Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Book Civil Procedure by Regaladodocx
Book Civil Procedure by Regaladodocx
GE NE RA L P R I N C I P LE S
1
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
2
GENE RA L P RI NCIP LE S
4
GENE RA L PRI NCIPLE S
7 . J u r i s d i c t i o n an d ve nu e ar e d i s t i n g u i s h e d a s
follows:
a . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s th e a u t h o r i t y t o he a r an d
determine a case; venue is the place where the case is to
be heard or tried.
b. Juri sdicti on is a ma tt e r of subst ant i ve law; venue, of
procedural law.
c. Juri sdic t i on e st a bl i she s a relation bet wee n the court and
the subje c t -ma tt e r; venue, a relation between plaintiff and
defendant, or pe titi one r and respondent.
d . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s fixed by law an d c a n n o t be conferred by
the pa rti e s; venue may be conferred by the act or
a gre e m e n t of the pa rti e s (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney-
General, 20 Phil. 523).
In crimi nal cases, the venue of the crime goes into
the te rrit orial jurisdic tion of the court (Lopez vs. Paras, L-
25795, Oct. 29, 1966), hence where the criminal action is
instit ute d not in the place specified by the Rules and
declared by the subst a nt i ve law as within the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial court, the motion to quash should
be grounded on lack of jurisdict ion, and not improper
ve nue.
8. The authorit y to decide a case and not the decision re ndere d
t he re i n is wha t ma kes up jurisdiction. Where there is
juri sdicti on, the decision of all questions arising in the
case is bu t an exercise of jurisdiction (De la Cruz
7
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
10
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
this case, the Judiciary Act and B.P. Blg. 129, both as
a me nde d, and of which j uri sdic t i on is only a pa rt .
Jurisdic tion cannot be fixed by the a gre em e nt of the
parties; it cannot be acquired through, or waived, en•
larged or diminished by, any act or omission of the
parties; neither can it be conferred by the acquiescence
of the court (De Jesus, et al. vs. Garcia, et al., L-26816,
Feb. 28, 1967; Calimlim, et al. vs. Ramirez, et al., L-
34363, Nov. 19, 1982). Jurisdiction must exist as a ma tt e
r of law (People vs. Casiano, L-15309, Feb. 16, 1961).
Consequentl y, questions of jurisdiction may be raised for
the first time on appeal even if such issue was not
ra i se d in the lower court (Government vs. American Surety
Co., 11 Phil. 203; Vda. de Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957;
People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640). A court can motu
proprio dismiss a case which is outside its jurisdiction
(Sec. 1, Rule 9).
17. Ne ve rt hel e ss, in some cases, the principle of
estoppel by laches has been availed of by our appellate
courts to bar atta cks on jurisdiction and this principle
has been applied to both civil and criminal cases, thus :
a. In the early case of Santiago, et al. vs. Valenzuela (78 Phil.
397), it was held that if a motion to dismiss the appeal, on
the ground that said appeal was perfected out of time, is
filed for the first time with the appellate court after the
appellant had paid the docket fee and the cost of
printing the record on appeal, and after the filing of
appellant ' s brief, the appellate court should deny the
motion as the appellee may be considered in estoppel by
his failure to object on time.
Thi s doc t ri n e wa s s u b s e q u e n t l y a b a n d o n e d i n
Miranda vs. Guanzon (92 Phil. 168) since the "require•
ment re garding the perfection of an appeal within the
re glem enta ry period is not only m a nda t or y but juris•
dictional," a ruling subsequentl y reiterated in Garganta
vs. CA (105 Phil. 412), Valdez vs. Ocumen (106 Phil.
12
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
14
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
i. The doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. Sibong- hanoy, supra, has
been reiterated in many succeeding cases and is still
good case law. The rule up to now is that a part y' s active
participation in all sta ges of a case before the trial court,
which includes invoking the court's authorit y to grant
affirmative relief, effectively estops such pa rt y from late r
challenging the jurisdict ion of the said court
(Gonzaga, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 144025, Dec.
27, 2002).
j. See, moreover, the summary in Figueroa vs. People of the
Philippines (G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008) which apparentl y
presents the prevailing position of the Supreme Court on
the issue of when a litigant is estopped by laches from
assailing the jurisdiction of a court, in light of its other
and subsequent holdings on the matter.
18. Jurisdic tion over a person may also be acquired
even if he was never impleaded nor summ one d in the
action as a de f e n d a n t i f he t h e r e a f t e r v o l u n t a r i l y
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus,
where the spouses voluntaril y signed the compromise
a gre e m e n t to gu a r a nt e e the pa ym e n t by th e original
impleaded defendants, and tha t compromise a gre e m e nt
wa s appro ve d and mad e th e basi s of th e j u d g m e n t
rende red by the court, said spouses are bound by the
judgme nt as they are in estoppel to deny the very autho•
rity which they invoked. By voluntaril y ent e ri n g into
the compromise agreement, they effectively submi tted
themsel ves to the jurisdiction of the court (Rodriguez,
et al. vs. Alikpala, et al., L 38314, June 25, 1974).
17
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
Coron vs. Carino, et al., G.R. No. 65896, Sept. 24, 1987;
Sarmiento vs. Gatmaitan, et al., L-38173, Nov. 12, 1987).
However, new court rules apply to pending cases
only with reference to proceedings therein which take
place after the date of their effectivity. They do not
apply to the extent that in the opinion of the court their
application would not be feasible or would work injustice,
in which event the former procedure shall apply. Thus,
where the application of the Rule on Summar y Procedure
will mean the dismissal of the appeal of the part y, the
same should not apply since, after all, the procedure
they availed of was also allowed unde r th e Rules of
Court (Laguio, et al. vs. Garnet, et al., G.R. No. 74903,
Mar. 21, 1980).
22. Substanti ve law is that part of the law which
creates ri ghts concerning life, liberty or propert y, or the
powers of i n st ru m e nt a l i t i e s for the a dm i ni s t r a t i o n of
public affairs (Primicias vs. Ocampo, 81 Phil. 650).
Procedural law refers to the adjective laws which prescribe
rules and forms of procedure in order tha t courts may be
able to admini st er justice (Lopez vs. Gloria, 40 Phil. 33).
Substa nti ve law creates, defines and re gul ate s rights,
as opposed to "adjective or remedial law" which prescribes
the method of enforcing the ri ghts or obtaining redress
for thei r invasion (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.,
p. 1429; citations omitted).
Procedure is the mode of proceeding by which a legal
right is enforced, as di st ingui shed from the law which
gives or defines the right, and which, by means of the
proceeding, the court is to administer. This term is com•
monly opposed to the sum of legal principles constit uti ng
the substance of the law, and denotes the body of rules,
wh e t h e r of practi ce or plea ding, whereb y ri ght s are
effectuated t hroug h the successful application of the
proper remedies (op. cit., pp. 1367-1368; id.).
®
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
In de t e rm i ni n g wh e t h e r a rule prescribe d by th e
S u p r e m e C our t a b r i d ge s , e n l a r ge s o r modifies an y
substa nti ve ri ght, th e tes t i s w he t he r the rule reall y
re gul at e s pr oc e du re , tha t is, the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by the substantive
law and for justl y a dmi ni st e ri n g remedy and re dress for
a disre gard or infraction of them. If the rule take s awa y
a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creat es a
right, such as the ri ght to appeal, i t may be classified as
a substa nti ve matt er ; but if it operates as a means of
implementing an existing right, then the rule deals
merely with procedure (Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al.,
G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998).
I t is, therefore, the na t ur e and the purpose of the
law whic h d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r i t i s s u b s t a n t i v e or
procedural, and not its place in the sta t ute or its inclusion
in a code. T hus, for inst ance , Art s. 539 and 1674 of the
Civil Code and Sec. 85, R.A. 296 provided injunctive rules
in ejectment cases in the trial and appellate sta ges, but
these have been properl y incorporated with modifications
as Secs. 8 and 9, respe cti ve l y, of Rule 70 of the 1964
Rules of Court (now, Sec. 15 of revised Rule 70). These
subseque nt am e nda t or y provisions on injunctions were
proper since the mere fact tha t those provisions on in•
junctions were formerly included in a substanti ve st a t ut e
or code does not convert the m into or det ract from the
fact tha t they are proce dural laws, contrary to common
misimpressi on. In fact, ther e are many such procedural
rules found in the Civil Code or, for tha t matter, in other
codes or ba si call y s u b s t a n t i v e laws bu t the y do not
thereby lose their c ha ra c te r as procedural laws.
This ma tt e r is being clarified and emphasized here
in view of the Co ns t i t ut i o na l provision tha t the rules
which the Suprem e Court is authorized to promul gat e
shall not diminish, increase or modify subst ant i ve ri ghts
(Sec. 5 [5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). The improbable
position tha t a clearly procedural provision becomes a
19
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
2. Definition of term s:
a.Cause of action: The delict or wrongful act or omission
c o m m i t t e d by th e de fe nda n t in violation of the
pri ma r y ri ght s of the plaintiff (Racoma vs. Fortich, et
al, L-29380, June 10, 1971).
b.Right of action: The reme dial right or right to relief gra nt e d
by law to a part y to inst itut e an action agai nst a person
who has committed a delict or wrong a ga inst him.
The cause of action is th e delict or wrong, while
the ri ght of action is the right to sue as a consequence
of tha t delict. The question as to whe t he r the plaintiff
has a cause of action is de t e rm i ne d by the a ve rme nt s
in the pl e a di n g re ga r di n g th e acts committe d by the
defendant; whet he r such acts give him a right of action
is de term ine d by the substa nti ve law. There can be no
ri ght of action w i t h ou t a ca use of action being first
established (see Espanol vs. The Chairman, etc. of the
PVA, L-44616, June 29, 1985).
A right of action is the right to presentl y enforce a
cause of action — a re m e di a l ri ght affording re dre ss
for the infri ngeme nt of a legal right belonging to some
definite person; a cause of action consists of the operative
facts which give rise to such right of action. The right
of action does not arise until the performa nce of all
conditions pre ce de nt to the action, and may be ta ke n
awa y by th e r u n n i n g of th e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s ,
21
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
22
P RE L I MI NA R Y C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
26
J U R I S D I C T I O N O F TH E S U P R E M E C O U R T
U N D E R T H E 198 7 C O N S T I T U T I O N
NO TES
28
J U R I S D I C T I O N O F TH E S U P R E M E C O U R T
U N D E R T H E 198 7 C O N S T I T U T I O N
ORGANIZATION
2. . Th e C our t of Ap p e a l s wa s re pl a c e d by th e
Inte rmediate Appellate Court consisting of a Presiding
Justic e and 49 Associate Appellate Justice s, which shall
sit in 10 divisions each composed of 5 members, except
only for th e pu rp os e of e x e rc i si n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,
ceremonial or other non-adjudicatory functions in which
instances it may sit en banc (Secs. 3 and 4).
30
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
32
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
J URISD ICT IO N
NOTES
37
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
39
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
41
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
NO TES
1. R.A. 7691 , which took effect on April 15, 1994 (see Appendix
N), e x p a n de d th e j u r i s d i c t i o n of th e m e t ro pol i t a n ,
m u n i c i p a l an d m u ni c i pa l circ uit tri a l courts in civil an d
c rim i nal cases, the am e nde d civil jurisdiction being set
out hereinafter. In Administrative Circular No. 09-94 (see
Appendix O), the Suprem e Court, by wa y of gu i d e l i n e s in
th e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of said amendatory Act, made the
clarification that:
"2 . Th e e x c l u s i o n of th e t e r m ' d a m a g e s of
wh a t e ve r kind' i n d e t e r m i ni n g the j u ri sd i c t i ona l
am oun t unde r Section 19(8) and Section 33(1) of
B.P. Blg. 129, as ame nde d by R.A. No. 7691, applies
to cases where the da m a ge s are merely incidental
to or a conse quence of th e mai n cause of action.
