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)

NOTES:

Under the 1997 Rule of Civil Procedure, the defendant is but given a period of 15 days from service of summons
within which to file his answer to the complaint. But under the Amended Rules, the general rule is that defendant
shall file his answer to the complaint within 30 calendar days after service of the summons, unless a different
period is fixed by court.

It is only proper that defendant is now given a longer period under the Amended Rules within which to plead his
answer to the complaint in view of the requirements under Section 6, Rule 7 that the judicial affidavits of the
witnesses shall already be stated, prepared, and attached to the appropriate pleading, like an answer.

In computing the period within which the defendant shall file his answer, among others, we should be guided by
Section 1, Rule 22 of the Amended Rules, which provides:

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.

So, applying Section 1, Rule 22 of the Amended Rules, if the defendant was, for instance, served with summons on
March 1, 2020 (assuming that it was a working day), then defendant had until March 31, 2020 within which to file
his answer to the complaint (March 1 + 30 days). So, in computing the 30-day period to file an answer, you exclude
the day on which summons was served on the defendant, but you have to include the last day within which to file
the required pleading.

If, however, the last day to file the pleading–March 31, 2020–fell on a Saturday, a Sunday, or was declared a legal
holiday, the defendant could then file his answer on the next business day–that is, April 1, 2020. This rule holds
true even the Bureau of Posts and its branches are open on a holiday which happens to be the last day for filing a
pleading (Galang vs. WCC, et al., L-33928, March 29, 1972).

Be it noted, however, that the 30 calendar days within which the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint is
subject to an exception – and that is when a different period is fixed by the court and the rules.

Verily, a longer period is given to the defendant within which to file his, her, or its answer, under the following
circumstances, among others:
 i. Section 2, Rule 11 – where the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity (60 calendar days
from service of summons);

ii. Section 16, Rule 14 – where the identity or whereabout of the defendant is unknown (60
calendar days from summons by publication); and

iii. Section 17, Rule 14 – where there is extraterritorial service of summons (60 calendar days from
notice).

The defendant may also have a longer period within which to file his answer if he files a motion for extension of
time to file an answer and said motion is granted by the court, pursuant to Section 11, Rule 11 of the Amended
Rules, which provides, in part:

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.

The defendant may also have a longer period within which to file his answer if he files a motion for bill of
particulars before the expiration of the period for filing an answer. A bill of particular is sort of a motion which
would enable the defending party to seek clarifications on some vague allegations in the complaint, among others,
to enable him to prepare a responsive pleading thereto. The effect of filing a bill of particulars is governed by
Section 2, Rule 12 of the Amended Rules, thus:

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

Example:

In an action, the defendant was, for instance, served with summons on March 1, 2020 (assuming
that it was a working day). So, the defendant had until March 31, 2020 within which to file his
answer to the complaint. Instead of filing an answer, the defendant, on March 19, 2020, filed a
motion for bill of particulars, seeking clarification on the perceived vague allegation on the
pleading. Acting on that motion for bill of particulars, the court, however, denied the same per its
Order dated March 30, 2020, a copy of which was served upon and received by the defendant on
March 31, 2020.

Where defendant’s bill of particulars is denied, then he should file his answer to the complaint
within the remaining days of the original 30 calendar days for filing an answer. Clearly, his period
for filing an answer is clearly extended or stretched, as his filing of a bill of particulars effectively
interrupted the period for filing an answer.

Take note, furthermore, that in counting the remaining period within which defendant should file
his answer following the denial of his bill of particulars, we should be guided by the provision
under Section 2, Rule 22 of the Amended Rules, thus:
 Section 2. Effect of Interruption. — Should an act be done which effectively
interrupts the running of the period, the allowable period after such interruption
shall start to run on the day after notice of the cessation of the cause thereof.

The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be excluded in the
computation of the period.

So, applying Section 2, Rule 22 of the Amended Rules, in determining the remaining period within
which defendant should file his answer following the denial of his bill of particulars, the day on
which the defendant filed his bill of particulars SHALL BE EXCLUDED in the counting of the period
(meaning--the period that is deemed consumed or wasted), as well as the day on which he was
served with the order denying his bill of particulars.

Hence, when the defendant filed the bill of particulars on March 19, 2020, he still has 13
remaining calendar days within which to file his answer. And this remaining 13 calendar days
shall be counted starting April 1, 2020 (the day after he received the order of denial on March 31,
2020). In fine, defendant has until April 13, 2020 within which to file his answer to the complaint
(see Labitad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53877, July 17, 1995).

