in the trial.
• (b) Relief from order of default. — A party declared in default may at
any time after notice thereof and before judgment file a motion under
oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his or
her failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence and that he or she has a meritorious defense. In such case,
the order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as
the judge may impose in the interest of justice.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

(c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading asserting a claim

states a common cause of action against several defending
parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the
court shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed
and render judgment upon the evidence presented.
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A judgment rendered
against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be
different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated
damages.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
• (e) Where no defaults allowed. — If the defending party in an
action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for
legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the
Solicitor General or his or her deputized public prosecutor
to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties
exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in
order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
Effect of failure to plead
1. Failure to plead defenses and objections
• GENERAL RULE: Defenses and objections not raised in a MOTION TO DISMISS or in the ANSWER are
deemed WAIVED.
• EXCEPTIONS:
• Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
• Litis pendentia;
• Res judicata; or
• Prescription of the action
2. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
• Compulsory Counterclaim, or Cross-claim not set-up barred
• An AMENDED ANSWER is proper if the counterclaim or cross-claim already existed at the time the
original answer was filed, but due to oversight, inadvertence or excusable neglect, it was not set up.
• A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER is proper if the counterclaim or cross-claim matures or is acquired after
the answer is filed.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

Default
a. When a declaration of default is proper
• REQUISITES FOR A DECLARATION OF DEFAULT:
1)There must be a MOTION to declare the defendant in default;
2)Summons had been validly and previously served upon defendant;
3)Defendant FAILS TO ANSWER within the time allowed therefore;
4)There must be PROOF of such motion; and
5)There must be a hearing of the motion to declare the defendant in default.
6. There must be an order of default.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

IMPROPER DEFAULT-
Declaration of default is improper when there was no valid service of summons.
The subsequent voluntary appearance of the defendant did not cure the
defect( G.R. No. 243366, September 08, 2020, FELICITAS Z. BELO VS. CARLITA C. .
MARCANTONIO).
Effect of an order of default
• When a party is declared in default, the court may do either of two things:
• 1)To proceed to render judgment, or
• 2)To require the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

A party declared in default is entitled to:

• Motion to declare him in default;
• Order to declare him in default;
• Notices of subsequent proceedings; and
• Service of final orders and judgments.
• NOTE:
• A defendant declared in default cannot take part in the trial, but he cannot be disqualified
from testifying as a witness in favor of non-defaulting defendants. (Cavili v. Florenda 154
SCRA 610 (1987))
• If the defendant was declared default upon an original complaint and subsequently, the
complaint is amended, the defendant is entitled to file an answer to the amended
complaint.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
NO DEFAULT IN THE FOLLOWING:
• Annulment of marriage;
• Declaration of nullity of marriage;
• Legal separation;
• Special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus where comment instead of
answer is required to be filed; and in expropriation cases;
• Summary procedure.
• In small claims cases.
Relief from an order of default
• Before judgment could be issued, the defendant must:
• 1) file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default and show that:
• a)The failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that;
• b) The defendant has a meritorious defense.
• c). the motion is supported by an AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
•Sec. 3, Rule 9 does not apply in probate proceedings. A careful reading of Sec. 3 reveals that an order of
default avails only in litigious proceedings. Thus, it cannot be validly issued in a special proceeding such
as the probate of a will. The Court already made this clarification in the early case of  Riera v.
Palmaroli[34]  as follows:
•x x x  A default, such as is there intended, can only arise in contentious litigation where a party
who has been impleaded as a defendant and served with process fails to appear at the time required
in the summons or to answer at the time provided by the rules of the court. The proceeding to
probate a will is not a contentious litigation in any sense, because nobody is impleaded observed
with process. It is a special proceeding, and although notice of the application is published, nobody is
bound to appeal and no order for judgment by default, is ever entered.  If the application is not
opposed, the court may allow the will on the testimony of one of the subscribing witnesses only (sec. 631,
Code Civ. Proc.), provided none of the reasons specified in section 634 of the Code of Civil Procedure
for disallowing the will are found to exist. If any interested person opposes the probate, the court hears the
testimony and allows or disallows the will accordingly. From such judgment any interested person may
appeal to the Supreme Court within twenty days. (Sec. 781, Code Civ. Proc.). Though the action taken
by a Court of First Instance in thus allowing or disallowing a will is properly denominated a
judgment, it is not a judgment rendered upon default even though no person appears to oppose the
probate(G.R. No. 237133, January 20, 2021, MIGDONIO RACCA AND MIAM GRACE DIANNE RACCA VS.
MARIA LOLITA A. ECHAGUE).
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

Effect of default
• If defendants have no common defense, partial judgment can be rendered as to the defaulted
defendant;
• If there is common defense, no partial judgment. The defaulting defendant will benefit from the answer
filed.
Requisites of partial default:
• 1. The complaint asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several defendants;
• 2. Some defendant/s answer, other/s do/es not;
• 3. The answer interposes a common defense.
EFFECT OF PARTIAL DEFAULT:
• The court will try the case against ALL defendants upon the answer of some EXCEPT where the defense
is personal to one who answered, in which case, it will not benefit the ones who did not answer.
Extent of relief in default judgment:
• It shall not exceed the amount OR be different in kind from that prayed for NOR award unliquidated
damages.
 RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

Remedies from a Judgment by default

1. Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration at any time after service of judgment by
default and within 15/30 days therefrom
2. Failure to file a Motion for New Trial/Denial of such motion, Appeal from judgment
by default within 15/30-day period;
3. Failure to appeal without defendants fault, Petition for relief from judgment within
60 days from notice of judgment but within 6 months from entry thereof;
4. Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47.
5. Where the defendant has been wrongly or improvidently declared in default, the
court can be considered to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction and may thus avail of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
AMENDMENT
Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as provided in the next preceding
Section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave
shall be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay or
confer jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading stated no cause of action from the
beginning which could be amended. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this
Section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and
an opportunity to be heard. (3a)
Note:
• Section 3, above emphasizes that if respondent pleading has already been filed, substantial
amendment may be made only by leave of court.
• However, leave of court shall be denied if the motion was made 1) with the intent to delay; 2)
confer jurisdiction on the court; 3) or the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning
which could be amended.
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
• AMENDMENT-
• Moreover, leave of court shall be denied if the purpose of amendment is
to confer jurisdiction after the responsive pleading is filed.
• The settled rule even prior to the amendment is that, a complaint
cannot be amended to confer jurisdiction on the court in which it was
filed, if the cause of action originally set forth was not within the court’s
jurisdiction (Campos Rueda Corp. vs. Baustista, 6 SCRA 240, 244).
Reason: The court must first acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter
in order to act validly on the same including its amendment (Gaspar vs.
Dorado, 15 SCRA 331, 334).
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
AMENDMENT-
• Additionally, leave of court shall also be denied if the purpose of amendment is to
allege a cause of action if at the time of the filing of complaint, there is in fact no cause
of action. (see Swagman Hotels and Travel vs. CA, 455 SCRA 175).
• A complaint whose cause of action (PNs)has NOT yet accrued during the filing of the
pleading cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading
alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case is pending, even if
the defendant did not object to the introduction of evidence thereon ( Swagman Hotel
& Travels , Inc. G.R. No. 161135 April 8 2005)
• In this case amendment to conform to evidence is available only if a cause of action
in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed.
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

INSTANCES WHEN AMENDMENT EVEN BY LEAVE OF COURT MAY NOT BE

ALLOWED:
• Amendment is intended to confer jurisdiction to the court;
• Amendment to cure a premature or non-existing cause of action; and
• Amendment for purposes of delay.
• G.R. NO. 143264, April 23, 2012, LISAM ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. BANCO
DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL
INTERNATIONAL BANK), ET AL.,- amendment to change a cause of
action permitted; Here, the complaint was amended in order to allege
prior demand as a pre-requisite of a derivative suit.
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
NO NEED OF AMENDMENT TO PLEADINGS-
Section 5. No amendment necessary to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the
parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been
raised in the pleadings. No amendment of such pleadings
deemed amended is necessary to cause them to conform to
the evidence. (5a)
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS-
Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. — Upon motion of a party, the court
may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him or
her to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences
or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be
supplemented. The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) calendar
days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading. (6a)
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING-
• The cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint must be the same as
that stated in the original complaint, otherwise, the court should not admit the
supplemental complaint. (Asset Privatization Trust v. CA 229 SCRA 627(1994).
AMENDED PLEADING vs SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING
Refers to facts existing at the time Refers to fact arising after the filing
of the commencement or the of the original pleading. SP-One that
action sets forth transaction, occurrence, or events
which have happened since the date of the
filing of the complaint.

Takes the place of the original Taken together with the original
pleading pleading

Can be made as a matter of right as Always with leave of court

when no responsive pleading has
yet been filed
When an amended pleading is filed, A supplemental pleading does not
a new copy of the entire pleading require the filing of a new copy of
must be filed the entire pleading
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

EFFECT OF AMENDED PLEADINGS

Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended
pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However,
admissions in superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence
against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not
incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
(8a)
 RULE 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Effect of amended pleading

• An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends;
• Admissions in the superseded pleading can still be received in evidence against the
pleader; and
• Claims or defenses alleged therein but not incorporated or reiterated in the amended
pleading are deemed waived.
• The original action is deemed abandoned and superseded by the amended complaint
only if the amended complaint introduces a new or different cause of action or
demand ( Versoza v. CA, 299 SCRA 100 (198))
• NOTE: Admission in a superseded pleading is an EXTRAJUDICAL ADMISSION and may
be proved by the party relying thereon by formal offer of evidence (Rule 10, Sec. 8;
see Regalado, 2002, p.193)
 RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant shall file his or her answer to the complaint within
thirty (30) calendar days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court. (1a)

Section 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity. — Where the defendant is a foreign
private juridical entity and service of summons is made on the government official designated by law to
receive the same, the answer shall be filed within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of summons by
such entity. (2a)

Section 3. Answer to amended complaint. — When the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter
of right, the defendant shall answer the same within thirty (30) calendar days after being served with a
copy thereof.
 
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint within fifteen
(15) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the
answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed.

This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended
third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention. (3a)
 RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. — A counterclaim or cross-claim must be
answered within twenty (20) calendar days from service. (4a)

Section 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.) -party complaint. — The time to answer a third
(fourth, etc.) — party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the answer to the
complaint. (5)

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

Section 7. Answer to supplemental complaint. — A supplemental complaint may be

answered within twenty (20) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same,
unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as
the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed. (7a)
 RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

DEALING WITH COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS-CLAIM

•Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim

that a defending party has at the time he or she files his or her answer shall be contained therein.
(8a)

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

which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his or her pleading may, with the
permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental
pleading before judgment. (9a)
SUMMARY:
• Answer to complaint – 30 days after service of Summons (Section 1, Rule 11).
• Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity when summons is made on government official
designated by law to receive the same – 60 days from receipt of summons (Section 2, Rule 11).
• Answer to amended complaint – 30 days if amendment is a matter or right or 15 days if amendment is
not a matter of right. This rule shall apply to answer to amended counterclaim, cross-claim, third
(fourth, etc.,) complaint or complaint-in-intervention (Section 2, Rule 11).
 RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
• Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim – 20 days from service
(Section 4, Rule 11).
• Answer to Third party, etc., - 30 days (Section 5, Rule 11).
• Reply under Section 10, Rule 6, – 15 days from service (Section 6,
Rule 11).
• Answer to supplemental complaint – 20 days from notice of the
order admitting (Section 7, Rule 11).
 RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
REMEDY IF COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS-CLAIM IS OMITTED-
Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross- claim. — When a
pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through
oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
requires, he or she may, by leave of court, set up the
counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.
(10a)
 RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

Section 11. Extension of time to file an answer. — A defendant

may, for meritorious reasons, be granted an additional
period of not more than thirty (30) calendar days to file an
answer. A defendant is only allowed to file one (1) motion for
extension of time to file an answer.
 