However, in cases where the claim for dama ges is the
main cause of action, or one of the causes of action,
the a m ou n t of such claim shall be consi de red in
determining the jurisdiction of the court."
This j u r i s d i c t i o n a l rul e wa s a pp l i e d in Ouano vs.
PGTT International Investment Corp. (G.R. No. 134230,
July 17, 2002).
On the m at t e r of the jurisdictional amount in civil
cases, R.A. 7691 additionall y provides:
43
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
45
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
47
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
3 . I m p l e m e n t i n g th e fore goi ng pr o vi si on s , th e
Supreme Court approved on March 4, 2003 the Rule on
D e c l a r a t i o n of Ab s ol ut e Null i t y of Void M a r r i a ge s
an d A n n u l m e n t o f Voi da bl e M a r r i a g e s i n A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC (see Appendix AA) and th e Rule on Le ga
l S e p a r a t i o n i n A.M. No. 02 -11-11-S C (see Appendix
BB).
50
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
NO TES
5. . Th e r e g l e m e n t a r y pe r i o d s for a p p e a l s from
jud gm e nt s or final orders of the different trial courts
have been made uniform at 15 days from receipt thereof,
except in special procee dings, cases where in multiple
appeals are permitted, and habeas corpus cases. For a
detailed discussion on the bases, modes and periods for
appeal from and to different court s, see Lacsamana, et
al. vs. The Hon. Second Special Cases Division of the
5
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A TI O N AC T O F 198 0
I. SUP RE ME COURT
A. Original
1. Exclusive
a . Pet i ti on s for ce rti ora ri , prohi bi ti on or
mandamus against:
(1) Court of Appeals;
(2) Court of Tax Appeals;
(3 ) Sa ndi ga n ba ya n ;
(4) Commission on Elections; and
(5) Commission on Audit. 2.
Concurrent
a. With the Court of Appeals
(1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
m a nda m us against:
(a) Regional Trial Courts;
(b) Civil Service Commission;
( c ) C e n t r a l Boa r d of A s s e s s m e n t
Appeals;
(d) Nati onal Labor Relations Com•
mission; and
(e) Other quasi-judicial agencies.
b. With the Court of Appeals and Regional
Trial Courts
(1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
m a nda m us against courts of the first
level and other bodies; and
(2) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo
wa rra nt o.
c. With Regional Trial Courts
(1) Actions agai nst am ba ssa dors, other
public ministers and consuls.
J U R I S D I C T I O N I N CIVI L C A S E S
B. Appellate
1. Petitions for review on certiorari against:
a. Court of Appeals;
b. Court of Tax Appeals;
c. Sa ndi ga n ba ya n ; and
d. Regional Trial Courts in cases involving —
(1) C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y or va l i di t y of a
t r e a t y , i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r exe c ut i ve
agreement, law, presidenti al decree,
p r o c l a m a t i o n , orde r , i n s t r u c t i o n ,
ordinance, or re gulation;
(2) Legality of a tax, impost, assessment,
toll or a penalt y in relation thereto;
(3) Jurisdic tion of a lower court; and
(4) Only errors or questions of law.
55
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
b. Family Courts.
2. Appeal by petition for review from:
a. Civil Service Commission;
b. Central Board of Assessment Appeals; c.
Securities and Exchange Commission; d.
Land Registration Authority;
e. Social Security Commission;
f. Office of the President;
g. Civil Aeronautics Board;
h. Bureaus under the Intellectual Property
Office;
i. National Electrification Administration; j .
Energy Regulatory Board;
k. National Telecommunications Commission;
1. D e pa r t m e n t of Agra ri a n Reform unde r
R.A. 6657;
m. Government Service Insurance System;
n. Employees Compensation Commission;
o. Agricultural Inventions Board;
p. Insurance Commission;
q. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission;
r. Board of Inve st ment s;
s. Construction Industry Arbitration Commis•
sion;
t. Office of the Ombudsman, in administra•
tive disciplinary cases; and
u. Any other quasi-judicial agency, instru•
m e nt a li t y, board or commission in th e
exercise of its qua si -j udic ial functions,
such as voluntary arbit rat ors.
3. Petitions for review from the Regional Trial
Courts in cases appeal ed the ret o from the
lower courts.
J U R I S D I C T I O N I N CIVI L C A S E S
5
J U R I S D I C T I O N I N CI VI L C A S E S
V . M E T R O P O L I T AN , M U N I C I PAL , AN D MU N I •
C IPA L C IR C U I T TRIA L CO U RT S
A. Original
1. Exclusive
a. Actions involving personal property valued
at not more tha n P 100,000 or, in Metro
Manila, =P200,000;
b. Actions d e m a n d i n g sum s of mone y not
exceeding P 100,000 or, in Metro Manila,
P200.000, exclusive of interest, damages,
at t orne y' s fees, litigation expenses, and
costs;
c. Actions in admiralt y and maritime juris•
diction where the demand or claim does not
exceed P100.000 or, in Met r o Ma ni l a ,
P200,000, exclusive of interest, dama ges,
attorne y' s fees, litigation expenses, and
costs;
d. Probate proceedings, te stat e or intestate,
where the gross value of the estate does
not exceed P 100,000 or, in Metro Manila,
P200.000 ;
e. . Forc i bl e ent r y an d unl a wful
d e t a i n e r cases;
RUL E 1 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
6
R UL E 1 GENERA L PROVISION S SE C . 1
P u r s u a n t to th e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 5(5 ) of
Article VIII of th e Consti t uti on, the Su pr e m e Court
hereby adopt s an d p r o m u l ga t e s th e following rule s
c o n c e r n i n g th e p r o t e c t i o n an d e n f o r c e m e n t o f
constitutional ri ghts, pleading, practice and procedure in
all court s , th e a dmi ssi on to th e pra c ti c e of law, th e
I n t e g r a t e d Bar , an d le gal a s s i s t a n c e t o th e unde r •
privileged:
RULE 1
GENERAL P ROVISIO NS
NO TES
1. The Rules of Court have the force and effect of law (Shioji
vs. Harvey, etc., et al., 43 Phil. 333; Alvero vs. De la
Rosa, etc., et al., 76 Phil. 428; Conlu vs. CA, et al., 106
Phil. 940). They are not penal sta t ute s and cannot be
given retroacti ve effect (Rilloraza vs. Arciaga, L 23848,
Oct. 31, 1967; Bermejo vs. Barrios, L-23614, Feb. 27, 1970).
However, sta tute s regulating the proce• dure of courts
may be made applicable to cases pending at the time of
their passage and are retroactive in that sense (see Alday
vs. Camilon, G.R. No. 60316, Jan. 31, 1983).
*T he a e r e v i s e d R ul e s o f C ivi l P r oc e d ur e w e r e a p p r ov e d b y th e
S up r e m e C our t i n it s R e s ol ut i o n i n Ba r M atte r No . 803 , date d April 8 ,
1997 , to tak e effec t on Jul y 1 , 1997 .
R UL E 1 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
NOTES
1. The 1987 Constitution provides in Art. VIII thereof
that:
"Sec. 5 . The S u p r e m e Cour t shal l ha v e th e
following powers:
NOTES
NOTE
NOTES
68
RUL E 1 GENERA L PROVISION S SE C . 5
7
R UL E 1 GENERA L PROVISION S SE C . 6
NOTES
2. In fact, in line with the spirit and purpose of this section, even
the suspension of the rules may be justified in the
interest of fair play. As- early as the case of Vda. de
Ordonez us. Raymundo (63 Phil. 275), it was held tha t the
court ha s th e power to suspe n d th e rule s, or to except a
particular case from their operation, whene ver the ends
of justice so require.
Juri sprude nc e has laid down the range of re asons
which may provide justification for a court to restrict
adherence to procedure, enume rati ng grounds for giving
due course to an otherwi se objectionable appeal by a
suspension of the enforcement of procedural rules, viz.:
(1) in m a t t e r s of life, l i be rt y , hono r or p r o p e r t y ;
(2)c o un se l ' s ne gl i ge n c e w i t h o u t an y p a r t i c i p a t o r y
negligence on the part of the client; (3) the existence of
special or compelling circumstances; (4) the evident merits
of the case; (5) a cause not entirely att ributa ble to the
RUL E 1 GENERA L PROVISION S SE C . 6
73
RUL E 1 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 6
RULE 2
CAUSE OF ACTION
NOTES
76
RUL E 2 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 4
NOTES
3.Thus, where the first,action was for recovery of land, anot her
action for the value of plaintiff s share in the produce of
said land is barred, as a single cause of action was split into
two suits (Jalandoni, et al. vs. Martir- Guanzon, et al., 102 Phil.
859; cf. Pascua vs. Sideco, 24 Phil. 26). The same doctrine
applies where, in the action to recover the land, the
plaintiff sought to recover the fruits alrea dy appropri at e d
by the de fe nda nt but not the future fruits which may be
realized thereon until the possession of the land, was
restored to him. He could have done so by supple ment al
complaint in said action, failing which he cannot institute
another action for that purpose in violation of the rule of
res judicata (Bayang vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 53564, Feb.
27, 1987).
76
R UL E 2 CAUS E O F ACTI O N SE C . 4
NOTES
78
RUL E 2 CAUS E O F ACTIO N SE C . 5
5. . In a c o m pl a i n t filed in th e S e c u r i t i e s an d
Exchange Commission by a stockholder of a corporation,
one of the causes of action therein sought the a nnulm e nt of
a dacion en pago agreement, whereby said corporation ceded
all its assets to the mortgagee bank in settlement of its
account, and to recover said propert y from the third- pa rt y
p u r c h a s e r t o whom th e m o r t ga ge e ba n k ha d
subsequentl y sold the property and who was impleaded as a
co-defendant. It was held that such cause of action could
not be joined in said complaint since jurisdiction
thereover lies in the re gular courts. While, ordinaril y, the
purc ha se r corporation should be included as a party
defendant since it has an interest in the subject matter,
i n thi s case said p u r c h a s e r ha s no i n t r a - c o r p o r a t e
relationship with the complainant, hence, the Commission
has no jurisdiction over it under P.D. 902-A. The rule on
permissive joinder of causes of action is subject to the
rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties
(Union Glass & Container Corp., et al. vs. SEC, et al.,
G.R. No. 64013, Nov. 28, 1983), as clarified in this revised
Rule.
80
R UL E 2 CAUS E O F ACTIO N SE C . 5
NOTES
83
RULE 3
NOTES
NOTES
NOTES
86
RUL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S SE C . 3
88
R UL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S SE C . 4
not because they have any real inte rest in the subject
ma tt e r or because any relief is de ma nde d as a ga i nst
them, but merely because the technical rules of pleadings
require their presence on the record. This would roughly
corre spond to our conce pt of and rule on pro forma
parties wherein the joinder of spouses is required, or in
certi orari actions whe re i n th e court or agency whose
adjudication is challenged is im plea ded as the public
re sponde nt , with th e pre va il i n g part y as the pri va te
respondent.
NOTE
NOTES
- T -• . r -
1. Under the 1964 Rules, a distinction was made be tween
une ma nc i pa t e d and e ma nc i pa t e d minors. An
unema nci pate d minor could sue or to be sued "through"
his pa r e n t or gua rdia n, tha t is, the action had to be
b r o u gh t i n th e nam e o f o r a ga i n s t suc h p a r e n t o r
gu a r di a n wit h th e de si gna t i on t ha t h e wa s bri ngi n g
the action or being sued in tha t capacity. In the case of
emancipated minors, they could sue or be sued "with the
assistance " of the pa re nt or guardian. The action was in
the name of or against the minor, with an indication that
he was being assisted therei n by his pa re nt or guardian.