But the intriguing question is this: What is the effect of filing a motion to dismiss on the reglementary period for
filing an answer?

In Acosta-Ofalia vs. Sundian, 82 SCRA 412, the Supreme Court ruled, in essence, that following the dismissal of his
motion to dismiss, the defendant would have a fresh period within which to file his answer to the complaint, thus:

“xxx the period for filing a responsive pleading commences to run all over again from the time
the defendant receives notice of the denial of his motion to dismiss.”

But the foregoing rule had already been abandoned in view of the express provision of Section 4, Rule 16 of
the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

Section 4. Time to plead. — If the motion is denied, the movant shall file his answer within the
balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to which he was entitled at the time of serving his
motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event, computed from his receipt of the notice of the
denial. If the pleading is ordered to be amended, he shall file his answer within the period
prescribed by Rule 11 counted from service of the amended pleading, unless the court provides a
longer period.

I may have missed it, but it is my observation that under the Amended Rules, the afore-quoted provision under
Section 4, Rule 16 of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure has not been reproduced or retained.

Does that mean, therefore, that the Supreme Court would want to revert to its ruling in Acosta, supra? But what if
the non-retention of the provision of Section 4, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is but by sheer
inadvertence.
Unless this is clarified or settled, my advice for you, if you are the lawyer for the defendant whose motion to
dismiss is denied, is to file a motion for extension of time to file an answer, pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 11 of the
Amended Rules, thereby asking for another 30 calendar days for filing an answer, to be reckoned from the date of
your filing such motion for extension of time to file answer. And you should file this motion within the balance (and
much better, on the last day) of the original 30 calendar days for filing an answer. You can never go wrong with this
approach–whether or not the denial of the motion to dismiss would have the effect of giving you a fresh period to
file an answer, or just the remaining balance of the original 30 calendar days reglementary period to file answer.

While at this, please bear in mind that if you file a motion to dismiss and the same is denied, it would be prudent
to just file an answer afterwards, instead of filing a motion for reconsideration on the order denying your motion
to dismiss; otherwise, you run the risk of being declared in default. The case of Golden Country Farm, Inc. vs.
Sanvar Dev’t Corp. is instructive of this:

Golden Country Farm, Inc. vs. Sanvar Dev’t Corp

214 SCRA 295

FACTS:

Sanvar Dev’t. Corp. (“Sanvar”) sued Golden Country Farm, Inc. (GCFI). GCFI received the
summons on March 5, 1980. On March 20, 1980 GCFI filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied
by the court on May 2, 1980, and a copy of such denial order was received by GCFI on May 15,
1980. On May 30, 1980, GCFI filed a motion for reconsideration, the resolution of which was held
in abeyance by the court. Subsequently, Sanvar filed a motion seeking to declare GCFI in default,
an on February 16, 1981, the court denied GCFI’s motion for reconsideration and declared it to be
in default.

HELD:

“Petitioner received the denial order of its motion to dismiss on May 15, 1980; hence, by
mathematical computation, the 15-day period to file an answer provided in Section 1, Rule 77 of
the Revised Rules of Court expired on May 30, 1980. However, on May 30, 1980, which was the
last day to file its answer, petitioner filed a joint motion for reconsideration, instead of filing an
answer. In this regard, we share the opinion of the lower court that petitioner’s joint motion for
reconsideration which merely reiterated the grounds in its motion to dismiss was pro forma and
did not toll the running of the period to file an answer.

In the case of PCIB v. Escolin (67 SCRA 2023 this Court ruled that a motion for reconsideration
which does not make out a new matter sufficiently persuasive to induce modification of judgment
will be denied and that a repetition of arguments or grounds already discussed in prior incidents
may properly be categorized as merely for purposes of delay.

An answer, not a motion for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to dismiss, should
have been filed within the reglementary period. The record does not disclose that the proper
answer was in fact filed. Withal, there can be no serious challenge to the reception of evidence for
the plaintiff thereafter.”
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)

NOTES:

The foregoing rule should be read in conjunction with Section 14, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules, which provides, in
part:

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, agents, directors or
trustees within the Philippines.

Conversely, if summons for the defendant foreign private juridical entity is served on its resident agent in the
Philippines designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or on any of its officers, agents, directors or
trustees within the Philippines, then the time to answer shall be thirty (30) calendar days from service of
summons, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules. If, however, service of summons is served
on the government official designated by law to receive the same, it shall be the duty of that government official to
send copy of the summons to the home office of the said defendant, and the time to answer shall be sixty (60)
calendar days after receipt thereof by the home office, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules.