A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an
answer, is prohibited and considered a mere scrap of paper.
The court, however, may allow any other pleading to be filed
after the time fixed by these Rules. (11a)
 RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

• EXTENSION OF TIME TO FLE

• A.M.NO. 00-2-14-SC- Sec. 1, Rule22 of the ROC speaks only of the
“last day of the period” so that if an extension is granted on motion,
the due date ceases to be the last day and hence the provision no
longer applies. Any extension of time is thus counted from the
expiration of the period regardless if the due date is a Saturday,
Sunday or legal holiday.(Many, Jr. vs. Cebu Air, G.R. No. 210621, April
04, 2016).
 RULE 12
BILL OF PARTICULARS
BILL OF PARTICULARS-
Section 4. Effect of non -compliance. — If the order is not
obeyed, or in case of insufficient compliance therewith, the court
may order the striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof
to which the order was directed, or make such other order as it
deems just. (4)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER
PAPERS
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the filing of all pleadings, motions, and
other court submissions, as well as their service, except those for which a different mode
of service is prescribed. (1a)

Section 2. Filing and Service, defined. — Filing is the act of submitting the pleading or
other paper to the court.
 
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or any other court
submission. If a party has appeared by counsel, service upon such party shall be made
upon his or her counsel, unless service upon the party and the party’s counsel is ordered
by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, such counsel shall only be
entitled to one copy of any paper served by the opposite side.

Where 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, or upon any one of them if there is no designation of a lead counsel. (2a)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
EFFECT OF FILING-
Payment of docket fees/Rules-
1.Not the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket
fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing
of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of
the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2.The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not
be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow
payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
3.Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment
of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if
specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall
constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized
deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee (EN BANC, G.R. Nos. 79937-38. February
13, 1989, SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., (SIOL), E.B. PHILIPPS AND D.J. WARBY, petitioners, vs. HON.
MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge, Branch 104, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City and MANUEL CHUA
UY PO TIONG, respondents).
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

Payment of docket fees/Rules-

4. If there is an intentional omission to pay the correct docket fee, such as by concealing
the claim in the prayer though discussed in the body of the complaint, the Manchester
ruling will be applied. Amendment of the complaint will not cure the defect (EN BANC,
G.R. No. 88353. May 8, 1992, CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. JOSE B.
FERNANDEZ vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RTC JUDGE TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR., PRODUCERS
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and PRODUCERS PROPERTIES, INC., G.R. No. 92943. May 8,
1992, ATTY. LEONIDA G. TANSINSIN-ENCARNACION, as the Acting Conservator of Producers
Bank of the Philippines, and PRO­DUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs.
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, allegedly represented by HENRY L. CO, HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR., and the "LAW FIRM OF QUISUMBING,
TORRES AND EVANGELISTA" (RAMON J.; G.R. No. 192649, June 22, 2011, HOME
GUARANTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. R-II BUILDERS INC. AND NHA).
• Note: OCA Circular No. 95-2010 reiterated that A.M. No. 10-4-122-RTC- prohibits
substitution of payments of docket fees from one court station to another, as a result of
erroneous filing of cases by reason of improper jurisdiction/venue.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER
PAPERS
GOOD FAITH IN FAILING TO PAY CORRECT DOCKET FEES-
• The docket fees were computed on the basis of what was legally quantifiable at the time of the
filing of the complaint. Upon proof of payment of the assessed fees by the respondent(s), the trial
court properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction once acquired is never lost, it
continues until the case is terminated. The respondent(s) relied on the assessment made by the
docket clerk which turned out to be incorrect. The payment of the docket fees, as assessed,
negates any imputation of bad faith or an intent to defraud the government by the
respondent(s). Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the respondent [sic] and
there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply. Hence,
the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over the instant suit. The CA, however, required
the RTC Clerk of Court to determine the correct amount of docket fees based on Section 7(a),
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court since the case is a real action involving cancellation of titles and
reconveyance of properties(AYALA LAND, INC. VS. THE (ALLEGED) HEIRS OF THE LATE LUCAS LACTAO
AND SILVESTRA AQUINO, G.R. No. 208213, August 08, 2018).
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
Section. 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of pleadings and other court submissions shall be made by:
 
(a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the court;
 
(b) Sending them by registered mail;
 
(c) Sending them by accredited courier; or

(d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court
in places where the court is electronically equipped.
 
In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second
and third cases, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, and other court submissions, and payments
or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as
the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.
In the fourth case, the date of electronic transmission shall be considered as the date of filing. (3a)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
SUMMARY-
• Section 3 of the new Rules expands the manner of filing. Filing can be
made in four ways:
• (a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such,
to the court;
• (b) Sending them by registered mail;
• (c) Sending them by accredited courier;
• (d)Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as
may be authorized by the Court in places where the court is
electronically equipped.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
• When is the pleading, motion or other court submissions considered
filed?
• (a) When filed personally, upon the receipt of the court;
• (b)When filed registered mail or accredited courier, the date of
mailing;
• (c) In the fourth case, the date of electronic transmission shall be
considered as the date of filing.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
MODES OF SERVICE-
Section 5. Modes of Service. — Pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other court
submissions shall be served personally or by registered mail, accredited courier, electronic
mail, facsimile transmission, other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court, or
as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party. (5a)
Note:
The applicability of the HCCH Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and
Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters to-
1. judicial and extrajudicial documents;
2. for transmission from one State Party to another;
3. address of the person to be served is known;
4. Document relates to civil or commercial matters
The process is as follows: AUTHORITY OR JUDICAL OFFICER TO CENTRAL AUTHORITY (MAIN CHANNEL)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
THE HCCH MODEL FORM IS
1. REQUEST;
2. CERTIFICATE;
3. SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT S TO BE SERVED.
MODES:
• Informal delivery to the addressee who accepts it voluntarily;
• Method allowed by the Requested State
• Method requested by the Application unless prohibited under the law
of the Requested State
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
ALTERNATIVE CHANNELS-
1.Consular or diplomatic channels;
2.Postal channels;
3. Direct communication between judicial or authorized officers;
4. Direct communication between interested parties and judicial or
authorized officers.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
HCC IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PHILIPPINES-
Administrative Order No. 251-2020
1. Central Authority - Office of the Court Administrator (OCA);
2. Forwarding Authority – Justices and the Clerk of Court and lower
court judges;
3. Competent Authority – Judges are considered as competent
authorities.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
SUMMARY-
• As now amended, there are five methods of service:
• 1. Personal service
• 2. By registered mail
• 3. By accredited courier service
• 4. Electronic mail, facsimile transmission, other electronic means as may be
authorized by the Court,
• 5. Service or as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines
is a party. (Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
• Section 6. Personal Service. — Court submissions may be served by
personal delivery of a copy to the party or to the party’s counsel, or to
their authorized representative named in the appropriate pleading
or motion, or by leaving it in his or her office with his or her clerk, or
with a person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his or her
office, or his or her office is not known, or he or she has no office, then
by leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in
the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if known, with a person
of sufficient age and discretion residing therein. (6a)
• Note: Per the above rule, personal service may be made not only to party or
the party’s counsel, but also to party’s authorized representatives named in
the appropriate pleading or motion.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
• Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered mail shall be made by
depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed
to the party or to the party’s counsel at his or her office, if known, otherwise
at his or her residence, if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10)
calendar days if undelivered. If no registry service is available in the locality of
either the sender or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail. (7a)
• Section 8. Substituted service. – If service of pleadings, motions, notices,
resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be made under the two preceding
sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his or her counsel
being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of
court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The
service is complete at the time of such delivery. (8a)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
Section 9. Service by electronic means and facsimile. — Service by electronic means and
facsimile shall be made if the party concerned consents to such modes of service.
 
Service by electronic means shall be made by sending an e-mail to the party’s or counsel’s
electronic mail address, or through other electronic means of transmission as the parties may
agree on, or upon direction of the court.

Service by facsimile shall be made by sending a facsimile copy to the party’s or counsel’s given
facsimile number.

• Note: Under the above rule, service by electronic means and facsimile shall be made if the party concerned
consents to such modes of service.
• If a party consents, service by electronic means shall be made by sending an e-mail to the party’s or counsel’s
electronic mail address, or through other electronic means of transmission as the parties may agree on, or upon
direction of the court.
• Service by facsimile shall be made by sending a facsimile copy to the party’s or counsel’s given facsimile number.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
Section 10. Presumptive service. — There shall be presumptive notice to a
party of a court setting if such notice appears on the records to have been
mailed at least twenty (20) calendar days prior to the scheduled date of
hearing and if the addressee is from within the same judicial region of the
court where the case is pending, or at least thirty (30) calendar days if the
addressee is from outside the judicial region. (n)
Notes:
• The above rule provides for a presumptive notice of court setting.
• Notice of court setting is presumed received if it appears from the record that the same
has been mailed at least 20 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing if the
addressee is from within the same judicial region of the court where the case is pending.
• If outside judicial region, it will be 30 calendar days.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
DUTY TO NOTIFY COURT OF CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS OR
FACSIMILE NUMBER-
Section 11. Change of electronic mail address or facsimile number. — A
party who changes his or her electronic mail address or facsimile number
while the action is pending must promptly file, within five (5) calendar
days from such change, a notice of change of e-mail address or facsimile
number with the court and serve the notice on all other parties.
 
Service through the electronic mail address or facsimile number of a
party shall be presumed valid unless such party notifies the court of any
change, as aforementioned. (n)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
Section 12. Electronic mail and facsimile subject and title of
pleadings and other documents. — The subject of the electronic
mail and facsimile must follow the prescribed format: case number,
case title and the pleading, order or document title. The title of each
electronically-filed or served pleading or other document, and each
submission served by facsimile shall contain sufficient information
to enable the court to ascertain from the title:
(a) the party or parties filing or serving the paper, (b) nature of the
paper, (c) the party or parties against whom relief, if any, is sought,
and (d) the nature of the relief sought. (n)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
Section 13. Service of Judgments, Final Orders or Resolutions. — Judgments, final
orders, or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. Upon
ex parte motion of any party in the case, a copy of the judgment, final order, or
resolution may be delivered by accredited courier at the expense of such party.
When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action,
judgments, final orders or resolutions against him or her shall be served upon him or
her also by means of publication at the expense of the prevailing party. (9a)
Notes:
• General rule: judgments, final orders, or resolutions shall be served either personally or by
registered mail.
• Exception: upon ex parte motion of any party in the case, a copy of the judgment, final
order, or resolution may be delivered by accredited courier at the expense of such party.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
Section 14. Conventional service or filing of orders, pleadings and other documents.
 
– Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following orders, pleadings, and other documents
must be served or filed personally or by registered mail when allowed, and shall not be
served or filed electronically, unless express permission is granted by the
Court:
(a) Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings, such as an answer;
 
(b) Subpoenae, protection orders, and writs;
 
(c) Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other documents that are not readily amenable to
electronic scanning may, at the option of the party filing such, be filed and served
conventionally; and
 
(d) Sealed and confidential documents or records. (n)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

Section 15. Completeness of service. — Personal service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by
ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) calendar days after mailing, unless the court
otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or
after five (5) calendar days from the date he or she received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier. Service by accredited courier is complete upon actual receipt by the
addressee, or after at least two (2) attempts to deliver by the courier service, or upon the
expiration of five (5) calendar days after the first attempt to deliver, whichever is earlier.

Electronic service is complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the document, or
when available, at the time that the electronic notification of service of the document is sent.
Electronic service is not effective or complete if the party serving the document learns that it
did not reach the addressee or person to be served.

Service by facsimile transmission is complete upon receipt by the other party, as indicated in
the facsimile transmission printout. (10a)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

SUMMARY OF COMPLETENESS OF SERVICE-

• Ordinary mail- complete upon the expiration of ten (10) calendar days after mailing.
• Registered mail- complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5)
calendar days from the date he or she received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier.
• Accredited courier- complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after at least
two (2) attempts to deliver by the courier service, or upon the expiration of five (5)
calendar days after the first attempt to deliver, whichever is earlier.
• Electronic service - complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the
document, or when available, at the time that the electronic notification of service
of the document is sent.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
Section 16. Proof of filing. — The filing of a pleading or any other court submission shall be proved by its
existence in the record of the case.
 
(a) If the pleading or any other court submission is not in the record, but is claimed to have been filed
personally, the filing shall be proven by the written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court
on a copy of the pleading or court submission;
(b) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed by registered mail, the filing shall be proven by
the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who mailed it, containing a full statement of the date and
place of deposit of the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully
prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) calendar days if not
delivered.