Note tha t 18 years is now the age of majority (R.A. 6809)
and for contracting marriage (Art. 5, Family Code).
90
R UL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S SE C . 6
his i n c o m p e t e n c y be al le ge d i n th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
pleadings and the trial court may pass upon the trut h and
effects thereof.
NO TES
92
— P a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t w i t h o u t w h o m n o fi na
l
93
RUL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L AC T I O N S SE C S . 7- 8
NOTES
NOTES
95
R UL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CI VI L A C T I O N S SE C . 9
NOTES
97
RUL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S SE C . 12
NOT E S
2.. The complaint must specially state tha t the same is being
brou gh t in behalf of ot he r s with whom th e parties
share a common interest (Borlasa vs. Polistico,
47 Phil. 345; Claudio vs. Zandueta, 64 Phil. 819). If
there is a conflict of interest between those sought to be
re pre se nt e d and those who filed the action, th e class
suit will not prosper (Ibahez vs. Roman Catholic Church,
12 Phil. 227). The part y bringing the class suit must
have the legal capacity to do so (Chinese Flour Importers
Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, 9 Phil. 461; Anti-
Chinese League vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012; Recreation &
Amusement Association vs. City of Manila, 100 Phil. 950).
However, wrongs suffered by some stockholders do not
ne ce ssa ri l y c o ns t i t ut e th e sam e wrongs to ot he r
stoc khol ders as would creat e tha t common or general
intere st in the subje ct -matte r (Mathay, et al. vs. Con•
solidated Bank & Trust Co., et al., L-23136, Aug. 26,
1974). See also Newsweek, Inc. vs. IAC, et al. (G.R. No.
63559, May 30, 1986) regarding a supposed class suit for
libel against sugar pl ante rs in Negros which was denied
since each plaintiff has a se parate and distinct re putati on
in the communit y.
98
R UL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S SE C . 12
10. Under the former Rule, when a supposed class suit was
filed, it was the duty of the court to make sure tha t the
pa r t i e s a ct ua ll y before i t were sufficie ntl y num e rous and
re pre se nta t i ve of the class. Unde r the pre se nt
formulation, such fact is one of the requisites for instituting
and maintaining a class suit. The significance of such
change is that the parties bringing the suit have the
burden of proving the sufficiency of the repre se ntati ve
character which they claim. Corollarily, the defendant
can assail tha t fact through a motion to dismiss on the
groun d t ha t th e pl ai nt i ffs hav e n o c a pa c it y t o sue
(Sec. lfdj, Rule 16), tha t is, tha t they do not have the
repre se ntati on that they claim (see Lunsod vs. Ortega,
46 Phil 664).
100
R UL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S S E C S . 14-1 5
NOTE
NO TES
NOT E S
1
RUL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S SE C . 16
NOTES
1
RUL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S SE C . 16
7. It has been held tha t when a part y dies and the action
survive s his death, but no order of subst itution was
issued or effected by the court, the trial held by said court
was null and void since it did not acquire jurisdic• tion over
the legal re presenta ti ve or heirs of the decedent, hence the
judgm ent was not binding on them (Ferreria, et al. vs.
Vda. de Gonzales, et al., supra). In a later case, however, i t was
also held tha t where counsel failed to comply with his dut y
under then Sec. 16 to inform the court of the de ath of his
client, the defendant, and no substit uti on of such part y was
effected, the proceedings and j ud gm e n t t he re i n are valid
i f the action (in this case, ejectment) survi ves the
de at h of said pa rt y and
106
R UL E 3 PAR T I E S T O CI VI L A C T I O N S SE C . 16
NOT E S
109
R UL E 3 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2 0
5. Sec. 19 of this Rule does not provide tha t the substit uti on
of pa rtie s contemplated the rein is manda• tory, it being
permissible to continue the action by or against the original
part y in case of transfer of intere st pendente lite. As the
original part y is bound by the final outcome of the case, his
subst itution by the transferee is not necessary unless the
subst itution by or the joinder of the latter is required by
the court; otherwise, failure to do so does not w a r r a n t
the dismi ssal of th e case. A t r a n s f e r e e pendente lite is a
p r o p e r , an d no t an i nd i s pe ns a bl e , pa rt y in the case
(Heirs of Francisco Guballa, Sr., et al. vs. CA, et al, G.R. No.
78223, Dec. 19, 1988). However, where the transfer was
effected before th e c o m m e n c e m e n t of th e suit, th e
t r a n s f e re e mus t necessaril y be the defendant or the
plaintiff, but he may file a t h i r d - pa r t y com plai nt a ga i ns t
and im ple a d th e transferor in the action whene ver the
same is necessary and proper for a complete
de term inat ion of all the rights of the parties.
NOTE S
1. This was the former Sec. 21 of the old Rule which has been
amended to provide a new procedure specially for the
disposition of cont ract ual money claims where the
defendant dies before the termination of the action thereon.
Two importa nt aspects thereof must inceptively be ta ke n
note of: (1) th e action mus t primaril y be for recovery of
mone y, debt or i nte re s t the re on, and not where the
subject m a t t e r is prima ril y for some other relief and the
collection of an amount of money sought therein is merely
incidental thereto, such as by way of damages; and (2) the
claim subject of the action arose from a contract, express
or implied, entered into by the decedent in his lifetime or
the liability for which had been assumed by or is
imputable to him.
111
R UL E 3 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2 0
113
RUL E 3 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 21
N OT E S
115
R UL E 3 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 2 2
VENU E OF ACTIONS
NO TES
117
R UL E 4 REMEDIA L LA W C O M P E N D I U M S E C S 1-2
118
RUL E 4 VENU E O F ACTION S SECS . 1-2
120
RUL E 4 VENU E O F ACT I ON S SE C . 3
N OT E S
3. . W he r e th e pl a i nt i f f is a n o n r e s i d e n t of th e
Philippines but is permitted to sue here (as in the case
of a foreign corporation with the requisite license under
Sec. 123 of the Corporation Code), then the venue is the
place where the defendant resides, or, in real actions,
where the real propert y or par t thereof is situated. This
is proper since the alternative venue granted to plaintiffs
R UL E 4 VENU E O F ACT I ON S SE C . 4
NO TES
124
RUL E 4 VENU E O F ACTION S SE C . 4
4 . Inr c o n t r a c t s o f a d h e s i o n , th e rul e i s t h a t
ambiguities t he re i n are to be construed against the part y
who caused it. If the stipulat ions are not obscure and
leave no doubt on the intention of the parties, the literal
meani ng of th e s t i p ul a t i o n s mus t be held controlling
(Lufthansa German Airlines, et al. vs. CA, et
al.,
G.R. No. 91544, May 8, 1992; RCBC vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. 133107, Mar. 25, 1999). C ont ra c t s of adhe si on
are not p ro hi b i t e d , bu t th e fact ual c i rc um s t a nc e s of
each case mus t be carefully scruti nized to de t e rm i n e
the respective claims of the pa rt ie s as to their efficacy
(see National Dev. Co. vs. Madrigal Wan Hai Lines Corp.,
G.R. No. 148332, Sept. 30, 2003).
T hus , in c o n t r a c t s i nvol vi ng pa s s a g e t ic ke t s , a
condition pri nt e d a t th e back there of tha t all actions
arising out of tha t contract of carriage can be filed only in
a particular province or city, to the exclusion of all others,
was declared void and unenforceable due to the state of
the shipping industr y. The Court noted tha t the acute
shortage of inter-i sland vessels could not provide enough
a c c om m o da t i on s for plaintiffs to tra ve l to the ve nue
indicated, aside from the fact tha t the passengers did
not have th e o p p o r t u n i t y to e xam i n e th e fine pri n t
providing for such venue (Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Teves,
etc., et al., L-37750, May 19, 1978).
In a s u b s e q u e n t cas e i nvol vi ng 6 s u b s c r i p t i o n
c on t ra c t s for c el l ula r t e l e p h o n e s each covered by a
mobiline service agre eme nt, the subscriber challenged
the provisions in said a gre e m e nt s providing tha t the
venue for all suit s ari si n g there from shall be in the
proper court of Makati, with the subscriber waiving any
R UL E 4 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 4
8. Where the chattel mortgage had been fully paid, but the
mort gagee still sent a telegram demanding pay• ment from
the mortgagor, the venue for the latter' s action for dama ges
is not governed by the venue stipulation in the chattel
mort gage since the suit is not based on said contract but on
defendant ' s act of sending the telegram (Zoleta vs. Romillo,
G.R. No. 58080, Feb. 15, 1982).
127
R UL E 4 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 4
NOTES
129
R UL E 5 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
130
RUL E 5 U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N TRIA L C OU RT S SE C . 2
II.
Civil Cases
SEC. 3. Pleadings. —
A. Pleadings allowed. — The only pl e a di n g s allowed to be
filed are the complaints, compulsory
132
RUL E 5 U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N TR I A L C O U R T S SE C . 2
134
R UL E 5 U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N T RI A L C O U R T S
IV.
Common Provisions
SEC. 18. Referral to Lupon. — Cases requiring
referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the pro•
visions of Preside ntia l Decree No. 1508 where there
is no showing of compliance with such requirement,
shall be dismissed wit hout prejudice, and may be
re vi ved only after such r e q u i r e m e n t shall have
been complied with, x x x.
RUL E 6 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
136
R UL E 5 U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N T RI A L C O U R T S SE C . 2
RULE 6
K IND S OF P L EA D I N G S
NOTE
Sec. 3 . Complaint. — Th e c o m p l a i n t i s th e
pl e adi n g al l e gi n g th e p l a i n t i f f s c aus e o r c a u se s o f
ac ti on. The na me s an d r e s i de n c e s of the plaintiff
and de fe n dant mus t be stated in the c ompl ai nt. (3a)
139
RUL E 6 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 4- 5
NOTES
Sec . 4. Answer. — An a n s w e r is a p l e a di n g in
w hi c h a d e f e n di n g par t y set s for th hi s de f e n s e s .
(4a)
Sec. 5 . Defenses. — D e f e n s e s ma y e i t h e r be
n e g ati v e or affir mati ve .
(a) A ne ga ti v e de f e n s e i s th e s pe c i fic de ni a l of th e
mate r i a l fact or facts al l e ge d in th e p l e a di n g of th e
c l a i ma n t e s s e n t i a l t o hi s c a u s e o r c a u s e s o f a c t i on .
(b) An affir mative de fe n s e is an al l e g ati o n of a ne w
matte r w hi c h , whil e h y p ot h e t i c a l l y a d mi t t i n g th e
m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n th e p l e a d i n g o f th e
c l a i m a n t , w o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s p r e v e n t o r ba r
re c ov e r y by hi m. Th e affir mative de f e n s e s i nc l ud e
fr au d , s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s , r e l e a s e , p a y m e n t ,
i l l e g a l i t y , s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s , e s t o p p e l , f or me r
re c ov e r y , d i s c h a r g e i n ba n kr u pt c y , and an y othe r
matte r by wa y of c on f e s s i o n an d a v oi da n c e . (5a)
RUL E 6 KI ND S O F PLEADIN G SE C S . 4- 5
NOTE S
141
R UL E 6 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M S E C S . 6- 7
Sec . 6. Counterclaim. — A c o u n t e r c l a i m is an y
cl ai m w hi c h a d e f e n di n g party ma y hav e ag ai n s t
an o pp os i n g party. (6a)
NOTES
2. . A cl a ri fi ca t i on ha s been i n c o rp ora t e d in th e
definition of a compulsory count e rc l ai m by re ason of
di ve rge nt views in the pas t as to w he t he r or not the
amount involved in the counterclaim should be take n into
R UL E 6 KIND S O F PLEADING S S E C S . 6- 7
145
RUL E 6 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 9-1 0
Sec . 8. Cross-claim. — A c r os s- c l a i m is an y c l ai m
by on e par ty ag ai n s t a co-par ty ar i si n g ou t of th e
R UL E 6 KIND S O F PLEADING S SE C S . 9-1 0
NOTES
147
RUL E 6 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 9-1 0
NOTES
1
RUL E 6 KIND S O F P LEADI NG S SE C . 11
8.. Where the trial court dismissed the complaint and the
defendants' third-part y complaint and only the plaintiff
appealed, the Court of Appeals, in reversing the judgm ent
dismissing plaintiffs complaint, cannot make a fi nding of
lia bilit y on th e pa r t of th e t h i r d - p a r t y defendants since
the defendants, as third-part y plaintiffs, did not appeal
from the dismissal of their t hi rd-pa rt y c o m pl a i n t an d th
e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n da n t s wer e not pa rt ie s in the case
on appeal (Go, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-25393, Oct. 30,
1980).
