What is a REVERSE TRIAL?

Usually in most cases, the prosecution first presents its evidence to

establish the guilt of the accused, and the defense follows thereafter. But this is reversed
when the accused admits the killing but claims self-defense. A reverse trial happens. The
accused must first establish the elements of self-defense in order to overturn the
presumption that he was guilty of the offense

May amendment be allowed to correct a jurisdictional defect?

A. Amendment to correct a jurisdictional defect before a responsive pleading is

served

A fair reading of jurisprudence recognizes the right of a pleader to amend his complaint
before a responsive pleading is served even if its effect is to correct a jurisdictional
defect. The argument that the court cannot allow such type of amendment since the
court must first possess jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint before it
can act on any amendment has no application upon an amendment that is made as
matter of right. (Riano, Civil Procedure, Book 1, The Bar Lecture Series)

B. Amendment to correct a jurisdictional defect after a responsive pleading is

served

An amendment of the complaint to correct a jurisdictional error cannot be validly done

after a responsive pleading is served. The amendment this time would require leave of
court, a matter which requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The exercise of
this discretion requires the performance of a positive act by the court. If it grants the
amendment, it would be acting on a complaint over which it has no jurisdiction. Its
action would be one performed without jurisdiction.

The situation is vastly different from an amendment as a matter of right. Here, the court
does not act. The admission of the amendment is a ministerial duty of the court. It
requires no positive action from the court. Since it would not be acting in this regard, it
could not be deemed as acting without jurisdiction. (Riano, Civil Procedure, Book 1, The
Bar Lecture Series)
Bar Question:

On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City for the collection of P250,000.00. The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the
action since the claimed amount of P250,000.00 is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City.

Before the court could resolve the motion, the plaintiff, without leave of court,
amended his complaint to allege a new cause of action consisting in the inclusion
of an additional amount of P200,000.00, thereby increasing his total claim to
P450,000.00 The plaintiff thereafter filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss,
claiming that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over his action. Rule on the
motion of the defendant with reasons. (Bar 2005)

Suggested answer.

The motion to dismiss should be denied. The amendment was made before a responsive
pleading was served on the plaintiff. The pending motion to dismiss did not affect the
right of the plaintiff to amend his complaint as a matter of right because a motion to
dismiss is not a responsive pleading. The amendment correcting a jurisdictional defect
was proper because no responsive pleading has been served at the time of the
amendment. The rule that a complaint cannot be amended to confer jurisdiction on a
court where there was none applies only to an amendment made after a responsive
pleading has been served