(c) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed through an accredited courier service, the
filing shall be proven by an affidavit of service of the person who brought the pleading or other document
to the service provider, together with the courier’s official receipt and document tracking number.
(d) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed by electronic mail, the same shall be proven by
an affidavit of electronic filing of the filing party accompanied by a paper copy of the pleading or other
document transmitted or a written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court. If the
paper copy sent by electronic mail was filed by registered mail, paragraph (b) of this Section applies.
(e) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed through other authorized electronic means, the
same shall be proven by an affidavit of electronic filing of the filing party accompanied by a copy of the
electronic acknowledgment of its filing by the court. (12a)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

PROOF OF FILING-
• By the existence of the pleading or other court submission in the record of the case;
• If there is none on record, the filing shall be proven by the written or stamped acknowledgment of
its filing by the clerk of court on a copy of the pleading or court submission;
• If by accredited courier service, by an affidavit of service of the person who brought the pleading or
other document to the service provider, PLUS the courier’s official receipt and document tracking
number;
• If filed by electronic mail, by an affidavit of electronic filing of the filing party PLUS the paper copy
of the pleading or other document transmitted or a written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing
by the clerk of court. If the paper copy sent by electronic mail was filed by registered mail, paragraph
(b) of this Section applies;
• If filed through other electronic means, the same shall be proven by an affidavit of electronic filing of
the filing party accompanied by a copy of the electronic acknowledgment of its filing by the court.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

Section 17. Proof of service. –— Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or
the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a statement of the date, place, and
manner of service. If the service is made by:
 
(a) Ordinary mail. – Proof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing stating the facts showing compliance with
Section 7 of this Rule.

(b) Registered mail. – Proof shall be made by the affidavit mentioned above and the registry receipt issued by the
mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof, the
unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
 
(c) Accredited courier service. – Proof shall be made by an affidavit of service executed by the person who
brought the pleading or paper to the service provider, together with the courier’s official receipt or document
tracking number.

(d) Electronic mail, facsimile, or other authorized electronic means of transmission. – Proof shall be made by
an affidavit of service executed by the person who sent the e- mail, facsimile, or other electronic transmission,
together with a printed proof of transmittal. (13a)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
• PROOF OF SERVICE-
• Accredited courier service. –affidavit of service executed by the
person who brought the pleading or paper to the service provider,
together with the courier’s official receipt or document tracking
number.
• Electronic mail, facsimile, or other authorized electronic means of
transmission. –affidavit of service executed by the person who sent
the e- mail, facsimile, or other electronic transmission, together with
a printed proof of transmittal.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
• Section 18. Court -issued orders and other documents. — The court
may electronically serve orders and other documents to all the
parties in the case which shall have the same effect and validity as
provided herein. A paper copy of the order or other document
electronically served shall be retained and attached to the record of
the case. (n)

• Note: Section 18 is a new provision. The court may electronically serve orders and
other documents to all the parties in the case which shall have the same effect.
• A paper copy of the order or other document electronically served shall, however,
be retained and attached to the record of the case.
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

Section 19. Notice of lis pendens. –— In an action affecting the title or the right of
possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative relief is claimed
in his or her answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of the province in
which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice shall
contain the names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a description of
the property in that province affected thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for
record shall a purchaser, or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to
have constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the
parties designated by their real names.
 
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only upon order of the
court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party,
or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.
(14a)
 RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
•ADVERSE CLAIM vs. NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
• G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018, LOURDES VALDERAMA VS. SONIA ARGUELLES AND
LORNA ARGUELLES -the law and jurisprudence provide clear distinctions between an
annotation of an adverse claim, on one hand, and an annotation of a notice of  lis
pendens on the other. In sum, the main differences between the two are as follows: (1)
an adverse claim protects the right of a claimant during the pendency of a 
controversy  while a notice of  lis pendens  protects the right of the claimant
during the pendency of the  action or litigation; and (2) an adverse claim may only
be cancelled upon filing of a petition before the court which  shall conduct a hearing
on its validity  while a notice of  lis pendens  may be cancelled  without a
court hearing.
• A subsequent annotation of a notice of lis pendens on a certificate of title does not
necessarily render a petition for  cancellation  of  adverse  claim  on the
same title moot and academic.
• Hence, it was error to cancel the adverse claim based on the said ground.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Section 1. Clerk to issue summons. — Unless the complaint is on its
face dismissible under Section 1, Rule 9, the court shall, within five
(5) calendar days from receipt of the initiatory pleading and proof of
payment of the requisite legal fees, direct the clerk of court to
forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the defendants.
• Note: The provision authorizes the Court to dismiss the complaint motu proprio
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 which provides that the court shall dismiss the
complaint “if it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of
limitations.”
• Otherwise, the court shall issue summons.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS

• PURPOSE OF SUMMONS:
• TO acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil case; and
• To give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against
him (right to due process)
• EFFECT ON NON-SERVICE:
• Unless the defendant voluntary submits to the jurisdiction of the court non-
service or irregular service of summons renders NULL AND VOID all
subsequent proceedings and issuances in the action from the order of
default up to an including the judgment for default and the order of
execution( One Peng v. Custodio 1 SCRA 780 (1961).
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 2. Contents. — The summons shall be directed to the defendant, signed by
the clerk of court under seal and contain:

(a) the name of the court and the names of the parties to the action;

(b) When authorized by the court upon ex parte motion, an authorization for the
plaintiff to serve summons to the defendant;

(c) a direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these Rules;
(d) A notice that unless the defendant so answers plaintiff will take judgment by default
and may be granted the relief applied for. A copy of the complaint and order for
appointment of guardian ad litem, if any, shall be attached to the original and each
copy of the summons.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 3. By whom served. — The summons may be served by the sheriff,
his deputy, or other proper court officer, and in case of failure of service of summons by them, the court
may authorize the plaintiff – to serve the summons – together with the sheriff.

In cases where summons is to be served outside the judicial region of the court where the case is
pending, the plaintiff shall be authorized to cause the service of the summons.
If the plaintiff is a juridical entity , it shall notify the court, in writing, and name its authorized
representative therein, attaching a board resolution or secretary’s certificate thereto, as the case
may be, stating that such representative is duly authorized to serve the summons on behalf of the
plaintiff.

If the plaintiff misrepresents that the defendant was served summons, and it is later proved that no
summons was served, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice, the proceedings shall be nullified
and the plaintiff shall be meted appropriate sanctions.
If summons is returned without being served on any or all the defendants, the court shall order the
plaintiff to cause the service of summons by other means available under these Rules.

Failure to comply with the order shall cause the dismissal of the initiatory pleading without prejudice.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Under Section 2, the plaintiff, upon his ex-parte motion, may be
authorized to serve summons to defendant.
• That the plaintiff may be authorized to serve summons is further
confirmed by Section 3.
• What are the instances by which the plaintiff may be authorized to serve
summons?
• 1) In case there is failure to serve summons by the sheriff or other proper
court officer.
• 2)In cases where summons is to be served outside the judicial region of
the court where the case is pending.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• If plaintiff is a juridical entity , it shall notify the court, in writing the
name its authorized representative, attaching a board resolution or
secretary’s certificate thereto, as the case may be, stating that such
representative is duly authorized to serve the summons on behalf of
the plaintiff.
• SANCTION:
• If plaintiff misrepresents on the service of summons, case shall be
dismissed with prejudice, the proceedings shall be nullified and the
plaintiff shall be meted appropriate sanctions.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 4. Validity of summons and Issuance of alias summons. — Summons
shall remain valid until duly served, unless it is recalled by the court. In case of
loss or destruction of summons, the court may upon motion, issue an alias
summons. There is failure of service after unsuccessful attempts to personally
serve the summons on the defendant on his address indicated in the
complaint. Substituted service should be in the manner provided under Section
6 of
this Rule. (5)
Section 5. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever practicable, the summons
shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person and informing
the defendant that he or she is being served, or, if he or she refuses to receive
and sign for it, by leaving the summons within the view and in presence of the
defendant. (6)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Per Section 5 of the new Rules, there is an added requirement in
serving summons to the defendant, and that is: 1) handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person; 2) the person serving has to
inform the defendant of the fact of being served; 3) If the defendant
refuses to receive and sign for it, by leaving the summons within the
view and in presence of the defendant.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 6. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally
after at least three (3) attempts on two (2) separate dates, service may be effected:

(a)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;

(b) By leaving copies of the summons at defendant's office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.
A competent person includes, but not limited to, one who customarily receives
correspondences for the defendant;

(c) 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 homeowner’s association or condominium
corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the building where the
defendant may be found; and

(d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if allowed by the
court. (7)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS

• Section 6 specifically provides that there must be three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates
to serve summons personally to the defendant before resort to substituted service. This new
requirement was derived from the case of Manotoc vs. CA, G.R. No. 130974. August 16, 2006.
• Substituted service is accomplished:
• 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 (Manotoc vs. CA,
supra);
• 2. By leaving copies of the summons at defendant's office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof. A competent person includes, but not limited
to, one who customarily receives correspondences for the defendant.
• 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 homeowner’s association or condominium
corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the building where
the defendant may be found (Robinson vs. Miralles, 510 SCRA 678);
• 4. By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail address, if allowed by
the court.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS

Effects of substituted service-

• G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008, Dolores Montefalcon & Laurence
Montefalcon vs. Ronnie S. Vasquez- Substituted service on a seaman in one
of his declared residence held valid;
• G.R. No. 146553, November 27, 2002, Bank of P.I. vs. Sps. Willie and Julie L.
Evangelista and LTS Phil. Corp- Substituted service on the first attempt held
invalid;
• G.R. No. 144662, October 13, 2003, SPS. EFREN MASON, ET AL vs. CA and
COLUMBUS PHIL BUS CORP-Service through Ayreen Rejalde, a mere filing
clerk of private respondent and not one of those enumerated under Sec. 11,
Rule 14, is invalid (Mellinium ruling overturned by E.B.Villarosa ruling .
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Section 8. Service upon prisoners. — When the defendant is a prisoner confined
in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him or her by the officer
having the management of such jail or institution who is deemed deputized as a
special sheriff for said purpose. The jail warden shall file a return within five
(5) calendar days from service of summons to the defendant. (9)
• Section 9. Service consistent with international conventions. — Service
may be made through methods which are consistent with established
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party. (n)
• Note: Sec. 9 is a new provision.
• Service of summons may be done through international convention which the
Philippine is a party. i.e. the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of
Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Section 10. Service upon minors and incompetents. — When
the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent
person, service of summons shall be made upon him or her
personally and on his legal guardian if he or she has one, or if
none his or her guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be
applied for by the plaintiff. In the case of a minor, service shall
may also be made on his or her parent or guardian.
• Section 11. Service upon spouses. — When spouses are sued
jointly, service of summons should be made to each
spouse individually. (n)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 12. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. — When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical
personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel of the corporation wherever they may be
found, or in their absence or unavailability, their secretaries.

If such service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing persons, it shall be made upon
the person who customarily receives correspondence for the defendant at its principal office.
In case the domestic juridical entity is under receivership or liquidation, service of
summons shall be made on the receiver or liquidator, as the case may be.

Should there be a refusal on the part of the persons above-mentioned to receive summons
despite at least three (3) attempts on two (2) separate dates, service may be made
electronically, if allowed by the court, as provided under Section 6 of this rule. (11)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Service upon domestic private juridical entity
• Based on Section 12, the persons who are authorized to receive summons in
behalf of the corporation are: the president, managing partner, general partner,
corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel. They may be served whenever
they may be found. Summons may also be served on their secretaries in their
absence. (Nation Petroleum Gas vs. RCBC, GR No. 183370, August 17, 2015).
• If such service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing persons, it shall be made
upon the person who customarily receives correspondence for the defendant at its
principal office.
• In case the domestic juridical entity is under receivership or liquidation, service of
summons shall be made on the receiver or liquidator, as the case may be.
• This abandons the ruling in Nation Petroleum Gas vs. RCBC, GR No. 183370,
August 17, 2015 and allied cases.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Service upon domestic private juridical entity
• In case there is refusal on the part of the persons above-mentioned to receive
summons despite at least three (3) attempts on two (2) separate dates, service
may be made electronically, if allowed by the court, as provided under Section 6
of this rule.
• The 2019 rule reverts to the old rule that substituted service may be effected even
if the defendant is a corporation. The rule is a recognition of the ruling in the case
of Carson Realty & Management Corp vs. Red Robin Security Agency, GR No.
225035, February 8, 2017.
• Substituted service is either through service through the Secretaries of the
mentioned corporate officials, the person who customarily receives
correspondence for them, the receiver or liquidator, or by electronic means.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Section 13. Duty of counsel of record. — Where the
summons is improperly served and a lawyer makes a
special appearance on behalf of the defendant to, among
others, question the validity of service of summons, the
counsel shall be deputized by the court to serve summons
on his client. (n)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 14. Service upon foreign private juridical entities. — When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity
which has transacted or is doing business in the Philippines, as defined by law, service may be made on its resident
agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents, directors or trustees within the Philippines.