9. A t hi rd -pa rt y com plai nt ca nnot be filed in a special civil
action for declaratory relief as no material relief is sought
in this action (Comm. of Customs, et al. vs. Cloribel, et
al, L-21036, June 30, 1977).
152
R UL E 6 KIND S O F PLEADING S SE C S . 12 , 13
NOT ES
PARTS OF A PLEADING
NOTES
154
RUL E 7 PART S OF A P L E A D I N G S SE C . 2
NOT E S
1
R UL E 7 PART S OF A P L E A D I N G SEC . 3
Th e s i g n a t u r e o f c o u n s e l c o n s t i t u t e s a
certificate by hi m tha t he ha s read th e pl eadi ng, that
to the be st of hi s kn ow l e dg e , i nf or mati on, and belief
the re i s goo d groun d to su ppor t it, and tha t i t i s not
i nte r pose d for del ay.
A n u n s i g n e d p l e a di n g pr od uc e s n o legal effect.
H ow eve r, th e cour t may, in its di sc reti on, allow such
de fi c ie nc y to be r e me di e d i f i t shall appea r tha t the
same wa s du e to me re i na dve r te nce and not inten de d
for d e l a y . C o u n s e l w h o d e l i b e r a t e l y fi l e s a n
un s i g ne d pl e a di n g , or si gn s a pl e a di n g in vi ol ati on
o f thi s R ul e , o r a l l e g e s s c a n d a l o u s o r i n d e c e n t
matte r t he re i n , o r fails t o pr ompt l y report t o th e
court a c h a n g e of hi s a ddr ess , shall be su bje c t to
a ppr opr i a t e d i s c i pl i n a r y ac ti on . (5a)
NOTES
di s c i p l i n a r y ac ti o n or eve n a c i t a t i o n for i nd i re c t
contempt, tha t counsel should promptl y report to the
court where he is appearing in a case any change of his
address. I t is elementary that the requirement to make
of record in the court his address or any change thereof is
to ensure his prompt receipt of judicial orders or processes;
yet, a number of lawyers fail to report such changes in
both the trial and appellate courts resulting in unnecessary
delay in judicial admi nistration. This situation is further
aggravated where even the address of the part y is not
sta t e d in th e pl e a di n gs or i t i s merel y a ve rre d t ha t
processes to said part y may be served on his counsel.
3 . No s u b s t i t u t i o n of a t t o r n e y s will be allowed
unless (a) there is a writ ten request for such substit uti on,
(b) filed wit h th e wr i t t e n c onse nt of th e clie nt , and
(c) with the written consent of the attorney to be substituted, or
with proof of service of notice of said motion to the att orne y
to be substit ute d. Unless these are complied with, no
subst itution will be permitted and the attorne y who last
appeared in the case before such application will be
responsible for the conduct of the case (Bacarro vs. CA, et
al, L-28203, Jan. 22, 1971, citing U.S. vs. Borromeo,
20 Phil. 189; see Magpayo, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-35966,
Nov. 19, 1974; Sumadchat vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 52197,
Jan. 30, 1982; Aban vs. Enage, L-30666, Feb. 26, 1983;
Yu, et al. vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 56766, Feb. 28, 1985).
NOTES
1
R UL E 7 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 4
161
RUL E 7 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 4
t h e r e f r o m t o th e c o u r t w h e r e i n hi s a f o r e s a i d
c ompl ai n t or i nitiatory pl e a di n g ha s bee n filed.
F ail ure t o c ompl y wit h th e f oregoi ng requi re •
me n t s shall not be cur abl e by mer e a me n d me n t of
the c ompl ai n t or ot he r i ni ti ator y pl e a di n g but shall
b e c a u s e for th e d i s m i s s a l o f th e c as e w i t h o u t
prej udi ce , unl e s s o t h e r w i s e pr ovi de d , upo n moti o n
an d afte r h e a r i n g . Th e s u b m i s s i o n o f a fal s e
c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r n o n - c o m p l i a n c e w i t h an y o f th e
u n d e r t a k i n g s t h e r e i n shal l c o n s t i t u t e i n d i r e c t
c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t , w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o th e
c or r e s p o n di n g a d mi n i s tr ati v e and cr i mi nal ac ti ons .
I f th e ac t s o f th e par t y o r hi s c o u n s e l c l e a r l y
c o n s t i t u t e w ill ful an d de l i be r at e for u m s h o p p i n g ,
the same shall be groun d for su mmar y di s mi ssal wit h
pr e j u di c e an d shall c on s t i t u t e di rec t c on t e mp t , a s
wel l as a cau s e for a d mi n i s t r a t i v e s a n c t i on s , (n)
NO TES
Fo ru m s ho pp i n g i s c o n d e m ne d be c a u s e i t duly
burdens courts with heavy caseloads, undul y taxes the
manpower and financial resources of the judiciary, and
trifles with and mocks judicial processes. The primary evil
sought to be prescribed by the prohibition against forum
shopping, however, is the possibility of conflicting decisions
being rende red by the different courts upon the same
issues (Guy vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 165849, Dec. 10, 2007,
and companion cases).
16B
RUL E 7 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 5
1
R UL E 7 PART S OF A P L E A D I N G SE C . 5
169
R UL E 7 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 5
171
R UL E 7 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 5
S e c t i o n 1. In general. — E ve r y pl e a di n g shal l
c ontai n in a me t h odi c a l and l ogic al form, a plain,
c onc i se and di r e ot- e te te tn e n t of the ul ti mat e facts
on wh i c h the party pl e a di n g re l ie s for hi s cl ai m or
de f e n se , a s the cas e may be, omi tti n g th e s ta te me n t
of me r e e vi de n ti ar y facts. (1)
h i a d e f e n s e r e l i e d o n i s ba se d o n law , th e
pe r ti ne n t pr ov i si on s t he re o f an d their a ppl i c abi l i ty
to hi m s ha l l be< cl e ar l y and c on c i s e l y state d, (n)
NOTES
174
RULE 8 MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS SECS 4
5 IN PLEADINGS
Sec. 4. Capacity. — Facts sh ow i n g the c apac i ty
of a party to su e or be sue d or the auth or i ty of a
party to sue or be sue d in a re pr e se nt at i v e c apac i ty
or the legal e xi s te nc e of an or ga niz e d assoc i ati on
of pe r s on s that is mad e a party, mus t be ave rred.
A party de s i r i n g to raise an issue as to the legal
e xi s te nc e of any party or the ca pac i ty of any party
to sue or be sue d in a re pr e se nt at i v e capaci ty, shall
do so by speci fic de ni al , whic h shall i nc l ude suc h
s u p por ti n g par ti c ul ar s as are pe culi arly w ithi n the
pleader' s kn ow l e dge . (4)
NOTE
NOTE
Sec . 6. Judgment. — In p l e a d i n g a j u d g m e n t or
d e c i s i o n of a d o m e s t i c or fore i g n c ou rt , j u d i c i a l or
q u a s i - j u d i c i a l t r i b u n a l , or of a boa r d or officer, i t i s
s uffi c i e n t t o a ve r th e j u d g m e n t o r d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t
s e t t i n g fort h m a t t e r s h o w i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e n d e r
it. (6)
NOTE
176
RULE 8 MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS SECS. 7-
8 IN PLEADINGS
a d mi t t e d » n U M , t a » ad^CTuu pai t y + - w d e r - ^ t h ,
s pe c i fi c al l y de-mee-tfcero, an d uviv • furUi w4mt he
clai ms to Ofi-the ~faets;^but the r e qu i r e me n t of an
oath doe s not apply whe n the adver se party doe s
not a ppe a r to be a party to the i n st r u me n t or w he n
c o mpl i an c e wit h an or der for an i n s pe c ti o n of the
or iginal i n s t r u me n t i s refuse d. (8a)
NOT E S
3. . Whe r e th e a c t i on a bl e d oc u m e n t i s prope rl y
alleged, the failure to deny the same re sul t s in the
admission of the "genuineness and due execution" of said
document, except (a) when the adverse party was not a
party to the instrument, and (b) when an order for the
inspection of the document (see Rule 27) was not complied
with.
4. By "genuiwcncoo" is meant that the document is not
spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face
from the one execut ed hy the part y (Bough us. Cantiveros, 40
Phil. 208), or that the party whose sig• nature it bears has
signed it and that at the time it was
RUL E 8 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M S E C S . 7- 8
178
RUL E 8 M A N N E R OF MA KI N G A L L E G A TI O N S SE C
9 I N PLEADING S
NOTES
180
R UL E 8 M A N N E R O F MA KI N G A L L E G ATI O N S SE C 1
1 I N PLEADING S
182
RULE 8 MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS SEC
11 IN PLEADINGS
NOTES
184
RULE 9
NOTES
187
RUL E 9 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 1
6. . The p r e s e n c e of an y of t he s e four g r o u n d s
authorizes the court to motu proprio dismiss the claim,
that is, the claims asserted in a complaint, counter claim,
cros s-c la im , t hi r d (fourt h, e t c .) -pa rt y c o m pl a i n t or
complaint-in-intervention (see Sec. 2, Rule 6). In order tha t
it may do so, it is necessary that the constitutive facts of
such grounds, if not in the answer with evidence dul y
a dd uc e d t h e re fo r , shoul d a p p e a r i n th e ot he r
pleadings filed or in the evidence of record in the case.
NOT E S
190
R UL E 9 E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D SE C . 3
10. The motion to lift the order of default, aside from the
re qui re m e nt s in Sec. 3 of this Rule, must further show tha t
the de fe nda nt ha s a me rit ori ous defense or tha t s o m e t h i n
g would be ga i ne d by ha vi n g th e orde r of default set
aside (Carandang vs. Cabatuando, et al., L-25384, Oct. 26,
1973). Otherwise, and if the motion is not accompanied
by affidavits of merits, it may properly be denied (Ong
Peng vs. Custodio, L-14911, Oct. 26, 1961; The Phil. British
Co., Inc., et al. vs. De los Angeles, etc., et al., supra).
RUL E 9 E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D SEC . 3
13. Under the former procedure, and the same would hold true
unde r the present ame nde d Rules, the alter• na t i v e and
suc c e ssi ve re m e di e s of a pa rt y prope rl y declared in
default in the former Court of First Instance were: (1) He
may file a verified motion to set aside the order of default
at any time after discovery thereof and before j udgm e nt ; (2)
If he did not file one or the same was denied, he could
file a motion for new trial at any time after service of
judgm ent by default and within 30 days therefrom; (3) If
he failed to file said motion or the same was denied, he
could perfect his appeal from and on the merits of said
j udgm e nt by default within the balance of said 30-day
period; and (4) If he failed to take any of such steps, he
could file a petition for relief from judgm ent within 60 days
from notice of the jud gm e nt but within 6 months from entry
thereof (see Lina vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 62397, April 9,
1985).