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 crossclaim, amended
third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention. (3a)

NOTES:
Relate this to our discussion on Sections 2 and 3, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules, as when an amendment is
considered a matter of right and when it is not.

Where amendment is a matter of right (one which does not require leave of court), the thirty (30) calendar days
within which to file an answer shall be counted from service of the amended complaint.

Where amendment is not a matter of right (one which requires leave of court), the fifteen (15) calendar days
within which to file an (amended) answer shall be reckoned from notice of the order admitting the amended
complaint. This is, of course, on the assumption that the amended complaint is attached to the motion for leave to
file/admit amended complaint, as is the usual practice, and as required under Section 9, Rule 15 of the Amended
Rules.

Take note that where no answer is filed to the amended complaint, the answer to the original complaint may then
serve as the answer to the amended complaint. However, new material allegations in the amended complaint, if
any, which are not specifically denied are deemed admitted.

Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. — A counterclaim or cross-claim must be

answered within twenty (20) calendar days from service. (4a)

NOTES:

Relate this to our discussion on Sections 6 and 7, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules.

The counterclaim which needs to be answered to, and within the twenty (20) calendar days given, under Section
4, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules is a PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM. After all, a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to
answer a COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM–where the purported answer thereto would just be a repetition of the
allegations in the complaint or where the issues raised in the counterclaim are inseparable from those raised in the
complaint–cannot be declared in default (Gojo vs. Goyala, 35 SCRA 557; Navarro vs. Bello, 102 Phil. 1019;
Sarmiento vs. Juan, 120 SCRA 403).

And, as discussed before in the topic pertaining to the effects of default, even if the plaintiff is declared in default
for his failure to answer a PERMISSIVE COUNTECLAIM within the reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 11 of
the Amended Rules, he is not necessarily divested of his standing in court or his right to present his evidence in
chief in support of his complaint nor will it per se entitle the defendant to immediate judgment on the
counterclaim (Navarro vs. Bello, 102 Phil. 1019).

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)

NOTES:

Relate this to our discussion on Section 11, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules.
So, the period to file an answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be governed by Sections 1, 2, or 3, all of
Rule 11 of the Amended Rules, as the case may be, and as may be warranted by the circumstances. Hence, the
third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant also has 30, 60, or 15 (anent amended complaint filed upon leave of court)
calendar days from service/receipt of summons or amended complaint, as the case may be, to file his answer just
like the original defendant.
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)

NOTES:

Relate this to our discussion on Section 10, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules which provides:

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. (10a)

Take note that, under Section 10, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules, the plaintiff may file reply ONLY if the defending
party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer, and the plaintiff has fifteen (15) calendar days from
receipt of such answer to file his desired reply. Failing in that, the plaintiff, therefore, is deemed to have admitted
the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document attached to the answer, pursuant to Section 8,
Rule 8 of the Amended Rules.

It is to be noted, however, that under Section 10, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules, the defendant may file a rejoinder
if an actionable document is attached to plaintiff’s reply. Failing in that, the defendant, is also deemed to have
admitted the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document attached to the reply, pursuant to
Section 8, Rule 8 of the Amended Rules.

But, perhaps by inadvertence, the Amended Rules which now provides and allows the filing of a rejoinder does not
have an express provision on the reglementary period for filing a rejoinder. I may be wrong on this, but it is my
considered view that, inasmuch as rejoinder is of similar footing with a reply, then rejoinder may thus be filed
within fifteen (15) calendar days from defendant’s receipt of the reply to which an actionable document is
attached.

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)

NOTES:

Please see our discussion under Section 6, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules, on the effect of failure to file an answer
to a supplemental complaint.

Remember though that the answer to supplemental complaint, if required or necessary, shall be filed within 20
calendar days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental complaint, unless a different period is fixed by
the court. There should be a court order for the reason that the filing and admission of a supplement complaint
needs leave of court.

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)

NOTES:

Relate this to our discussions on Section 7, Rule 6 and Section 2, Rule 9, all of the Amended Rules.

Here, it is required that a compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be pleaded in the answer, and not in any
other pleading.