If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines, or has no resident agent but has
transacted or is doing business in it, as defined by law, such service may, with leave of court, be effected
outside the Philippines through any of the following means:

(a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of
the department of foreign affairs;
(b) 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 defendant;

(c) By facsimile;

(d) By electronic means with the prescribed proof of service; or

(e) By such other means as the court, in its discretion, may direct.(12)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
A.M. No.11-3-6-SC, March 15, 2011, AMENDED SECTION 12, RULE14 OF THE RULES OF COURT ON
SERVICE UPON FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY.
(1)When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the
Philippines-
• (i) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such
agent;
• (ii)on the government official designated by law to that effect; or
• (iii) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
(2)If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent, service
may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following means:
 a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of
the Department of Foreign Affairs;
b)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 defendant;
 c)By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service; or
 d)By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct." 
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Section 16. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are
unknown. — In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown
owner, or the like, or whenever his or her whereabouts are unknown and
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, within ninety (90) calendar days
from the commencement of the action, service may, by leave of court, be
effected upon him or her by publication in a newspaper of general circulation
and in such places and for such time as the court may order.
• Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which
shall not be less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within which
the defendant must answer. (14)
• Note: Section 13, Rule 13 mandates that if summons is served by publication
and the defendant did not appear, the judgment should also be served on said
defendant by publication at the expense of the plaintiff.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Section 17. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not reside and
is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines,
in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or
in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the
defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been
attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out
of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or as provided by
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party; or by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such
time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of
the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the
defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order
granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less
than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within which the defendant must
answer. (15)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Extraterritorial Service
REQUISITES:
• A.. Defendant does NOT RESIDE or is NOT FOUND in the Philippines;
• B. The action must be an action IN REM or QUASI IN REM. It may either:
• 1. Affect the PERSONAL STATUS of plaintiff;
• 2. Relates to the subject which is property within the Philippines in which defendant has a LIEN or interest;
• 3. Demands a relief which consists wholly or in part in EXCLUDING the defendant from any interest in any
property within the Philippines; or
• 4.. Property of defendant has been ATTACHED in the Philippines.
Modes of Service
• 1. With leave of court, serve outside the Philippines by personal service;
• 2. With leave of court, serve by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, in which case, copy of
the summons and order of court must also be sent by registered mail to the last known address of
defendant; or
• 3. Under International Covention
• 3. Any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE THROUGH DFA-
•G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003, MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS VS. ABELARDO B. LICAROS-
Service of summons through the DFA is valid in annulment of marriage, being in rem.
•Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the country may
be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: (1)  when the action affects
the personal status of the plaintiff;  (2) when the action relates to, or the subject of which is
property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent; (3) when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from
any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property of the defendant has been
attached within the Philippines.
•In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of three modes:
(1) by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and sending a copy
of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address, also
with leave of court; or (3)  by any other means the judge may consider sufficient.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
•Applying the foregoing rule, the trial court required extraterritorial service of summons to be effected on
Margarita in the following manner:
•x x x, service of Summons by way of publication in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks,  at the same time, furnishing respondent copy of this Order as well as the corresponding
Summons and copy of the petition at her given address at No. 96 Mulberry Lane, Atherton, California, U.S.A., 
thru the Department of Foreign Affairs, all at the expense of petitioner.  (Emphasis ours)
•The trial court’s prescribed mode of extraterritorial service does not fall under the first or second mode specified
in Section 15 of Rule 14, but under the third mode. This refers to “any other means that the judge may consider
sufficient.”
•The Process Server’s Return of 15 July 1991 shows that the summons addressed to Margarita together with the
complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the Department of Foreign Affairs with acknowledgment of
receipt. The Process Server’s certificate of service of summons is  prima facie  evidence of the facts as set out
in the certificate.[16]  Before proceeding to declare the marriage between Margarita and Abelardo null and void,
the trial court stated in its Decision dated 8 November 1991 that “compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements hav(e)  (sic) been duly established.”  We hold that delivery to the Department of Foreign Affairs
was sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this is exactly what the trial court required and considered as
sufficient to effect service of summons under the third mode of extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of
Rule 14. (LICAROS VS. LICAROS, SUPRA).
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 18. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. —
When any action is commenced against a defendant who
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily
out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of
the Philippines, as under the preceding section. (16)
Section 19. Leave of court. — Any application to the court under
this Rule for leave to effect service in any manner for which leave
of court is necessary shall be made by motion in writing,
supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his
behalf, setting forth the grounds for the application. (17)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS

• Summons by Publication (Sec. 14)

• REQUISITES:
• a. Defendant’s identity and whereabouts are UNKNOWN and CONNOT BE
ASCERTAINED by diligent inquiry; and
• b. Summons was served in person and by substituted service but failed (Santos vs.
PNOC, G.R. No. 170943, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 272)
• c. There must be LEAVE OF COURT.
• d. There must be service of summons by registered mail.
• E. Motion for leave must be supported by affidavit of merit setting forth the
grounds (Sec. 19,Rule 14,  G.R. NO. 150908, January 21, 2005, Lagrimas Pacana-
Gonzales vs. CA);
 RULE 14
SUMMONS

Service of summons through publication-

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION MUST ALLEGED:
1.That, the newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and general
information;

2.That,it has a bona fide subscription  list of paying  subscribers;

3. That it is published at regular intervals.(Basa vs. Mercado, 61 Phil. 632; G.R. NO.

150908, January 21, 2005, Lagrimas Pacana-Gonzales, AS ONE OF THE HEIRS OF
LUCIANO PACAÑA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MANUEL
CARBONELL PHUA)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 20. Return. — Within thirty (30) calendar days from issuance of summons by the clerk of
court and receipt thereof, the sheriff or process server, or person authorized by the court, shall
complete its service. Within five (5) calendar days from service of summons, the server shall file
with the court and serve a copy of the return to the plaintiff’s counsel, personally, by registered
mail, or by electronic means authorized by the Rules.
Should substituted service have been effected, the return shall state:

(1) The impossibility of prompt personal service within a period of thirty (30) calendar days from
issue and receipt of summons;

(2) The date and time of the three (3) attempts on at least (2) two separate dates to cause personal
service and the details of the inquiries made to locate the defendant residing thereat; and

(3) The name of the person at least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing
thereat: name of competent person in charge of the defendant’s office or regular place of
business, or name of the officer of the homeowner’s association or condominium corporation or
its chief security officer in charge of the community or building where the defendant may be found.
(4)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 21. Proof of service. — The proof of service of a summons shall
be
made in writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place, and
date of service; shall specify any papers which have been served with
the process and the name of the person who received the same; and
shall be sworn to when made by a person other than a sheriff or his or
her deputy.

If summons was served by electronic mail, a printout of said e-mail,

with a copy of the summons as served, and the affidavit of the
person mailing, shall constitute as proof of service. (18)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
Section 22. Proof of service by publication. — If the service has
been made by publication, service may be proved by the affidavit
of the publisher, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor,
business or advertising manager, to which affidavit a copy of the
publication shall be attached and by an affidavit showing the
deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the
post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by
registered mail to his or her last known address. (19)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
• Section 23. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of
other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary appearance. (20)
• Note: Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired
through coercive process, generally by 1) service of summons or
through defendant’s 2) voluntary appearance or submission to the
court (Republic vs. Domingo, 657 SCRA 621, 632; Manotoc vs. CA,
499 SCRA 21)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
INSTANCES CONSTRUED AS VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE:
• 1. By filing an answer (Guy vs. Gacott, GR No. 206147, January 13, 2016).

• 2. By asking an affirmative relief from the Court (Reicon Realty Builders Corp vs.
Diamond Dragon, GR No. 204796, February 4, 2015).
• 3. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary
appearance.
• However, the mere act of the defendant or his counsel in making a conditional
appearance or special appearance in court to object to the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, is not deemed a voluntary appearance or voluntary submission to
the jurisdiction of the court.
 RULE 14
SUMMONS

G.R. No. 147937, Nov. 11, 2001, PHILAMLIFE INS CO. vs. Hon. Augusto V.
Breva, et al. –Summons when a complaint is amended-
• where the defendant has already been served summons on the original
complaint, the amended complaint may be served upon him without need of
another summons. 
• Conversely, when no summons has yet been validly served on the defendant,
new summons for the amended complaint must be served on him.
• Where the defendant has already been validly served with summons on the
original complaint, no further summons is required on the amended
complaint if its does not introduce new causes of action.( One Peng v.
Custodio 1 SCRA 780 (1961)
 RULE 14
SUMMONS
NEW SUMMONS WHEN COMPLAINT IS AMENDED
• But where the defendant was declared in default on the original
complaint and the plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint,
new summons must be served on the defendant of the amended
complaint, as the original complaint was deemed withdrawn upon
such amendment. (Atkins v. Domingo 44 Phil 680(1923))
 RULE 14
SUMMONS

Effect of failure to serve summons-

• A case cannot be dismissed for failure to serve summons; remedy is issuance of
alias summons (G.R. No. 147937, November 11, 2004, THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN
LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA);
• Service upon the husband who is in jail in behalf of his wife and children, not valid;
Inclusion in a MTD of other ground not a voluntary appearance; La Naval ruling
reiterated(GR No. 170122, Oct 12, 2009, Clarita Depakakibo Garcia vs.
Sandiganbayan and Republic);
• G.R. No. 152496, July 30, 2009, Sps. German Anunciacion, et al vs. Perpetua
Bocanegra, et al- Failure to raise issue of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant at the earliest opportunity amounts to a voluntary appearance. Hence,
a supplemental motion to dismiss on that ground can no longer be allowed-
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

Section 2. Motions must be in writings. — All motions shall be in writing

except those made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial.

A motion made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial

should immediately be resolved in open court, after the adverse
party is given the opportunity to argue his or her opposition thereto.

When a motion is based on facts not appearing on record, the court

may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the
respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard
wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (2)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS
Section 4. Non-litigious motions. — Motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the
rights of adverse parties are non-litigious motions. These motions include:

i. Motion for the issuance of alias summons;

ii. Motion for extension to file answer;

iii. Motion for postponement;

iv. Motion for the issuance of a writ of execution;

v. Motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution

vi. Motion for the issuance of a writ of possession;

vii. Motion for the issuance of an order directing the sheriff to execute the final certificate of sale; and

viii. Other similar motions.

These motions shall not be set for hearing and shall be resolved by the court within five (5) calendar
days from receipt thereof. (n)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

Section 5. Litigious motions –

(a) litigious motions include:

i. Motion for bill of particulars;

ii. Motion to dismiss;

iii. Motion for new trial;

iv. Motion for reconsideration;

v. Motion for execution pending appeal;

vi. Motion to amend after a responsive pleading has been filed;

vii. Motion to cancel statutory lien;

viii. Motion for an order to break in or for a writ of demolition;

ix. Motion for intervention;

x. Motion for judgment on the pleadings;

 RULE 15
MOTIONS

Section 5. Litigious motions –

(a) litigious motions include:

xi. Motion for summary judgment;

xii. Demurrer to evidence;

xiii. Motion to declare defendant in default; and

xiv. Other similar motions.

(b) All motions shall be served by personal service, accredited private courier or
registered mail, or electronic means so as to ensure their receipt by the other party.
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

Section 5. Litigious motions –

(a) litigious motions include:

(c) The opposite party shall file his or her opposition to a litigious
motion within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. No other
submissions shall be considered by the court in the resolution of
the motion.