It should be noted, however, tha t under B.P. Blg. 129
and the Int erim Rules, the re glem enta ry period to appeal
has been uniformly set at 15 days, except in habeas corpus
cases for which the 48-hour period has been maintained,
and in special procee dings or cases whe re i n multi ple
appeals are permitted and in which cases the re gl eme ntar y
period is still 30 days. Considering the fact that the period
for filing a motion for new trial is coterminous with the
re glem enta ry period for appeal, the 30-day periods for the
second an d t hi r d re m e di e s above st a t e d would now
RUL E 9 E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D SE C . 3
198
RUL E 9 E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D SE C . 3
200
R UL E 9 E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D SEC . 3
Se c ti o n 1. Amendments in general. — P l e a di n g s
ma y b e a me n d e d b y a d d i n g o r s t r i k i n g ou t a n
a l l e g a t i o n o r th e n a m e o f an y p a r t y , o r b y
c or r e c t i n g a mi s ta k e in th e nam e of a party or a
mi s t a ke n o r i n a de qu a t e al l e g ati o n o r d e s c r i pt i o n
in an y othe r res pe c t , so tha t th e ac tua l me r i t s of
th e c o n t r o v e r s y ma y s p e e d i l y b e d e t e r m i n e d ,
w i t h ou t regar d t o t e c h n i c al i t i e s , an d i n th e mos t
e x p e d i t i o u s and i n e x p e n s i v e ma n ne r . (1)
NOTES
202
SE C S . 1, 7
203
RUL E 10 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
NOTES
204
Mar. 25, 1961; cf. Dauden-Hernandez vs. De los Angeles L-27010,
April 30, 1969).
205
RUL E 10 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M S E C S . 3- 4
NOT E S
1. Sec. 3 of this Rule amended the former rule by elim inat ing the
phrase "or that the cause of action or defense is
subst a nt i al l y altered." The clear import of suc h
a m e n d m e n t i s t ha t unde r th e new Rule "the a me ndme nt
may (now) substa ntial l y alter the cause of action or
defense." This should only be true, however, when despite
a subst ant ial change or alteration in the cause of action or
defense, the ame ndme nt s sought to be made shall serve the
higher interests of substantial justice,
AMENDE D
2
AN D S U P P L E M E N T A L S E C S . 3- 4
PLEADING S
2
R UL E 10 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 5
NOTES
NOTES
210
pleadings refer to facts arising after the filing of the
original pleading.
b. An amended pleading results in the withdrawal of the
original pleading; a supplemental pleading is merely in
addition to, but does not result in the withdrawal of, the
original pleading.
c. An amended pleading can be made as of right, as when no
responsive pleading has yet been filed; supple• mental
pleadings are always with leave of court.
2. Unlike the former provision wherein the court could r e q u i r
e th e a d ve r s e pa r t y t o pl ea d t o th e suppleme ntal
pleading if it deemed the same advisable, it is now up to
said part y to decide whether or not to plead thereto, provided
that if he desires to plead he must observe the re gl eme ntar y
period of 10 days therefor.
3. For correla tion, Sec. 7 of this Rule has been transposed to
follow Sec. 1 thereof.
NOT E S
211
RUL E 10 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 8
212
RULE 11
NOTES
213
RUL E 11 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 3
214
NOTE
215
RUL E 11 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M S E C S . 4-6 , 6
NOT E S
1 . J u s t as provi de d in Rule 6 , th e t h i r d - p a r t y
de fe nda n t shal l file his ans we r alle gi ng t he re i n his
defenses and his counterclaims and cross-claims against
the plaintiff, the third-part y plaintiff or any other party;
and he may a sse r t such defenses as the t h i r d -p a rt y
plaintiff may have against the plaintiffs claim.
2 . Th e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t i s se r ve d wit h
summ ons just like the original defendant, hence he also
has 15, 30 or 60 days from service of summons, as the
case may be, to file his answer just like the original
defendant.
NOT E S
NOT E
218
known to but were merely omitted by the pleader and, in
all probability, were likewise known to the defending
party. The supplemental complaint, on the other hand,
seeks the introduction of facts or events which occurred
or supervened after the filing of the original complaint,
hence, for lack of knowledge thereof, the defending
party may need a longer period of time to ascertain and
respond to the allegations thereof.
219
RUL E 11 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C S . 8-11
NOTES
220
RULE 12
BILL OF PARTICULARS
NOTES
6 NOTES
223
R UL E 12 R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 5-6
NOTES
NOTES
226
RULE 13 FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, SECS 1-
2 JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
NOTES
228
RULE 13 FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, SECS 4-5
6 JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
actual receipt by the court of such pleading, and not the
date of delivery to the carrier, is deemed to be the date of
the filing of that pleading (Benguet Electric Cooperative,
Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 89070, May 18,
1992;
Industrial Timber Corp. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 111985
June 30, 1994).
NOTE
NOTE
2
RUL E 1 3 FILIN G AN D SE RVI C E O F P L E A DI N GS , SE C S 8-
9 J U D G M E N T S A N D OT HE R PAP E R S
NOTE
NOTES
NOTES
233
RUL E 13 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 10
NO TES
89 Phil. 279).
236
RUL E 13 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M S E C S . 11-1 2
NOTES
NOTE
237
RUL E 13 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 14
NOTES
240
R UL E 13 F I L I N G AN D S E R V I C E O F P L E A D I N G S , SE C 1
4 J U D G M E N T S AN D OT HE R PAP E R S
S UM M O N
Sec. 2 . Contents. — Th e s u m m o n s s h a l l be
di re c t e d t o th e de f e n dan t , si gne d b y th e cler k o f
c our t un de r seal, an d c ontai n: (a) th e nam e of th e
c our t an d th e na me s of th e par ti e s to th e ac ti on; (b)
a di r ec ti o n tha t th e de fe n da n t a nsw e r w i thi n th e
ti me fixed by thes e Rules; and (c) a notic e that unl e s s
th e d e f e n d a n t s o a n s w e r s , p l a i n t i f f w i l l t a k e
j u dg me n t by de faul t an d ma y be gr ante d th e relief
a ppl i e d for.
A c o p y o f th e c o m p l a i n t an d o r d e r for
a p p o i n t me n t of gu ar di a n ad litem, if any, shall be
a t t a c h e d t o th e o r i g i n a l an d e a c h c op y o f th e
s u mm o n s . (3a)
NOTES
1. Jurisdic tion cannot be acquired over the defen• dant wit hout
service of summons, even if he knows of the case
against him, unless he voluntaril y submits to the
jurisdiction of the court by appearing therei n as through
his counsel filing the corresponding pleading in the case
(Habana vs. Vamenta, et al., L-27091, June 30, 1970).
Even if jurisdiction over him was not originally acquired
due to defective service of summons, the court acquires
jurisdict ion over his person by his act of subseque ntl y
filing a motion for reconsideration (Soriano vs. Palacio, L-
17469, Nov. 28, 1964), or by joi ntl y s u b m i t t i n g a
242
R UL E 14 SUMMON S S E C S . 1-2
243
R UL E 14 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M S E C S . 3- 5
NOTES
NOT E S
246
RUL E 14 SUMMON S SE C . 8
NOT E S
248
RUL E 14 SUMMON S SE C S . 9-1 0
NOTES
NOTES
250
R UL E 14 SUMMON S SE C . 11
253
RUL E 14 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 12
NOTES
265
RUL E 14 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 14-1 6
NOTES
6 . W h e r e th e c o m p l a i n t doe s no t i n vo l v e th e
p e r s o n a l s t a t u s of pl a i nt i ff or an y p r o p e r t y i n th e
RUL E 14 SUMMON S SE C S . 14-15
7. In Asiavest Limited vs. CA, et al. (G.R. No. 128803, Sept. 25,
1998), an action was filed in Hongkong against a
Philippine re si de nt for a sum of money. Summ ons therein
was served directly through plaintiffs Philippine counsel
upon an occupant of defendant ' s residence in Quezon City.
Thereafter, the judgment of the Hongkong court was
re nde re d and sought to be executed in the Philippines, but
it was resisted for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
Matte rs of procedure, such as service of summons, are
governed by the lex loci, in this case, those of Hong•
kong. There being no proof on this score, under the rule
on processual presumption the same are deemed to be
the same as Philippine law. In the present case, such
s u m m o n s se rve d on a n o n re s i d e n t de f e n da n t in an
action in personam is not valid since e xt ra t e rri t or i a l
service of summons on nonresidents is allowed only in
the instances provided under Sec. 17, Rule 14. Service of
s u m m o n s in thi s case being inva lid, th e Ho ngkon g
jud gm e nt cannot be given effect here, no jurisdict ion
having been acquired over the defendant.
8. A newspaper of general circulation for purposes of
summons by publication, is one which is published for the
dissemination of local news and general information, has a
bona fide subscription list of subscribers, is published
259
RUL E 14 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 16-17
NO T E S
d. Whe r e th e d e f e n d a n t is a r e s i d e n t of th e Philippines
but is temporaril y out of the country.
2. S u m m o n s in a sui t in personam a ga i n s t a resident of the
Philippines temporarily absent therefrom may be validl y
effected by subst it ut e d service unde r Sec. 7 of this Rule.
It is immaterial that the defendant does not in fact receive
actual notice, and the validity of such service is not
affected. While the present Sec. 15 provides for modes of
service which may also be availed of in the case of a
resident defendant temporarily absent, the normal mode of
service on such temporarily absent defendant is by such
subst ituted service under Sec. 7 because personal service
outside the country and service by publ ic a ti on ar e not
ordi na r y me a n s of s um m on s (Montalban, et al. vs. Maxima,
L-22997, Mar. 15, 1968). However, it has also been held that
in such cases, non• compliance wit h th e modes of service
unde r Sec. 18 (now, Sec. 16) is a denial of due process
and re nde rs the proceedings null and void (Castillo vs. CFI
of Bulacan, G.R. No. 55869, Feb. 29, 1984).
261
RUL E 14 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 18-2 0
Comm. Co., Inc. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 70661, April 9,
1987).
NOTE
1 . Any form of a p p e a r a n c e in c ou rt , by th e
defendant, by his agent authorized to do so, or by attorney,
is equivalent to service except where such appea rance is
precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the defendant (Carballo vs. Encarnacion, 92
Phil. 974). See Notes 4 and 5 under Sec. 1, Rule 16.
RULE 15
MO TIO N
S e c t i o n 1. Motion defined. — A m o t i o n is an
a p pl i c at i o n for relie f othe r tha n by a pl eadi ng, (la )
NOTE
1. T hi s a m e n d e d de fi ni t i o n of a m oti o n is a
consequence of the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 6 which limit
the meaning of a pleading to the written sta teme nt of the
respective claims and defenses submitted by the parties
for appropriate judgment, and Sec. 2 of the same Rule
which enum e ra t e s the pleadings allowed. However, as
explained in the notes thereunder, a motion may also be
considered in a broad sense as in the nature of a pleading
since it is among the papers filed in court. Hence, Sec. 10
of this Rule requires a qualified application to motions of
the rules applicable to pleadings.