Sight should not be lost of the fact that Section 8, Rule 11 expressly mentions about COMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIM or cross-claim – that which should be set up in the answer. The same is not, however, required of
a PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM. After all, a PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM need not be set up in the answer, as it can
be prosecuted separately. But as for compulsory counterclaim which has already matured, it has to be set up in the
answer, otherwise it is barred, as provided under the last sentence of Section 7, Rule 6 and under Section 2, Rule 9
of the Amended Rules.

Take note again that a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM–where the
purported answer thereto would just be a repetition of the allegations in the complaint or where the issues raised
in the counterclaim are inseparable from those raised in the complaint – cannot be declared in default (Gojo vs.
Goyala, 35 SCRA 557; Navarro vs. Bello, 102 Phil. 1019; Sarmiento vs. Juan, 120 SCRA 403).

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)

NOTES:
Relate this to our discussions on Section 7, Rule 6; Section 2, Rule 9; and Section 8, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules.

Section 9, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules, above, applies to a situation where the counterclaim or cross-claim
accrues only after the filing of the answer, such that the same could not, of course, be pleaded therein. So, to
remedy the situation, the pleader may present such belated counterclaim via a supplemental pleading, but this
naturally requires permission or leave of court, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules.

Example:

I borrowed money from Waldi, evidenced by a promissory which contained a stipulation on

interest at the rate of 10% per month. The obligation was to fall due and payable after 1 year.
After 6 months, however, I, the borrower, filed a case against Waldi, seeking for the nullification
of the stipulated interest (and only the interest) for being supposedly usurious, unjust and
unconscionable. In his answer, Waldi merely traversed the issue about the legality and propriety
of the interest. And, in his answer, he could not reasonably set up the demand for the payment
of the loan by way of counterclaim for the simple reason it has not yet matured by then. If the
during the pendency of the case, my obligation matures, Waldi can then ask for leave of court to
file a supplemental answer thereby demanding, by way of counterclaim, the payment of the
principal loan. And that is allowed under Section 9, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules.

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)

NOTES:

Relate this to our discussions on Section 7, Rule 6; Section 2, Rule 9; and Section 8, Rule 11, all of the Amended
Rules.

Unlike Section 9, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules, the counterclaim or cross-claim under this rule is one which had
already accrued at the time of the filing of the answer, only that, by oversight, or inadvertence, or excusable
neglect, such counterclaim or cross-claim has been omitted in the answer. To remedy the situation, the defending
party is permitted to amend his answer, but such requires leave of court, especially if the opposing party had
already filed a responsive pleading to the answer, like a reply.

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)

NOTES:

Relate this to our discussions on Section 1, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules.

Unlike in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Amended Rules makes it clear that a motion for extension to file
answer is allowed to be filed only ONCE, but, if there is any consolation, under the Amended Rules, such extension
to file answer may be good for 30 calendar days.

Take note, however, that a motion for extension of time to file answer should be filed before (and expectedly near)
the expiration of the original period to file an answer because if it is filed after that, then there is no longer any
period to extend.

Be that as it may, recall what has been discussed before that even if the original or the extended period to answer
has already expired, the defendant can still file his answer belatedly, and he cannot be declared in default ,
especially where no motion is yet filed to declare him in default and/or where no order is yet issued declaring him in
default, and there is no showing that he intended to delay the case (Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Romillo, G.R.
No. 64276, March 4, 1986; San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. vs. Heirs of Manuel Humada Enano, 635 SCRA 421) .
Out of courtesy to the court, however, you file an Ex-parte Motion to Admit the Answer and attach thereto the
answer that is belatedly filed.

While one motion for extension may be filed with respect to filing of an answer, the rule prohibits the filing of a
motion for extension for the filing of other pleadings, like reply or rejoinder, as the case may be. However, and as
provided under the rules, the court may allow any other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.

In the main, pleading should be filed with the following periods …

1. ANSWER 30 calendar days (may be extended for another 30

calendar days)
2. ANSWER OF A PRIVATE FOREIGN CORPORATION

a) With authorized agents, officers, directors, or 30 calendar days

trustees in the Philippines;

b) Without authorized agents, officers, directors, or 60 calendar days

trustee in the Philippines.

3. ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

a) Where amendment is a matter of right; 30 calendar days

b) Where amendment is not a matter of right. 15 calendar days

4. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS-CLAIM 20 calendar days

5. ANSWER TO 3RD (4TH)-PARTY COMPLAINT 30, 60, or 15 calendar days, as the case may be.
6. REPLY 15 calendar days
7. ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 20 calendar days
8. REJOINDER Not specifically provided in the rules. But is opined that
it has to be filed with 15 calendar days.