The motion shall be resolved by the court within fifteen (15)

calendar days from its receipt of the opposition thereto, or upon
expiration of the period to file such opposition. (n)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

Section 6. Notice of hearing on litigious motions;

discretionary. — The court may, in the exercise of its
discretion, and if deemed necessary for its resolution, call a
hearing on the motion. The notice of hearing shall be
addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time
and date of the hearing. (5)
Section 7. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion
shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service
thereof, pursuant to section 5 (b) hereof. (6)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

Procedure in litigious motions-

• SERVICE by: personal service, accredited private courier or registered mail, or
electronic means so as to ensure their receipt by the other party.
• SUBMISSION OF PROOF of service(Sec.7).
• FILING OF OPPOSITION within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. No other
submissions shall be considered by the court in the resolution of the motion.
• HEARING(Optional at court’s discretion per Sec. 6). Notice of hearing necessary if
motion is heard. Except for motions requiring immediate action, where the court
decides to conduct hearing, the same shall be set on a Friday (Section 8).
• RESOLUTION within fifteen (15) calendar days from its receipt of the opposition
thereto, or upon expiration of the period to file such opposition(If no hearing was
conducted).
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

• Section 9. Omnibus motion. — Subject to the provisions of

section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order,
judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then
available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed
waived. (8)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

The exceptions to omnibus motion rule under Section 1, Rule 9, are:

• Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

• Litis pendentia

• Res judicata

• Statute of limitation or prescription

 RULE 15
MOTIONS

Section 12. Prohibited Motions. — The following shall not be allowed:

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

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

(b) Motion to hear affirmative defenses;

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

(d) Motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or injunction

issued by a higher court;
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other papers, except a
motion for extension to file an answer as provided by Section 11, Rule 11; and

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

A motion for postponement, whether written or oral, shall, at all times, be accompanied by
the original receipt from the office of the clerk of court evidencing payment of the
postponement fee under Section 21(b), Rule 141, to be submitted either at the time of the
filing of said motion or not later than the next hearing date. The clerk of court shall not
accept the motion unless accompanied by an original receipt. (n)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

MOTION TO DISMISS-
• GENERAL RULE: An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory. The ordinary procedure is for the
defendant to file his answer and to go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, he can appeal from the
judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to dismiss.
 
• EXCEPTION: If the court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
denying the motion, CERTIORARI or PROHIBITION lies.
 
• Resolution of Motion
• The court may:
• 1. Order the dismissal of action;
• 2. Deny the motion; or
• 3. Order the amendment of the pleading.
• (OLORES ADORA MACASLANG, PETITIONER, VS. RENATO AND MELBA ZAMORA, RESPONDENTS, G.R.
No. 156375, May 30, 2011)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

• EFFECT OF PROHIBITED MOTION OR PLEADINGS-

• A prohibited pleading or motion does not produce any legal effect and may be
deemed not filed at all. In  Landbank of the Philippines vs. Ascot Holdings
and Equities, Inc., (562 Phil. 974, 2007)  the Court emphasized that "a
prohibited pleading cannot toll the running of the period to appeal since such
pleading cannot be given any legal effect precisely because of its being
prohibited (BARANGAY CHAIRMAN HERBERT O. CHUA VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 236573, August 14, 2018, En Banc ].
• 
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

MOTION TO DISMISS;
Effect of dismissal
• GENERAL RULE: The action or claim may be re-filed.
• EXCEPTIONS: The action cannot be re-filed if it was dismissed on any of these grounds:
• 1. Res judicata;
• 2. Prescription;
• 3. Extinguishment of the claim or demand; and
• 4. Unenforceability under the statue of frauds.
• In these instances, the remedy of the plaintiff is APPEAL.
Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses
• If no motion to dismiss had been filed or allowed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for
in Rule 16, INCLUDING IMPROPER VENUE, may be pleaded as affirmative defenses and a
preliminary hearing may be had thereon at the discretion of the court. In CASES UNDER RSP
preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses is not permitted (Bayview Hotel Case)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

• Section 13. Dismissal with prejudice. — Subject to the right of

appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss or an affirmative
defense that the cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment or by the statute of limitations; that the claim or
demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; or that the
claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under
the provisions of the statute of frauds, shall bar the refiling of
the same action or claim. (5, R16)
• Note: Dismissal under this section entails the remedy of appeal
under Sec. 1, Rule 41.
 RULE 17
DISMISSAL OF ACTION

• Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint may be

dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time
before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment.
Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming
the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is
without prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication
upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a
competent court an action based on or including the same claim. (1)
• Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this
paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be
dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.
 RULE 17
DISMISSAL OF ACTION

• Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided

in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the
plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon such
terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim
has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him or
her 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 or her counterclaim in a
separate action unless within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice
of the motion he or she manifests his or her preference to have his
or her counterclaim resolved in the same action.
 RULE 17
DISMISSAL OF ACTION

• Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no

justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the complaint, or
to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of
time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court,
the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant
or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of
the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of
an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by
the court.
 RULE 17
DISMISSAL OF ACTION

• FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

• For this rule to apply, the order being disobeyed by the party must
contain a warning that failure to comply shall be aground for the
dismissal of the complaint or claim (Goodloop Propertis, Inc. vs. CA,
G.R. No. 19431, August 11, 1992).
 RULE 17
DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Section 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party

complaint. — The provisions of this Rule shall apply to the
dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
complaint. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant by notice as in
Section 1 of this Rule, shall be made before a responsive
pleading or a motion for summary judgment is served or, if there
is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or
hearing. (4)
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

• Section 1. When conducted. — After the last responsive pleading has

been served and filed, the branch clerk of court shall issue, within five
(5) calendar days from filing, a notice of pre-trial which shall be set
not later than sixty (60) calendar days from the filing of the last
responsive pleading. (1a)
• Note: Under the provision, it is not anymore the duty of the plaintiff to move for
the setting the case for pre-trial. It is now the obligation of the clerk of court.
• The branch clerk of court shall issue notice of pre-trial within five (5) days from
the filing of the last responsive pleading.
• The pre-trial shall be set not later than 60 days from the filing of the last
responsive pleading.
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Section. 2. Nature and Purpose. — The pre-trial is mandatory and should be terminated promptly. The
court shall consider:
 
(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;
 
(b)The simplification of the issues;
 
(c) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary
proof;
(d)The limitation of the number and identification of witnesses and the setting of trial dates;

(e) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;

 
(f) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action
should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

(g)The requirement for the parties to:

1. Mark their respective evidence if not yet marked in the judicial affidavits of their witnesses;
 
2. Examine and make comparisons of the adverse parties' evidence vis-a-vis the copies to be
marked;
 
3. Manifest for the record stipulations regarding the faithfulness of the reproductions and the
genuineness and due execution of the adverse parties' evidence;
4. Reserve evidence not available at the pre-trial, but only in the following manner:

i. For testimonial evidence, by giving the name or position and the nature of the testimony of
the proposed witness;

ii. For documentary evidence and other object evidence, by giving a particular description of
the evidence.
 
No reservation shall be allowed if not made in the manner described above.
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

(h) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.
 
The failure without just cause of a party and counsel to appear
during pre-trial, despite notice, shall result in a waiver of any
objections to the faithfulness of the reproductions marked, or their
genuineness and due execution.
Note: Under Section 5, Rule 18, the failure to appear during pre-trial leads to a
penalty. If it is the plaintiff or his counsel did not appear, dismissal of the
complaint. If it is the defendant or his counsel who failed to appear, court will
allow the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte. The above provision is an
additional penalty for absence during pre-trial.
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Section. 3. Notice of pre-trial. — The notice of pre-trial shall include the dates
respectively set for:
(a) Pre-trial;
(b) Court-Annexed Mediation; and
(c) Judicial Dispute Resolution, if necessary.
The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party if he or she has no
counsel. The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of notifying the party
represented by him or her.
Non-appearance at any of the foregoing settings shall be deemed as nonappearance
at the pre-trial and shall merit the same sanctions under Section 5 hereof. (3a)
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Section 4. Appearance of Parties. — It shall be the duty of the parties

and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial, court-annexed mediation,
and judicial dispute resolution, if necessary. The non-appearance
of a party and counsel may be excused only for acts of God, force
majeure, or duly substantiated physical inability.
A representative may appear on behalf of a party, but must be fully
authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to
submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter
into stipulations or admissions of facts and documents.
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

• Section. 5. Effect of failure to appear. — When duly notified,

the failure of the plaintiff and counsel to appear without valid
cause when so required, pursuant to the next preceding
Section, shall cause the dismissal of the action. The dismissal
shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A
similar failure on the part of the defendant and counsel shall be
cause to allow the plaintiff to present his or her evidence ex-
parte within ten (10) calendar days from termination of the
pre-trial, and the court to render judgment on the basis of the
evidence offered. (5a)
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

• CONTEMPT CANNOT BE MEDIATED-

• A repetition of acts which the respondent had been previously held
guilty of contempt may also constitute contempt. Hence, it is not
subject for referral to court annexed mediation. The end of litigation,
upon the finality of judgment, is essential for the effective and
efficient administration of justice. Respondent was ordered to pay a
fine of Php. 300,000.00 in lieu of 3 months imprisonment because of
his old age(Bank of Commerce, vs. Joaquin T. Borromeo, En Banc, G.R.
No. 205632, June 2, 2020).
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Section 6. Pre-trial brief. — The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse
party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) calendar days
before the date of the pre-trial, their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among
others:
(a) A concise statement of the case and the reliefs prayed for;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
(c) The main factual and legal issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The propriety of referral of factual issues to commissioners;
(e) The documents or other object evidence to be marked, stating the purpose thereof;
(f) The names of the witnesses, and the summary of their respective testimonies; and
(g) A brief statement of points of law and citation of authorities.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
(8)
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Section 7. Pre-Trial Order. — Upon termination of the pre-trial, the court shall
issue an order within ten (10) calendar days which shall recite in detail the matters
taken up. The order shall include:
(a) An enumeration of the admitted facts;
(b)The minutes of the pre-trial conference;
(c) The legal and factual issue/s to be tried;
(d)The applicable law, rules, and jurisprudence;
(e) The evidence marked;
(f) The specific trial dates for continuous trial, which shall be within the period
provided by the Rules;
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

(g) The case flowchart to be determined by the court, which shall

contain the different stages of the proceedings up to the
promulgation of the decision and the use of time frames for each
stage in setting the trial dates;
(h) A statement that the one-day examination of witness rule and
most important witness rule under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines
for Pre-Trial) shall be strictly followed; and
(i) A statement that the court shall render judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment, as the case may be.
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

The direct testimony of witnesses for the plaintiff shall be in the

form of judicial affidavits. After the identification of such affidavits,
cross-examination shall proceed immediately.
Postponement of presentation of the parties’ witnesses at a
scheduled date is prohibited, except if it is based on acts of God,
force majeure or duly substantiated physical inability of the witness
to appear and testify. The party who caused the postponement is
warned that the presentation of its evidence must still be
terminated within the remaining dates previously agreed upon.
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Should the opposing party fail to appear without valid cause

stated in the next preceding paragraph, the presentation of
the scheduled witness will proceed with the absent party
being deemed to have waived the right to interpose
objection and conduct cross-examination.
The contents of the pre-trial order shall control the
subsequent proceedings, unless modified before trial to
prevent manifest injustice. (7a)
 RULE 15
MOTIONS

• PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION

(now TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES) VS. AMALGAMATED MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, ET AL., GR No. 177729, Sept. 28, 2011-Pre-trial order is
not exclusive about the issues to be resolved by the trial court . 
• Pre-trial order is not intended to be a detailed catalogue of each and
every issue that is to be taken during the trial, for it is unavoidable that
there are issues that are impliedly included among those listed or that
may be inferable from those listed by necessary implication which are as
much integral parts of the pre-trial order as those expressly listed.
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Section 8. Court-Annexed Mediation. — After pre-trial and, after issues are joined, the court shall
refer the parties for mandatory court-annexed mediation.
The period for court-annexed mediation shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days without further
extension. (n)
Section 9. Judicial Dispute Resolution. — Only if the judge of the court to which the case was
originally raffled is convinced that settlement is still possible, the case may be referred to another
court for judicial dispute resolution. The judicial dispute resolution shall be conducted within a
non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of failure of the court-annexed
mediation.
If judicial dispute resolution fails, trial before the original court shall proceed on the dates agreed
upon.
All proceedings during the court-annexed mediation and the judicial dispute resolution shall be
confidential. (n)
 Rule 18
• JDR Rules under A.M. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, as modified by the Revised
Guidelines For Continuous Trial In Criminal Cases(A.M. NO.15-06-10-
SC) which took effect on SEPTEMBER 1, 2017, and the new Rules of
Civil Procedure(A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC), and A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC or
the New Guidelines for the Conduct of Court-Annexed Mediation
(“CAM”) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (“JDR”) in Civil Cases
(“Guidelines”) dated 09 February 2021 ;
 Rule 18
• TWO RECOGNIZED AND COURT SANCTIONED ADR SYSTEM
• (1)COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM) for CIVIL AND SELECTED
CRIMINAL CASES; AND
• (2)JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION(JDR) IN CIVIL CASES ONLY

• Note: No more JDR in criminal cases.