NOT E S
2
R UL E 15 MOTI ON S SE C S . 5- 6
NOTES
2. Any motion tha t does not comply with Secs. 4, 5 and 6 of this
Rule is a mere scrap of paper, should not be accepted for
filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance and
does not affect any re glem enta ry period involved for the
filing of the requisite pleading. Thus, where the motion
is (a) directed to the clerk of court, not to the pa rti e s, and
(b) merel y sta tes tha t the same is submitted "for the
resolution of the court upon receipt thereof," said motion is
fatally defective (Cledera, et al. vs. Sarmiento, et al., L-
32450-51, June 10, 1971). This rul e ha s bee n a pp l i e d t o
m ot i on s for new t ri a l o r reconsideration where no date for
hea ring the motion is i n d i c a t e d (Manila Surety & Fidelity
Co. vs. Bath Construction & Co., supra; Fulton Insurance
Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co., L-24263, Nov. 18, 1967; Magno
vs. Ortiz, L-22670, Jan. 31, 1969; In the Matter of
Proceedings for Disciplinary Action Against Vicente Almacen,
L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970; Sebastian vs. Cabal, supra; Vda.
deAzarias vs. Maddela, et al., L-25932, Mar. 19, 1971; Phil.
Advertising Counselors, Inc. vs. Revilla, et al., L-31869,
Aug. 8, 1973; Sacdalan vs. Bautista, L-38014, Mar. 27,
1974; New Japan Motors, Inc. vs. Perucho, L-44387,
Nov. 5, 1976; Firme, et al. vs. Reyes, et al., L-35858,
Aug. 21, 1979).
NOTE
S e c . 8 . Omnibus motion. — S u b j e c t to th e
pr ov i si on s of se c ti o n 1 of Rule 9 , a moti o n a t t ac ki n g
a p l e a di n g , or der, j u dg me n t , or p r oc e e d i n g shal l
i n c l u d e al l o b j e c t i o n s t h e n a v a i l a b l e , an d al l
obj e c ti on s not so i nc l ude d shall be de e me d w ai ve d .
(8a)
NOTES
NOTES
MOTION TO DISM I S
(j) T ha t a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t for fi li n g th e c l ai m ha s
not bee n c ompl i e d w ith , (la)
NOTES
272
RUL E 16 M OT I O N T O DI SMI S S SEC . 1
excl usi ve l y ve st e d i n th e Se c ur i t i e s an d E x c ha n g e
Commission, or to special courts such as tax suits which
were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Tax
Appeals. If so, this would properly constitute lack of
jurisdiction over the subject -matter if such cases are filed
in the regular trial courts. Within their respective levels,
the regular trial courts have uniform jurisdiction with
regard to the na ture of the actions they may entertain,
hence if the objection is as to the subject or object involved,
it would necessarily be on either subject-matter jurisdiction
or on venue considerations.
8. The jurisdictional grounds which may be invoked under the
present Rule are, therefore, confined to lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defending part y and the subject -
matt er of the claim. The first has already been
discussed, but it must not be overlooked that the term now
used is not limited to the defendant but applies to all
defending pa rt i e s a ga i ns t whom claims are a sse rt e d
through other initiatory pleadings, such as counterclaims,
cross-claims and third-part y complaints. Jurisdiction is
obt ai ne d over th e ori gi na l de f e n d a n t by se rvi ce of
summons and over the other defending parties by service
of th e pl ea di n g cont ai ni n g the claim. Also, as now
amended, this Rule refers to the subject-matter of each
particular claim and not only to that of the suit, as it was
under the former Rule, which thereby applied only to the
complaint.
a. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint regardless of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein. The defenses asserted in the
answer or motion to dismiss are not to be considered for
this purpose, otherwise the question would depend
e nti re l y upon th e de fe nda nt (Magay vs. Estandian, L-
28975, Feb. 27, 1976).
275
R UL E 16 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
de f e n d a n t de al t wit h th e former as a pa rt y in th e
proceedings below (University of Pangasinan Faculty
Union vs. University of Pangasinan, et al., G.R. No. 63122
Feb. 21, 1984).
279
RUL E 16 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
281
RUL E 16 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
19. The former Rule did not provide specific grounds for a
motion to dismiss where the action, was filed without the
plaintiff having exhausted all administrative remedies
before going to court, a basic rule of political law which is
accepted in adjective law. Similarly, it did not have any
such provision, because it was not then contemplated, for
th e s i t u a t i o n whe r e pri o r re f e r ra l for c onci l ia t i on
p r o c e e d i n g s wa s r e q u i r e d b y th e K a t a r u n g a n g
Pam ba ra nga y Law (P.D. 1508), and later by the Local
Government Code (R.A. 7160), before the case may be filed
in court and th e plaintiff did not comply with such
prerequisite. The remedy then was to authorize a motion
to dismiss such action for failure to state a cause of action
or even for p re m a t ur i t y , despite the dubiet y of such
grounds.
On the other hand, then Sec. l(j) of said Rule provided
as a ground for a motion to dismiss the fact that the suit
was between members of the same family and no earnest
efforts towards a compromise have been made, which
provision was actually taken from Art. 222 of the Civil
Code. T he s e t h re e s i t u a t i o n s , an d ot he r s i m i l a r
contingencies, are now embraced in and assailable under
the new ground for dismissal provided in the revised Rule,
that is, non-compliance with a condition precedent for the
filing of the claim.
283
RUL E 16 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
285
RUL E 16 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
288
R UL E 16 M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S SE C . 1
NO TES
290
RUL E 16 M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S SE C . 3
NOT E S
4. . An or de r d e n yi n g a m o t i o n to d i s m i s s i s
i nte rl oc ut or y an d not a pp e a l a bl e (Harrison
Foundry & Machinery, et al. vs. Harrison Foundry
Workers Association, et al., L-18432, June 19, 1963), but an
order gr a n t i n g a motion to di sm i ss is final an d appe al a ble
(Monares vs. CNS Enterprises, 105 Phil. 1333 fUnrep.J).
However, if the order of dismissal is not an adjudication
2
RUL E 16 M OT I O N T O DISMIS S SEC . 3
NOTES
NOTES
295
RUL E 16 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 6
NOTES
297
RUL E 16 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 6
NOTES
299
RUL E 17 REMEDIA L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
300
RULE 17 DISMISSA L O F ACTION S SE C . 2
NOTES
1. Prior to this amendatory Sec. 2, the rule was that the plaintiff
could not move for the dismissal of his com• plaint if, before
the service of his motion therefor upon the defendant,
the latter had filed a counterclaim which could not remain
pending for independent adjudication by the trial court,
hence the defendant could object to the dismissal of the
action. Applying that provision, it was held that after the
defendant had answered, dismissal can be effected only by
order of the court on proper notice and he ari ng. Such
dismi ssal cannot be ordered over the defendant's objection
if the counterclaim of the defendant cannot remain pending
for independent adjudication, that is, a compulsory
counte rclai m (see Ynotorio vs. Lira, L-16677, Nov. 27,
1964; Lim Tanhu, et al. vs. Ramolete, et al, L-40098, Aug.
29, 1975). The dismissal under this rule was also without
prejudice, except (a) when other• wise stated in the motion
to dismiss, or (b) when stated to be with prejudice in the
order of the court (see Vergara, et al. vs. Ocumen, et al.,
G.R. No. 53971, June 19, 1982).
RUL E 17 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
303
RUL E 17 REMEDIA L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SEC. 3
c o m pl a i n t ma y b e di s mi s s e d upo n mo t i o n o f th e
de f e n d a n t o r upo n th e court' s ow n moti on , w i t h ou t
pr eju di c e to th e right of the d e f e n da n t to pr os e c u t e
hi s c o u n t e r c l a i m i n th e sa m e o r i n a s e p a r a t e
ac ti on. This di s mi s sa l shall hav e th e effect of an
a d j u d i c a t i o n upo n th e me r i t s , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e
de c l are d by th e court. (3a)
NO TES
2 . Th e sec on d s u b s t a n t i a l a m e n d m e n t t o thi s
section is with respect to the disposition of the defendant' s
counte rclai m in the e ve nt the pl a i nt i ff s compla int i s
dismissed. As already observed, he is here gra nte d the
choice to prosecute tha t counterclaim in either the same
or a se pa rat e action, just like the grant of tha t remedy in
Sec. 6 of Rule 16. It may be noted tha t in the pre se nt
i ns t a nc e , as well as unde r th e a fo re st a t e d Sec. 6 of
Rule 16, the defendant is not required to manifest his
RUL E 17 DI SMI SSA L O F ACTI ON S SE C . 3
306
RUL E 17 DI SMI SS A L O F ACTION S SE C . 3
p re -t r i a l s an d a p pe a l s t o th e former Cour t of Fi rs t
Instance (Racimo vs. Diho, L-27804, Feb. 27, 1976) and
th e case may be di sm i sse d for a pp e l l a nt ' s failure to
prosecute his appeal for an unre asonable length of time
(Republic vs. Guarin, et al, L-26367, Jan. 31, 1978). In
a case appealed to the then Court of Fi rst Instance, the
appellant (whether plaintiff or defendant) sta nds in the
same position as the plaintiff in a case originally filed in
said court, hence the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 17 also
apply to said appellant (Capitol Rural Bank of Quezon
City, Inc. vs. Meridian Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 54416,
Oct. 17, 1980).
309
RULE 18
P RE-T RIAL
NO TES
311
RUL E 18 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 3
NOTES
NOT E
et al. vs. Macandog, etc., et al. supra), and the same may
be served directly to him or through his counsel (Lim,
et al. vs. Animas, etc., et al., L-39094, April 18, 1975),
otherwise the proceedings will be null and void (Sagarino
vs. Pelayo, L-27927, June 20, 1977; Patalinjug vs. Peralta,
et al., L-43324, May 5, 1979). It was the duty of counsel
upon whom such notice is served to see to it that his client
receives such notice and attends the pre-trial, otherwise
he will be liable for grave admi nistrati ve disciplinary
action (Taroma, et al. vs. Sayo, et al., L-37296, Oct. 30,
1975).
The proc edure has been simplified in this revised
section in the sense that the notice of pre-trial shall be
served on counsel, and service shall be made on the party
only if he has no counsel. However, the duty of counsel
served with such notice to duly notify his client thereof
remains substantiall y the same.
NOTES
313
RUL E 18 REMEDIA L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 5
the counsel for the plaintiff asserted that he had been given
authorit y by his client to compromise but the court was
not satisfied tha t said a ut ho ri t y existed, the court i s
authorized to dismiss the case for non-appea rance of the
plaintiff (Home Insurance Co. vs. U.S. Lines Co., et al., L-
25593, Nov. 15, 1967). A spec ial a u t h o ri t y for an a t t o r n e
y t o c o m p rom i s e i s r e q u i re d u nde r Sec. 23 , Rule 138.
Under Art. 1878(c) of the Civil Code, a special power of
attorne y is required (see Servicewide Specialists, Inc. vs.
Sheriff of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 74586, Oct. 17,
1986). However, it has also been held tha t the authorit y need
not be in writing and may be established by com pete nt
evidence or subseque ntl y ratified by the pa rt y
c o n c e r ne d (Lim Pin vs. Tan, et al., L-47740, July 20,
1982). If th e pa rt y is a c or po ra t i on , suc h authorit y must
be made with an appropriate resolution of its board of
directors (Republic vs. Plan, et al., G.R. No. 56962, Aug.
21, 1982).
NOTES
315
RUL E 18 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 6
NOTE
317
RUL E 18 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 7
NOTES
1. . Thi s p ro vi s i o n on th e p r o c e d u r e in p re -t r i a l
proceedings in civil cases is different from tha t obtaining in
criminal cases wherein, as provided in Sec. 2 of Rule
118, an a gre em e nt or admission of a pa rt y in the pre-trial
conference shall be admissible a ga inst him only if reduced
to writi ng and signed by him and his counsel. However, the
binding effect of the pre-trial order issued under this section
is subst a nt i al l y the same as a pre-trial order in criminal
cases, as provided in Sec. 4 of said Rule.
319
RULE 19
INTERVENTION
NOTES
2. Int ervent ion is not intended to change the nat ure and
cha racte r of the action itself (Garcia, etc., et al. vs. David, et
al., 67 Phil. 279). In general, an independent controversy
cannot be injected into a suit by inte rve nti on (67A C.J.S.
805), hence such intervention will not be allowed where it
would enlarge the issues in the action and expa n d th e
scope of th e re me di e s (Big Country Ranch Corp. vs. CA,
et al., supra).
R UL E 19 INTERVENTIO N SE C . 1
321
RUL E 19 RE ME DI A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 1
323
RUL E 19 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 1
NOTES
325
RUL E 19 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SECS . 3 4
NOTES
327
RULE 20
CALENDAR OF CASES
S e c t i o n 1. Calendar of cases. — Th e c le r k of
court, un de r th e di rect s u pe r v i s i o n o f th e ju dge ,
shall kee p a cal e nda r of case s for pre-trial, thos e
w h os e tr i al s w er e a dj ou r n e d o r p o s t p o n e d , an d
thos e wit h moti on s to set for he ar i ng. P r efe re nc e
shall be gi ve n to habeas corpus case s, el ec ti o n cases,
spe ci al civil ac ti ons, and thos e so re qui re d by law.
(la , R22 )
NOTE
NOTE
329
RULE 21
SU BP O E N
NOTE
NOTES
1.. Th e e n u m e r a t i o n of th e pe r s o n s who ar e
authorized to issue subpoenas has been expanded by the
inclusion of the officer or body aut horized by law in
connection with investigations conducted by them. Also, a
municipal trial court may now issue a subpoena for the
atte ndance before it of a prisoner even if he is not
confined in a municipal jail, unless such prisoner has
been se nt e nc e d to de a t h , reclusion perpetua or
life i m p r i s o n m e n t an d his de si re d a p p e a r a n c e ha s
not been authorized by the Supreme Court.
331
R UL E 2 1 R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 4 , 5
NOTE
s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i z a t i o n for th e i s s u a n c e o f
s u b p o e n a s for th e p e r s o n s na me d i n said notic e
by the cler k of the court of the place in w hic h the
d e p o s i t i o n i s t o b e t a ke n . Th e cle r k shal l not,
how e ve r , i ssu e a s u b poe n a duces tecum to any suc h
per son w i th ou t an or der of the court. (5a, R23)
Sec . 6 . Service. — S e r v i c e of a s u b p o e n a
shall be mad e in th e same man ne r as pe r s on al or
s u b s t i t u t e d s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s . Th e or i g i n a l
shal l be e x h i b i t e d an d a cop y t h e r e o f d e l i ve r e d
to th e pe r so n on w ho m i t i s ser ve d, t e n de r i n g to
hi m th e fee s for on e day ' s a t t e n d a n c e an d th e
ki l o me t r a g e al l ow e d b y the s e Rul es, e xc e p t that,
whe n a s u b p oe n a i s issue d b y o r o n behal f o f
the R e p u bl i c of th e P h i l i p p i n e s or an office r or
age nc y thereof, the te n de r nee d not be ma de. The
se r vic e mus t be mad e so as to all ow the w i t ne s s
a r e a s o n a b l e ti m e for p r e p a r a ti o n and tr ave l to the
pl ac e of a tte n da nc e . If the su bpoe n a is duces tecum,
the re as on a bl e cost of pr od uc i n g the books,
d o c u m e n t s o r t h i n g s d e m a n d e d s h a l l al s o b e
te n de re d. (6a, R23)
333
R UL E 21 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M S E C S . 9 , 10
i s r e q u i r e d , an d th e cos t o f suc h w a r r a n t an d
s e i z u r e o f s u c h w i t n e s s s h a l l b e pai d b y th e
w i t n e s s i f th e c our t i s s u i n g i t shal l d e t e r mi n e
th a t hi s f a i l u r e t o a n s w e r th e s u b p o e n a wa s
willful and w i t h ou t just e xc use . (11 , R23)
Sec. 9 . Contempt. — F a i l u r e by an y p e r s o n
w i th ou t a de quat e caus e to obey a su bp oe n a serve d
upo n hi m shall be de e me d a c on te mp t of the court
from w hi c h the su bpoe n a i s i ssue d. I f the su bpoe n a
wa s not i ssue d by a court, the d i s o be di e n c e the ret o
shall be pu ni s h e d in ac c or dan c e wit h th e appl icable
law or Rule. (12a, R23)
NOTE
NOTES
COMPUTATION OF TIME
NOTES
336
R UL E 22 C O M P U T AT I O N O F T IM E
337
R UL E 22 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
340
RUL E 22 C O M P U T AT I O N O F T IM E SE C . 1
the Spa nish Civil Code, but with the addition of "years,"
which wa s orda i ne d to mea n 365 da ys. The pre se n t
provisions of E.O. 292 again adopts tha t concept of a
calendar month, with the modification of how many shall
compose a year.
I n civil su i t s , th e s t a t u t e i s i n t e r p o s e d b y th e
legislature as an impa rtial arbiter. In the construction of
the penal sta t ute , there is no intendme nt to be made in
favor of either part y. In criminal cases, the State is the
gra nt o r s u r r e n de r i n g by an act of grace the ri ght to
prosecute and declaring an offense to be no longer the
subject of prosecution, hence such sta tute s of limitations
are liberally construed in favor of the accused.
Also, the rule on pretermission of holidays in civil suits
provides tha t in construing its stat ute of limitations, the
first day is excluded and the last day included, unless that
last day is dies non in which case the act may be done on
the succeeding business day. In criminal cases, such a
si t ua t i o n cannot l e ngt he n the period fixed by law to
prosecute such offender. The waiver or loss of the right to
prosecute is automatic and by operation of law. Where
the last day to file an information falls on a Sunda y or
legal holiday, the period cannot be extended up to the
next working day since prescription has already set in.
The que st i on of the applic abil it y of this Rule in
computing periods provided by an "applicable statute," as
RUL E 22 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
NOTE
D E P O S I T I O N S P E N DI N G ACTION
NOTES
343
R UL E 23 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
344
RUL E 23 DEPOSITION S P E N DI N G ACTIO N SE C . 1
NOTE
i s u n a b l e t o a t t e n d o r t e s t i f y b e c a u s e o f age ,
si c kne ss , infir mity, or i mpr i son me nt; or (4) that the
party offer i ng th e d e p os i t i o n ha s bee n una bl e t o
pr oc ure th e a t t e n da n c e of the w i t n e s s by su bpoe na ;
o r (5) u po n a p p l i c a t i o n an d n o t i c e , t ha t suc h
e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s e xi s t a s t o ma k e i t
de s i r a bl e , in th e i nte res t o f justi c e an d wit h due
r e g a r d t o th e i m p o r t a n c e o f p r e s e n t i n g th e
t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s or al l y i n o pe n c our t , t o
al l ow th e de p o s i t i o n to be use d; and
(d) If onl y par t of a d e p o s i t i o n is offe re d in e v i de n c e by
a party, th e a dve r s e party ma y requi re hi m to
i nt r odu c e all of i t w hi c h i s rel e van t to the part
i nt r odu c e d , an d an y party ma y i nt r odu c e any othe r
parts. (4a, R24)
NOT E S
348
R UL E 23 DEPOSITION S P E N D I N G A C TI O N SE C . 5
NOTE
350
RUL E 23 D E P O S I T I O N S P E N D I N G A CT I O N SE C S . 10- 11 , 1 2
NOTE
NOTES
352
RUL E 23 D E P O S I T I O N S P E N D I N G A CT I O N S E C S . 15-1 6
NOTE
356
R UL E 23 D E P O S I T I O N S P E N D I N G A C TI O N SE C S . 24- 2 6
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s serve d shal l b e d e l i v e re d b y
th e par t y t a ki n g th e d e p o s i t i o n t o th e off i c e r
d e s i g n a t e d i n th e n o t i c e , wh o s h a l l p r o c e e d
pr omptly, in th e ma nne r pr ovi de d by sec ti on s 17,
19 and 20 of thi s Rule, to take th e te s ti mon y of the
w i t ne s s in r es pon s e to the i n te r r oga t or i e s and to
pr e par e , cer tify, an d file or mail th e d e p o s i t i o n ,
a t t a c h i n g t h e r e t o th e cop y o f th e n oti c e an d the
i nte r r og at or i e s rec ei ve d by him. (26, R24)
358
R UL E 23 DEPOSITI ON S P E NDI N G ACTIO N SE C . 2 9
360
RU L E 2 4
D E P O S I T I O N S BE FO R E ACT IO N
O R P E N D I N G AP PE A L
t h e r e i n , for th e or de r d e s c r i be d i n th e pe t i t i on .
A t le as t tw e n t y (20) day s before th e dat e o f th e
h e a r i n g , th e c our t shal l c au s e n oti c e t h e r e o f t o
be ser ve d on th e par ti e s and pr os pe c ti v e d e p on e n t s
i n th e ma n n e r pr ov i de d for s e r v i c e o f s u m mo n s .
(3a, R134)
362
RUL E 2 4 D E P O S I T I O N S B E F O R E A C TI O N SE C S . 1-7
O R PEN DIN G APPEA L
NOTES
1. This was formerly Rule 134 and has been trans• posed here.
As distinguished from depositions de bene esse which are
governed by Rule 23, this Rule regulates the taking of
depositions in perpetuam rei memoriam, the pur• pose of
which is to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses for
probable use in a future case or in the event of further
proceedings in the same case. For other ways of perpetu•
ating testimony in criminal cases, see Secs. 12, 13 and 15
of Rule 119 and the notes thereunder.
2. Sec. 1 is the procedure for perpetuating testimony of
witnesses prior to the filing of the case and in anticipa• tion
thereof. Sec. 7 is the procedure in pe rpet ua ti n g testimony
after judgment in the Regional Trial Court and before it has
become executory or during the pendency of an appeal
therefrom.
RUL E 24 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 1-7
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
365
RUL E 25 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 5
NOTES
NOT E
367
R UL E 25 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 6
368
RU L E 26
AD M IS S I O N BY ADVE R S E PARTY
NOTES
370
RUL E 26 ADMI SSIO N B Y A D V E R S E PART Y SE C . 4
NOT E
372
RULE 27
NOTES
375
RULE 28
NO TES
2. . A blood g r o u p i n g t e s t ma y be o r d e r e d an d
conducted under this Rule on a child subject of a paternit y
suit. While the Rule speaks of an examination of a part y,
such child is considered a part y for purposes thereof as the
action is brought for its benefit (Beach vs. Beach,
U.S.C.A., D.C., June 28, 1940, 3 Fed. Rules Service,
p. 397).
376
SE C S . 3- 4
R UL E 28 P H Y S I C A L A N D M E N TA L
E X A M I N ATI O N O F P E R S O N S
NOT E
377
R UL E 28 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M S E C S . 3- 4
RE FU S A L TO COMP LY
WIT H MODE S OF DISCOVERY
S e c t i o n 1. Refusal to answer. — If a pa rt y or ot he r
d e p o n e n t re fu se s t o a n s w e r an y q u e s t i o n upo n ora l
e x a m i n a t i o n , th e e x a m i n a t i o n ma y b e c o m p l e t e d o n
o t h e r m a t t e r s o r a d j o u r n e d a s th e p r o p o n e n t o f th e
q u e s t i o n ma y p re f e r . Th e p r o p o n e n t ma y t h e r e •
afte r appl y t o th e p r o p e r c o ur t o f th e pl ac e w h e r
e th e d e p o s i t i o n i s be i n g t a k e n for a n o r de r t o
c om pe l a n a n s w e r . Th e sa m e p r o c e d u r e ma y b e
a va i l e d o f whe n a p a r t y or a w i t n e s s re fuse s t o a n s w e
r an y i n t e r r o g a t o r y s u b m i t t e d u n d e r Rul e s 2 3 o r
25.