 Rule 18
• DUTY OF THE COURT BEFORE CAM AND JDR
• The new Rules of Civil Procedure provides-
• In Civil Cases, the notice of pre-trial shall include the dates
respectively set for:
• (a)Pre-Trial;
• (b)Court-Annexed Mediation; and
• (c)Judicial Dispute Resolution, if necessary.
• (Rule 18, Sec.3, New Rules of Civil Procedure)
 Rule 18
COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM)
• CAM is a process conducted under the auspices of the court, after such court has acquired
jurisdiction of the dispute. The mediation is done by a mediator working with the Philippine
Mediation Center Unit(PMCU) of the referring court.
• Referral by the court to the Philippine Mediation Center Unit (PMC) is mandatory for all
mediatable cases.
• The proceedings during the CAM is CONFIDENTIAL(R.A. 9285; A.M. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, as amended
by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (March 1, 2021); Rule 18, Sec. 9, New Rules of Civil Procedure).
• All participants are covered by the confidentiality rule(Id.).
• The confidentiality can be waived (Id.).
• Who will conduct CAM?
-By a PHILJA-PMC accredited mediator(JDR Rules)
Rule 18
Rule 18
 Rule 18
WHEN TO MAKE REFERRAL TO CAM IN CIVIL CASES/DURATION/OUTCOME
• After pre-trial and, after issues are joined, the court shall refer the parties for
mandatory court-annexed mediation(Rule 18, Sec. 8, New Rules of Civil Procedure)

Duration of CAM
• The period of court-annexed mediation shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days
without further extension. (n)(Id.)

Outcome of CAM
• If settled, courts approves/disapproves settlement;
• If no settlement, court may refer case for JDR or go to trial.
(JDR Rules; Rule 18, Sec. 9, ROC)
 Rule 18
• ACM IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
• Appellate Court Mediation (ACM) - A mediation program in the Court
of Appeals (CA), corollary to Court-Annexed Mediation in the lower
courts. It provides a conciliatory approach in conflict resolution.
Through ACM, the CA promotes a paradigm shift in the resolution of
disputes from rights based (judicial) to an interest based (mediation)
process to amicably settle appeals. (EN BANC, A.M. No. 08-2-5-SC-
PHILJA, February 12, 2008).
• A.M. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, mandates payment of Php.1,000.00 as
mediation fee in appealed cases in the CA.
 Rule 18
JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION(JDR)
• What is JDR?
• Two judge system; JDR applies only in Civil Cases.

• What are the conditions that must be present before a judge may refer the case for JDR?
• (1) The case was previously referred to CAM;
• (2) The case was not settled during the CAM;
• (3) The judge to which the case was originally raffled (Trial Judge) is convinced that settlement is
still possible;
(Rule 18, Section 9, New Rules of Civil Procedure)

• Who will conduct JDR?

• Another court (JDR Judge) shall conduct the JDR, upon referral of the judge of the court
where the case was originally raffled (Id.).
 Rule 18
JDR IN CIVIL CASES
Duration of JDR
• The judicial dispute resolution shall be conducted within a non-extendible
period of fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of failure of the court-
annexed mediation(Id.)

Role of the JDR Judge

-Act as a Mediator
-Acts as CONCILIATOR
-Act as a NEUTRAL EVALUATOR (Role of BATNA, WATNA, MLATNA)
• (JDR Rules)
Rule 18
Rule 18
Rule 18
 Rule 18
• JDR During Trial (MID-TRIAL JDR)
• Only in civil cases;
• Upon written motion of one or both parties indicating willingness to discuss a
possible compromise. If the motion is granted, the trial shall be suspended and
the case referred to JDR, which shall be conducted by another judge through
raffle in multiple sala courts.
• If settlement is reached during JDR, the JDR court shall take appropriate action
thereon, i.e., approval/ disapproval of the compromise agreement.
• If settlement is not reached at JDR, the case shall be returned to the referring
court for continuation of trial.
• (JDR Rules; Rule 18, Sec. 9, ROC)
 Rule 18
JDR ON APPEAL IN THE RTC
 Rule 18
• PROCEDURE OF JDR ON APPEAL IN THE RTC

• No prior referral to CAM before JDR is conducted on the appealed

case;
• JDR on appeal does not apply to criminal cases;
• ONLY RTC JUDGES can conduct JDR on appeal;
Rule 18
 Rule 18
SANCTIONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE
 Rule 18
SANCTIONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE
 RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL

Section. 10. Judgment after pre-trial. — Should there be no more controverted

facts, or no more genuine issue as to any material fact, or an absence of any
issue, or should the answer fail to tender an issue, the court shall, without
prejudice to a party moving for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 or
summary judgment under Rule 35, motu proprio include in the pre-trial order
that the case be submitted for summary judgment or judgment on the
pleadings, without need of position papers or memoranda. In such cases,
judgment shall be rendered within ninety (90) calendar days from termination
of the pre-trial.
The order of the court to submit the case for judgment pursuant to this Rule
shall not be the subject to appeal or certiorari. (n)
 RULE 19
INTERVENTION

• Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal interest in

the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the
court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to
intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s
rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. (1)
 RULE 19
INTERVENTION

• Section 2. Time to intervene. — The motion to intervene may be filed at any time
before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-
intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.
(2)
• Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a complaint-in
intervention if he or she asserts a claim against either or all of the original
parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he or she unites with the defending party
in resisting a claim against the latter. (3a)
• Section 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. — The answer to the
complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days
from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is
fixed by the court. (4a)
 RULE 21
SUBPOENA

Section 2. By whom issued. — The subpoena may be issued by –

(a) The court before whom the witness is required to attend;
(b) The court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
(c) The officer or body authorized by law to do so in connection with investigations conducted by said
officer or body; or
(d) Any Justice of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in any case or investigation pending within
the Philippines.
When an application for a subpoena to a prisoner is made, the judge or officer shall examine and study carefully
such application to determine whether the same is made for a valid purpose.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and who is confined in any penal
institution shall be brought outside the penal institution for appearance or attendance in any court unless
authorized by the Supreme Court. (2a)
 RULE 21
SUBPOENA

• Section 3. Form and contents. — A subpoena shall state the name of the court and the
title of the action or investigation, shall be directed to the person whose attendance is
required, and in the case of a subpoena duces tecum, it shall also contain a reasonable
description of the books, documents or things demanded which must appear to the court
prima facie relevant. (3)
• Section 4. Quashing a subpoena. — The court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion
promptly made and, in any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and
oppressive, or the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the person in
whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof.

• The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the ground that the witness is not bound
thereby. In either case, the subpoena may be quashed on the ground that the witness fees and
kilometrage allowed by these Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was served. (4)
 RULE 21
SUBPOENA

Section 5. Subpoena for depositions. — Proof of service of a notice to take a deposition,

as provided in Sections 15 and 25 of Rule 23, shall constitute sufficient authorization for
the issuance of subpoenas for the persons named in said notice by the clerk of the court
of the place in which the deposition is to be taken. The clerk shall not, however, issue a
subpoena duces tecum to any such person without an order of the court. (5)

Section 6. Service. — Service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as

personal or substituted service of summons. The original shall be exhibited and a copy
thereof delivered to the person on whom it is served. The service must be made so as to
allow the witness a reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of
attendance.
Costs for court attendance and the production of documents and other materials
subject of the subpoena shall be tendered or charged accordingly. (6a)
 RULE 21
SUBPOENA

• Section 7. Personal appearance in court. — A person present in court

before a judicial officer may be required to testify as if he or she were
in attendance upon a subpoena issued by such court or officer. (7a)
• Section 8. Compelling attendance. — In case of failure of a witness to
attend, the court or judge issuing the subpoena, upon proof of the service
thereof and of the failure of the witness, may issue a warrant to the sheriff
of the province, or his or her deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him or
her before the court or officer where his or her attendance is required, and
the cost of such warrant and seizure of such witness shall be paid by the
witness if the court issuing it shall determine that his or her failure to
answer the subpoena was willful and without just excuse. (8a)
 RULE 21
SUBPOENA

• Section 9. Contempt. — Failure by any person without adequate

cause to obey a subpoena served upon him or her shall be deemed a
contempt of the court from which the subpoena is issued. If the
subpoena was not issued by a court, the disobedience thereto shall
be punished in accordance with the applicable law or Rule. (9a)
 RULE 21
SUBPOENA

• Section 10. Exceptions. — The provisions of Sections 8 and 9

of this Rule shall not apply to a witness who resides more than
one hundred (100) kilometers from his or her residence to the
place where he or she is to testify by the ordinary course of
travel, or to a detention prisoner if no permission of the court in
which his or her case is pending was obtained. (10a)
 RULE 22
COMPUTATION OF TIME
Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period of time prescribed or
allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day
of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be
excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus
computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the
court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.

Sec. 2. Effect of interruption. — Should an act be done which effectively interrupts

the running of the period, the allowable period after such interruption shall start to run
on the day after notice of the cessation of the cause thereof.

The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be excluded in the computation
of the period.
 RULE 30
TRIAL
Section 1. Schedule of trial. — The parties shall strictly observe the
scheduled hearings as agreed upon and set forth in the pre-trial
order.
(a) The schedule of the trial dates, for both plaintiff and defendant,
shall be continuous and within the following periods:
i. The initial presentation of plaintiff’s evidence shall be set not
later than thirty (30) calendar days after the termination of the pre-
trial conference. Plaintiff shall be allowed to present its evidence
within a period of three (3) months or ninety (90) calendar days,
which shall include the date of the judicial dispute resolution, if
necessary;
 RULE 30
TRIAL

ii. The initial presentation of defendant’s evidence shall be set not later
than thirty (30) calendar days after the court’s ruling on plaintiff’s formal
offer of evidence. The defendant shall be allowed to present its evidence
within a period of three (3) months or ninety (90) calendar days;

iii. The period for the presentation of evidence on the third (fourth, etc.) –
party claim, counterclaim or cross-claim shall be determined by the court,
the total of which shall in no case exceed ninety (90) calendar days; and

iv. If deemed necessary, the court shall set the presentation of the parties’
respective rebuttal evidence, which shall be completed within a period of
thirty (30) calendar days.
 RULE 30
TRIAL
• (b) The trial dates may be shortened depending on the
number of witnesses to be presented, provided that the
presentation of evidence of all parties shall be terminated
within a period of ten (10) months or three hundred (300)
calendar days. If there are no third (fourth, etc.)-party claim,
counterclaim or cross-claim, the presentation of evidence
shall be terminated within a period of six (6) months or one
hundred eighty (180) calendar days.
 RULE 30
TRIAL
• (c) The court shall decide and serve copies of its decision
to the parties within a period not exceeding ninety (90)
calendar days from the submission of the case for
resolution, with or without memoranda. (n)
• The new Rules adopts the continuous trial system in civil cases.
• Under this system, the parties are enjoined to follow strictly the
schedule of trials agreed upon in the pre-trial order.
• The initial presentation of plaintiff’s evidence shall be set not later
than thirty (30) calendar days after the termination of the pre-trial
conference.
 RULE 30
TRIAL
• Period to present evidence:
• Plaintiff shall present evidence within a period of three (3) months or
ninety (90) calendar days, which shall include the date of the judicial
dispute resolution, if necessary;
• The defendant shall present evidence within a period of three (3) months
or ninety (90) calendar days;
• The period for the presentation of evidence on the third (fourth, etc.) –
party claim, counterclaim or cross-claim shall be determined by the court,
the total of which shall in no case exceed ninety (90) calendar days; and
• If deemed necessary, the court shall set the presentation of the parties’
respective rebuttal evidence, which shall be completed within a period of
thirty (30) calendar days.
 RULE 30
TRIAL
• The trial dates may be shortened depending on the number of witnesses to be presented,
provided that the presentation of evidence of all parties shall be terminated within a
period of ten (10) months or three hundred (300) calendar days. If there are no third
(fourth, etc.)-party claim, counterclaim or cross-claim, the presentation of evidence shall
be terminated within a period of six (6) months or one hundred eighty (180) calendar days.

Section 2. Adjournments and postponements. — A court may adjourn a trial from day to day,
and to any stated time, as the expeditious and convenient transaction of business may require,
but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a longer period than one month for each
adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except when authorized in writing by the Court
Administrator, Supreme Court.

The party who caused the postponement is warned that the presentation of its evidence
must still be terminated on the remaining dates previously agreed upon.
(2a)
 RULE 30
TRIAL

• Section 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of

party or counsel. — A motion to postpone a trial on the
ground of illness of a party or counsel may be granted if it
appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that the
presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable
and that the character of his or her illness is such as to
render his or her non-attendance excusable. (4a)
 RULE 30
TRIAL

Section 4. Hearing days and calendar call. — Trial shall be

held from Monday to Thursday, and courts shall call the
cases at exactly 8:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., pursuant to
Administrative Circular No. 3-99. Hearing on motions shall
be held on Fridays, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 15.

All courts shall ensure the posting of their court calendars

outside their courtrooms at least one (1) day before the
scheduled hearings, pursuant to OCA Circular
No. 250-2015. (n)
 RULE 30
TRIAL

Section 5. Order of trial. — Subject to the provisions of Section 2

of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons otherwise
directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial
order and shall proceed as follows:

(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his or her

complaint;

(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his or

her defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint;
 RULE 30
TRIAL

(c) The third-party defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of his

or her defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party
complaint;

(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of

the material facts pleaded by them;

(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim

has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their
defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court;
 RULE 30
TRIAL

(f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence

only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of
justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon their original
case; and

(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed

submitted for decision, unless the court directs the parties to
argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further
pleadings.
 RULE 30
TRIAL
• If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth,
having separate defenses appear by different counsel, the court
shall determine the relative order of presentation of their
evidence. (5a)
• Section 6. Oral offer of exhibits. — The offer of evidence,
the comment or objection thereto, and the court ruling shall
be made orally in accordance with Sections 34 to 40 of Rule
132. (n)
 RULE 30
TRIAL
Section 7. Agreed statement of facts. — The parties to any action may
agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the
case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of
evidence.

If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be
held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.
(6)

Section 8. Suspension of actions. — The suspension of actions shall be

governed by the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws. (8a)
 RULE 30
TRIAL
• Section 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court. —
The judge of the court where the case is pending shall personally
receive the evidence to be adduced by the parties. However, in
default or ex parte hearings, and in any case where the parties agree
in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its
clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court shall
have no power to rule on objections to any question or to the
admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court
upon submission of his or her report and the transcripts within ten
(10) calendar days from termination of the hearing. (9a)
 RULE 30
TRIAL

REQUESITES ON VALID DELEGATION TO BRANCH CLERK TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE:

• The delegation may be made only IN DEFAULT cases or EX PARTE HEARINGS,
or by AGREEMENT in writing of the parties;
• The reception of evidence shall be made only by the CLERK OF COURT who is
a member of the bar;
• Said clerk shall have NO POWER to rule on objections to any question or to
admission of evidence or exhibits; and
• He shall SUBMIT HIS REPORT AND TRANSCRIPS of the proceedings, together
with the objections to be resolved by the court, within 10 days from the
termination of the hearing.
 RULE 31
CONSOLIDATION OR SERVANCE
• Section 1. Consolidation. — When actions involving a common
question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a
joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it
may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs
or delay. (1)
• Section 2. Separate trials. — The court, in furtherance of
convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of
any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or
of any separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims,
counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues. (2)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Section 1. Reference by consent. — By written

consent of both parties, the court may order any
or all of the issues in a case to be referred to a
commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties or
to be appointed by the court. As used in these
Rules, the word "commissioner" includes a
referee, an auditor and an examiner. (1)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

Section 2. Reference ordered on motion. — When the parties do

not consent, the court may, upon the application of either or of its
own motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in the following
cases:

(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a

long account on either side, in which case the commissioner may
be directed to hear and report upon the whole issue or any
specific question involved therein;
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the

information of the court before judgment, or for carrying a
judgment or order into effect;

(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises
upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of a case, or for carrying
a judgment or order into effect. (2)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

Section 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner. — When a reference is

made, the clerk shall forthwith furnish the commissioner with a copy of the order of
reference. The order may specify or limit the powers of the commissioner, and may
direct him or her to report only upon particular issues, or to do or perform particular
acts, or to receive and report evidence only, and may fix the date for beginning and
closing the hearings and for the filing of his or her report. Subject to the
specifications and limitations stated in the order, the commissioner has and shall
exercise the power to regulate the proceedings in every hearing before him or her
and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient
performance of his or her duties under the order. He or she may issue subpoenas
and subpoenas duces tecum, swear witnesses, and unless otherwise provided in
the order of reference, he or she may rule upon the admissibility of evidence. The
trial or hearing before him or her shall proceed in all respects as it would if held
before the court. (3a)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Section 4. Oath of commissioner. — Before entering upon his or her

duties the commissioner shall be sworn to a faithful and honest
performance thereof. (4a)
• Section 5. Proceedings before commissioner. — Upon receipt of the
order of reference unless otherwise provided therein, the
commissioner shall forthwith set a time and place for the first
meeting of the parties or their counsel to be held within ten (10)
calendar days after the date of the order of reference and shall notify
the parties or their counsel. (5a)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Section 6. Failure of parties to appear before commissioner. — If a

party fails to appear at the time and place appointed, the
commissioner may proceed ex parte or, in his or her discretion,
adjourn the proceedings to a future day, giving notice to the absent
party or his or her counsel of the adjournment. (6a)
• Section 7. Refusal of witness. — The refusal of a witness to obey a
subpoena issued by the commissioner or to give evidence before him
or her, shall be deemed a contempt of the court which appointed the
commissioner. (7a)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Section 8. Commissioner shall avoid delays. — It is the

duty of the commissioner to proceed with all
reasonable diligence. Either party, on notice to the
parties and commissioner, may apply to the court for
an order requiring the commissioner to expedite the
proceedings and to make his or her report. (8a)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Section 9. Report of commissioner. — Upon the completion

of the trial or hearing or proceeding before the
commissioner, he or she shall file with the court his or her
report in writing upon the matters submitted to him or her
by the order of reference. When his or her powers are not
specified or limited, he or she shall set forth his or her
findings of fact and conclusions of law in his or her report.
He or she shall attach thereto all exhibits, affidavits,
depositions, papers and the transcript, if any, of the
testimonial evidence presented before him or her. (9a)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

Section 10. Notice to parties of the filing of report. — Upon the

filing of the report, the parties shall be notified by the clerk, and
they shall be allowed ten (10) calendar days within which to
signify grounds of objections to the findings of the report, if they
so desire. Objections to the report based upon grounds which
were available to the parties during the proceedings before the
commissioner, other than objections to the findings and
conclusions therein set forth, shall not be considered by the court
unless they were made before the commissioner. (10a)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Section 11. Hearing upon report. — Upon the

expiration of the period of ten (10) calendar days
referred to in the preceding section, the report shall be
set for hearing, after which the court shall issue an
order adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report in
whole or in part, or recommitting it with instructions, or
requiring the parties to present further evidence before
the commissioner or the court. (11a)
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Absent any express limitation in the order of reference, Branch Clerk

of Court Arty. Ferdinand S. Arpon, as the court-appointed
Commissioner, may make factual findings and recommendations on
the valuation of the property. Indeed, the Commissioner's
recommendation could have been necessarily rejected had it been
an ultra vires act(NPC vs. Sps. Asoque, G.R. No. 172507, September
14, 2016)-
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

• Section 12. Stipulations as to findings. — When the parties

stipulate that a commissioner's findings of fact shall be final,
only questions of law shall thereafter be considered. (12)
VALID DELEGATION TO A COMMISSIONER TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE:
• Commissioner/s is/ are qualified and not disqualified;
• Commissioners is/are appointed and took their oath;
• Commissioner/s have no power to rule on admissibility of evidence;
• Commissioners’ powers were outlined in an order of reference;
• Commissioners must submit a report within a prescribed period.
 RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

Section 13. Compensation of commissioner. — The court shall

allow the commissioner such reasonable compensation as the
circumstances of the case warrant, to be taxed as costs against
the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice
requires. (13)
 RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
• Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his or her evidence, the
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the
facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his
or her motion is denied he or she shall have the right to present
evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of
dismissal is reversed he or she shall be deemed to have waived
the right to present evidence.
 RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
• Demurrer to evidence is treated as litigious motion. Thus,
the procedure in Rule 15 on litigious motion shall apply.

• The order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be

subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus before judgment.
 RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Section 2. Action on demurrer to evidence. — A demurrer to

evidence shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15.

The order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be

subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus before judgment (n)
 RULE 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. — Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may; on motion of that
party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment
of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be
proved. (1a, R19)

Section 2. Action on motion for judgment on the pleadings. — The court may motu propio or on
motion render judgment on the pleadings if it apparent that the answer fails to tender an
issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.
Otherwise, the motion shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15 of these Rules.

Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall not be subject of
an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus (n)
• The rule allows the court to motu propio render judgment on the pleadings if it apparent that the answer
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.
• If it is by motion from the party, then the procedure in Rule 15 shall apply.
 RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
• Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party seeking to
recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a
declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer
thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his or her
favor upon all or any part thereof.
• Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. — A party
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or
a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary
judgment in his or her favor as to all or any part thereof.
 RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall cite the
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions, and the specific law relied
upon. The adverse party may file a comment and serve opposing affidavits,
depositions, or admissions within a non-extendible period of five (5)
calendar days from receipt of the motion. Unless the court orders the
conduct of a hearing, judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that,
except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall not be
subject of appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
 RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
• The new Rules specifies that the motion for summary judgment must
be accompanied by supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions,
and the specific law relied upon.
• The adverse party may file a comment and serve opposing affidavits,
depositions, or admissions within a non-extendible period of five (5)
calendar days from receipt of the motion.
• Hearing is optional to the court
 RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
• Section 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. — If on motion
under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole case
or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court
may, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and
by interrogating counsel shall ascertain what material facts exist
without substantial controversy, including the extent to which
the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy,
and directing such further proceedings in the action as are
just. The facts so ascertained shall be deemed established,
and the trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts
accordingly.
 RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
• Section 5. Form of affidavits and supporting papers. — Supporting and
opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such
facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the
affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Certified true copies
of all papers or parts thereof referred to in the affidavit shall be attached
thereto or served therewith. (5a, R34)
• Section 6. Affidavits in bad faith. — Should it appear to its satisfaction at any
time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this Rule are presented in
bad faith, or solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the
offending party or counsel to pay to the other party the amount of the
reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused him or her to
incur including attorney's fees, it may, after hearing further adjudge the
offending party or counsel guilty of contempt. (6a, R34)
 RULE 36
JUDGMENT
MOOTNESS-
• G.R. No. 215585, September 08, 2020, IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS/DATA AND AMPARO IN FAVOR OF AMIN IMAM BORATONG, MEMIE
SULTAN BORATONG, VS. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
OF JUSTICE, HON. VIRGILIO MENDEZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, AND HON. FRANKLIN JESUS B. BUCAYU IN
HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS; [G.R. No. 215768,
ANTHONY R. BOMBEO, ON BEHALF OF HERBERT R. COLANGGO, VS. HON. LEILA M.
DE LIMA, DIRECTOR FRANKLIN B. BUCAYU, DIRECTOR VIRGILIO L. MENDEZ,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, AND NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, This Court, however, is not precluded from deciding cases otherwise moot if
"first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;  second, the exceptional character of the
situation and the paramount public interest are involved;  third, when the constitutional issue
raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and 
fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review."  In this case, this Court takes the
occasion to discuss a few points raised by the parties.
 RULE 36
JUDGMENT

• REQUISTES OF A VALID JUDGMENT-

• SEC. 1- Personally and directly prepared by the judge; stating clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based; signed by the judge;
filed with the court; and served on the parties. It is from such service that
the period to appeal begins to run. This rule applies to an offended party in
a criminal case insofar as appeal on the civil aspect of the case (NEPLUM,
INC. VS. EVELYN V. ORBESO, G.R. No. 141986, July 11, 2002).
• Sec. 2. Date of finality is date of entry.
• Sec. 5. Separate judgment for several claims, its execution may be stayed
pending rendition of the other judgments.
 RULE 36
JUDGMENT
• BODY VS. FALLO-
1. G.R. No. 226771, September 16, 2020,NORSK HYDRO (PHILIPPINES), INC., AND NORTEAM
SEATRANSPORT SERVICES VS. PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, CITIBANK, N.A.,SKYRIDER BROKERAGE INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND MARIVIC -
JONG BRIONES- conflict between fallo and body
• This Court further takes note of the apparent conflict between the dispositive portion of the Decision
and the opinion of the RTC contained in the text or body of the said decision regarding the imposition
of exemplary damages against respondent Jong Briones. In the said text or body of the decision, the
RTC held respondents Security Bank, Skyrider Brokerage, and Jong Briones solidarity liable for
exemplary damages to herein petitioners. However, in the fallo of the same, it only held Security Bank
and Skyrider Brokerage solidarity liable for exemplary damages, and not respondent Jong-Briones.
• As a rule, when there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of a decision and the opinion
of the court contained in the text or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the
latter. Nevertheless, this Court finds that given the facts and circumstances surrounding the conflict between
the dispositive portion and the body of the decision, the instant case serves as an exception to the general
rule. A careful reading of the entire decision reveals the intention of the RTC to impose an exemplary
damage against respondents Security Bank, Skyrider Brokerage, and Jong Briones. It is clear that the non-
inclusion of Jong Briones in the dispositive portion of the decision was the result of mere inadvertence or
clerical error.
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

Collateral attack of judgment 

• Defined
• Any proceeding in which the integrity of a judgment is challenged, except those made in the
action wherein the judgment is rendered or by appeal, and except suits brought to obtain
decrees declaring judgments to be void ab initio." (15 R. C. L., 838, cited in ANTONIA ZAFRA DE
ALVIAR AND PAULINO ALVIAR VS. CFI OF LA UNION, PRESIDED OVER BY JOSE R. CARLOS, AND
CHUA LIN AND KEH IT, KNOWN BY THE FIRM NAME OF PHILIPPINE LUMBER COMPANY)
• General Rule- Not allowed (G.R. No. L-23851, March 26, 1976, WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB, INC. VS. LEE E. WON ALIAS RAMON LEE AND BIENVENIDO A. TAN) 
• Exception:
• Judgment not valid and regular on its face because it is null and void (G. R. No. L-2610, June 16,
1951,CEFERINA RAMOS, ET ALS., VS. ANATOLIO C. MANALAC, OR HIS SUCCESSOR, AS JUDGE
OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, SECOND BRANCH, AND FELIPE LOPEZ).
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments

• GENERAL RULE: the portion of a decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained or
decreed in the dispositive part thereof.
• EXCEPTIONS:
• (a) where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the body of the opinion may be referred to for purposes
of construing the judgment, because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the
decision's ratio decidendi; and
• (b) where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the
decision.”( Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Toyota Bel-Air, Inc., G.R. No. 137884, March 28,
2008,  550 SCRA 70, 85).
Example-The omission to state in the dispositive portion the award of moral damages to the heirs of
Calixto was through mere inadvertence. The body of the RTC decision shows the clear intent of the
RTC to award moral damages to the heirs of Calixto (People vs. Teofilo “Rey” Buyagan, G.R. No.
187733, Feb. 8, 2012).
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments

• GENERAL RULE: the portion of a decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained or
decreed in the dispositive part thereof.
• EXCEPTIONS:
• (a) where there is ambiguity or uncertainty, the body of the opinion may be referred to for purposes
of construing the judgment, because the dispositive part of a decision must find support from the
decision's ratio decidendi; and
• (b) where extensive and explicit discussion and settlement of the issue is found in the body of the
decision.”( Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Toyota Bel-Air, Inc., G.R. No. 137884, March 28,
2008,  550 SCRA 70, 85).
Example-The omission to state in the dispositive portion the award of moral damages to the heirs of
Calixto was through mere inadvertence. The body of the RTC decision shows the clear intent of the
RTC to award moral damages to the heirs of Calixto (People vs. Teofilo “Rey” Buyagan, G.R. No.
187733, Feb. 8, 2012).
 RULE 39
EXECUTION
WHEN EXECUTION IS A MATTER OF RIGHT
• On motion;
• Upon judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding;
• Upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom and no appeal has been duly perfected; and
• When appeal has been duly perfected and resolved, by filing a motion with the court of origin submitting
true copies of the final judgment or final order sought to be enforced.
•
• If the court of origin refuses to issue a writ of execution , the appellate court may, on motion,
direct the court of origin to issue the writ.
• 
• JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS THAT MAY BE EXECUTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT BEFORE
EXPIRATION OF TIME TO APPEAL
• Forcible entry and detainer;
• Injunction, receivership, accounting and support; and all interlocutory orders which are provisional
remedies.
• Award, judgment, final order, or resolution of quasi-judicial agencies (appealable to CA).
 RULE 39
EXECUTION
GENERAL RULE: Trial Court has the ministerial duty to order execution of final and
executory judgments. It cannot refuse execution and is compellable by mandamus.
• EXCEPTIONS:
• Change in the situation of the parties which makes the execution inequitable or unjust;
• Writ of execution varies judgment;
• Controversy was never submitted to the judgment of the court;
• Execution is sought against property exempt from execution;
• Terms of the judgment are not clear and leaves room for interpretation
• Writ of execution is improvidently issued;
• Writ of execution is defective in substance;
• Writ of execution is issued against the wrong party;
• Judgment debtor has been paid or otherwise satisfied; and
• Writ of execution was issued without authority.
• In the above exceptions, remedy is certiorari (Rule 65)
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

• WHEN ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION IS DISCRETIONARY

• Execution pending appeal; and
• While trial court has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either
the original record or record on appeal;
• When trial court has lost jurisdiction and has transmitted records (motion for
execution pending appeal with appellate court).
• Execution of several, separate or partial judgments.
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons 

• 3rd PARTY CLAIM
• A claim by any person other than the judgment debtor or his agent on property levied on execution.
• PURPOSE OF 3rd PARTY CLAIM
• To recover property levied by sheriff (although 3rd party can vindicate claim in a separate action); and
• To hold sheriff liable for damages for the taking or keeping of such property
• WHEN TO FILE A 3rd PARTY CLAIM
• At any time, so as long as the sheriff has the possession of the property levied upon, or before the property is sold
under execution.
• 
• WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR A 3RD PARTY CLAIM
• 3rd party should make an affidavit of his title thereto, or right of possession thereof, and should serve such affidavit
upon the sheriff and a copy thereof to the judgment obligee.
• The sheriff may or may not require the judgment obligee to file a bond,
 
 RULE 39
EXECUTION
CIVIL PROCEDURE/REDEMPTION
ORDINARY SALE ON EXECUTION EXECUTION IN JUDICIAL
FORCECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE

Need not to be confirmed Needs judicial confirmation

With Right of redemption No right of redemption (except
where mortgagee is a bank)

Purchaser acquires title upon Purchaser acquires title after judicial

expiration of redemption period confirmation of sale

BID IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO IF BID > JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT
Judgment obligee not required to Judgment obligee required to pay
pay bid excess
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

• ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT-

•G.R. No. 234501, March 18, 2019, MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., INC. V. SARA YI, ALSO
KNOWN AS SARAH YI, 
•Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides for the conditions for the recognition and
enforcement of a foreign judgment, to wit:
•SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of
a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
•(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the
title to the thing; and
•(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of
a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
•In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice
to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
 RULE 39
EXECUTION
CONTINUATION-
The causes of action arising from the enforcement of foreign judgment and that arising from the
allegations that gave rise to said foreign judgment differs, such that the former stems from the
foreign judgment itself, whereas the latter stems from the right in favor of the plaintiff and its
violation by the defendant's act or omission. The evidence to be presented likewise differs. The case
of Mijares v. Rañada illustrates in this wise:
There are distinctions, nuanced but discernible, between the cause of action arising from the
enforcement of a foreign judgment, and that arising from the facts or allegations that occasioned the
foreign judgment. They may pertain to the same set of facts, but there is an essential difference in the
right-duty correlatives that are sought to be vindicated. For example, in a complaint for damages
against a tortfeasor, the cause of action emanates from the violation of the right of the complainant
through the act or omission of the respondent. On the other hand, in a complaint for the enforcement
of a foreign judgment awarding damages from the same tortfeasor, for the violation of the same right
through the same manner of action, the cause of action derives not from the tortious act but from the
foreign judgment itself.
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

• CONTINUATION-
• More importantly, the matters for proof are different. Using the above example,
the complainant will have to establish before the court the tortious act or
omission committed by the tortfeasor, who in turn is allowed to rebut these
factual allegations or prove extenuating circumstances. Extensive litigation is thus
conducted on the facts, and from there the right to and amount of damages are
assessed. On the other hand, in an action to enforce a foreign judgment, the
matter left for proof is the foreign judgment itself, and not the facts from which
it prescinds.
 RULE 39
EXECUTION

• CONTINUATION-
• Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that the records of the official acts of a sovereign
authority may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by its legal
custodian, his deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has a custody, in case the
record is not kept in the Philippines. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,
the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
• An exception to this rule, however, is recognized in the cases of Willamette Iron & Steel Works v.
Muzzal,[32] and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Guerrero,[33] wherein we emphatically ruled that
the testimony under oath of an attorney-at-law of a foreign state, who quoted verbatim the applicable
law and who stated that the same was in force at the time the obligations were contracted, was
sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. In Manufacturers Hanover Trust, we stated
that it is necessary to state the specific law on which the claim was based.
 RULE 39
EXECUTION
CONTINUATION-
•In this case, Atty. Robert G. Dyer (Atty. Dyer), member of the bar of the State of California for
more than 30 years, testified as to the applicable law related to summons. In detail, he stated the
exact pertinent provision under the California Code of Civil Procedure, to wit:
•Section 415.40 A summons may be served on a person outside this state in any manner
provided by this article or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person
to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt. Service of
a summons by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.
•Indeed, pursuant to the above-proven law in the State of California, the service of summons by
mail to MIC, an entity outside its state, was valid. As such law was sufficiently alleged and
proven, it is beyond the province of this Court's authority to pass upon the issue as to the factual
circumstances relating to the proper service of summons upon MIC in the case before the State
of California.
 RULE 39
EXECUTION
•CONTINUATION-
•We find that Yi need not implead her co-plaintiffs so as to be afforded the relief prayed for.
•As aforementioned, the main consideration in an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment is to put such
judgment into force. Verily, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to
clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign
judgment.
•Our rules provide that an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be
had of an action. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably
intertwined with the other parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In
his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective,
complete, or equitable. Alternatively put, it is necessary that an indispensable party must be impleaded so that a
full resolution of the case can be obtained.
•Here, it is apparent that the Chuns are not indispensable parties, whose inclusion is determinative of the final
outcome of the case. Their legal presence will not render the resolution of the action incomplete and ineffective
for there was a final judgment already rendered by the foreign court. As previously mentioned, what our courts
will do is to recognize the foreign judgment as a fact and enforce the same as such foreign judgment creates a
right of action in favor of Yi. Relevantly, MIC's failure to satisfy the terms of the foreign judgment engenders a
cause of action as to Yi, who becomes clothed with requisite interest to institute an action for enforcement.
END OF LECTURE
• 
THANK YOU!