I f th e a p p l i c a t i o n i s g r a n t e d , th e c o u r t shal l
r e q u i r e th e r e f u s i n g pa r t y o r d e p o n e n t t o a n s w e r
th e q u e s t i o n o r i n t e r r o g a t o r y an d i f i t als o fi nd s
tha t th e re fusa l t o a n s w e r wa s w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l
j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i t ma y r e q u i r e th e re f us i n g p a r t y o r
d e p o n e n t o r th e c o u n s e l a d v i s i n g th e re f us a l , o r
bot h o f t he m , t o pa y th e p r o p o n e n t th e a m o u n t o
f th e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n o b t a i n i n g th e
or de r , i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s fees.
I f th e a p p l i c a t i o n i s de n i e d an d th e c o ur t finds
t h a t i t wa s filed w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i fi c a t i o n ,
th e c o ur t ma y r e q u i r e th e p r o p o n e n t o r th e c o u n s e l
a d v i s i n g th e fili ng o f th e a p p l i c a t i o n , o r bot h o f
t hem , t o pa y t o th e re f us i n g pa r t y o r d e p o n e n t th e
a m o u n t o f th e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n
o p p o s i n g th e a p p l i c a t i o n i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s
fees, (la )
379
RUL E 29 REMEDIA L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 3
NOT E S
TRIAL
NOTES
383
R UL E 30 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 3- 4
on e m o n t h fo r e a c h a d j o u r n m e n t , no r mor e
tha n thre e mo n th s i n all, e xc e p t w he n a ut h or i z e
d i n w r i t i n g b y th e Cour t A d mi n i s t r a t or , S u p r e m e
Court. (3a, R22)
NOTE S
1. . P o s t p o n e m e n t s ar e a d d r e s s e d to th e soun d
discretion of the court and, in the absence of grave abuse of
discretion, cannot be controlled by ma ndam u s (Olsen vs.
Fressel & Co., 37 Phil. 121).
2. The provisions of Sec. 3 of thi s Rule are not applicable to
criminal cases as the rule on postpone ment s in criminal
cases is governed by Sec. 2, Rule 119 (People vs. Catolico,
L-31261-65, April 20, 1971).
R UL E 30 TRIA L SE C . 5
385
RUL E 30 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 5
NOT E S
1. . U n d e r s c o r i n g th e i m p o r t a n c e of a p r e - t ri a l
conference and the proceeding conducted therein, this
ame nde d section additionall y provides that , unless the
court specifically directs, the trial shall be limited to the
issues stated in the pre -trial order.
387
R UL E 30 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 7, 8
NOT E
NOTES
389
R UL E 30 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 0
NOT E S
391
RULE 31
S e c t i o n 1 . Consolidation. — W he n a c t i o n s
i n v o l v i n g a c o m m o n q u e s t i o n of law or fact are
p e n d i n g be f or e th e c ou r t , i t ma y or de r a j oi n t
h e a r i n g or trial of an y or all th e ma tt e r s in i ssu e in
th e a c t i o n s ; i t ma y or de r al l th e a c t i o n s c on •
s ol i date d ; an d i t ma y mak e suc h or de r s c o n c e r n i n g
p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e i n a s ma y t e n d t o a v oi d
u n n e c e s s a r y c ost s or del ay. (1)
NOTES
392
R UL E 31 C O N S O L I D A TI O N O R SEVERANC E SE C . 1
the case which was appealed later and bearing the higher
docket number is consolidated with the case having the
lower docket number.
393
RUL E 31 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 2
NOTES
S e c t i o n 1. Reference by consent. — By w r i t t e n
c on se n t of both par ti e s, the court may or de r an y or
all of th e i s s u e s in a cas e to be r e f e r r e d to a
c o mmi s si on e r to be agree d upo n by the par ti e s or
to be a p p o i n t e d by th e court. As use d in the s e
Rules, th e word "c ommi ssi one r " i ncl u de s a refe ree ,
an au di t or and an e xa mi ne r, (la , R33)
395
R UL E 32 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 4
NOTES
1.. I n th e p r o c e e d i n g s u n de r thi s se c ti on , th e
commissioner may rule upon the admissibility of evidence,
unless otherwise provided in the order of reference. In
re cept ion of evidence before th e clerk of court unde r
the provisions of Sec. 9, Rule 30, the clerk does not have
tha t power and he shall just receive the evidence subject
to the objections interposed the reto and such questions or
objections shall be resolved by the court after the clerk has
submitte d his report to it.
2. What Sec. 3 authorizes to be limited is the scope of th e
proc ee di ngs before th e com mi ssi one r, not the modality
thereof. The order of reference may direct the commissioner
to perform different acts in and for purposes of the
proceedings but, what e ve r may be the case, the
re quirem ent for him to hold a hearing cannot be dispensed
with as this is the essence of due process (Aljem's Corp.,
etc. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 122216, Mar. 28, 2001).
396
RUL E 32 T RI A L B Y C O M M I S S I O N E R SE C S . 5- 9
t o a f ai t h f u l an d h o n e s t p e r f o r m a n c e t he re of .
(14, R33)
NOT E S
399
RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EV IDEN CE
NO TES
400
RUL E 33 DE M URR E R T O E VI DE NC E SE C . 1
401
RUL E 3 3 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
NOTES
403
RUL E 34 REMEDIA L LA W C O M P E N D I U M 8EC. 1
6. . J u d g m e n t s on th e pl e a di n g s and s u m m a r y
judgments are also to be distinguished from judgments by
default. It will be observed tha t in default judgm ent
(a) ge nui n e i ssue s of fact and/or law are norm a ll y
involved; (b) evidence must be introduced on the material
allegations, albeit ex parte, except in cases covered by the
rule on summary procedure; (c) all cases may be subject
to judgments by default, except those for annulment or
declaration of nullity of marriage or legal separation; and
(d) motions for default judgments may be filed ex parte,
except under the rule on summa ry procedure wherein
upon failure of defendant to answer, the court, motu
proprio or on p l a i n t i f f s mot i on, sha l l r e n d e r th e
corresponding judgment.
405
RU L E 3 5
SU M M AR Y J U D G M E N T S
N OT E S
NOTE S
4. The test for the propriety of a motion for summary judgm ent
is whe t he r the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support
of the motion are sufficient to overcome the opposing papers
and to justify the finding that, as a matt er of law, there is no
defense to the action or the claim is clearl y m e r i t o r i o u s
(Estrada vs. Consolacion, et al., L-40948, June 29, 1976).
408
RUL E 35 SUMMAR Y JUDGMENT S SE C . 4
j u s t . Th e f ac t s s o s p e c i f i e d s h a l l b e d e e m e d
e s t a bl i s h e d , an d th e trial shal l b e c on d u c t e d o n the
c o n t r ov e r t e d facts ac c or di ngl y. (4a, R34)
NOT E
410
RUL E 35 S E C S . 5- 6
NOT E
J U D G M E N T S , FINAL ORDERS
AN D ENTRY TH EREO F
NOTES
412
R UL E 3 6 J U D GM E N T S , FINA L ORDE R S SEC .
1 AN D E N T R Y T HE R E O F
5. As a rul e , a j u d g m e n t upo n c o m p r om i s e is im me di at e l y
exec utory (Pamintuan vs. Muhos, et al., L-26331, Mar. 15,
1968; Central Bank vs. CA, et al., L-38224, Dec. 10, 1974;
Pasay City Gov't, et al. vs. CFI of Manila, et al, L 32162,
Sept. 28, 1984) in the absence of a motion to set the same
aside on the ground of fraud, mistake, etc. (Cadano vs.
Cadano, L-34998, Jan. 11, 1973; Zagala, et al. vs. Jimenez, et
al, L 33050, July 23, 1987), and if such motion is made and
denied, appeal may be ta ken from tha t order of denial
(De los Reyes vs. Ugarte,
75 Phil. 505; Enriquez vs. Padilla, 77 Phil. 373). In
414
RUL E 3 6 J U D G M E NT S , FINA L ORDE R S SE C .
1 AN D ENTR Y THE RE O F
417
RUL E 36 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 1
18. Final orders should state the facts on which they ar e base d
(Yuson de Pua vs. San Agustin, L-27402, July 25, 1981).
While the Rules do not specifically require findings of fact
and the law on which an order of dismissal is based, for the
satisfaction of the losing part y and to assist the appellate
court in the resolution of an appeal therefrom, a trial court
should reason out its order instead of merel y incorporating,
by reference, the contents of the motion to dismiss
(Mascunana vs. Prov. Bd. of Neg. Occ, L-27013, Oct. 15, 1977).
Minute orders, or those merely sta t i n g tha t th e trial
court had resolved to gra n t the motion to dismiss, should
be avoided. Instead, the trial court should specify the
reasons io r the dismissal so tha t the appellate court can
readily de term ine whet he r there is prima facie j ust i fi c at i on
for the order of di sm issa l (Continental Bank vs. Tiangco, G.R.
No. 50480, Dec. 14, 1979). In issuing a final and
appealable order, the trial
R UL E 3 6 J U D G M E N T S , F I N A L OR D E R S SE C
1 AN D E N T R Y T HE R E O F
court should state clearly the reasons for its issuance, with
specific references to the facts and law relied upon,
necessary for the full underst anding thereof; otherwise,
th e a p p e l l a t e cour t would be at a loss or at lea s t
unnecessaril y inconvenienced in ascertaining the definite
basis of the order (Amunategue vs. CA, et at., L-30340,
June 30, 1979).
19. Every court having juri sdicti on to re nde r a particular
judgment has inherent power and authority to enforce it
and to exercise equitable control over such enforcement.
The court has authorit y to inquire whether its j u d g m e n t
ha s been e xe c ut e d , and will re m ov e obstructions to the
enforcement thereof. Such authorit y extends not only to
such orders and such writs as may be necessary to carry out
the judgment into effect and render it binding and
operative, but also to such orders as may be necessary to
prevent an improper enforcement of the judgment. If a
judgment is sought to be perverted and made the medium
of consummating a wrong, the court on proper application
can prevent it [31 Am. JUT., Judgments, Sec. 882, pp. 363
364] (Cabrias vs. Adil, L-49648, Mar. 18, 1985).
419
RUL E 36 R E M E D I A L LA W COMPENDIU M SE C . 2
22. . Sec. 40, B.P. Blg. 129 has aut horized memo• ra ndu m
decisions, a species of succinctly writ ten decisions by
a p p e l l a t e court s for e xpe di e nc y, pra c t i c a l i t y and
c onve ni e nce in c o ns i d e ra t i o n of th e docket s t a t u s of our
courts. I t has been held tha t such decisions comply with
the const i t ut i onal m a nda t e (Oil and Natural Gas
Commission vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 114323, Sept. 28, 1999).
Howe ver, to be valid, such m e m o r a n d u m decision
should actuall y embody the factual findings and legal
conclusions in an annex attac hed to and made an integral
pa r t of th e decision. Also, such de cisions should be
R UL E 3 6 J U D G M E N T S , F I N A L OR D E R S SE C .
2 A N D EN T R Y T H E R E O F
23.. A judgm ent for support does not become final because
the allowance for the right of support is essentially
provisional (Advincula vs. Advincula, L-19065, Jan. 31,
1964).
421
RUL E 3 6 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 6
NO TES
1. The am e ndm e nt s unde r this section, to the effect tha t the date
of finality of the j udgm e nt or final order shall be deemed
to be the date of its entry, changes the former rule and
aba ndons the j uri sprude nc e on what was then considered
the date of entry of j udgm e nt s and final orders.
The former doc t ri n e wa s tha t th e e nt r y i s not
synonymous or necessaril y simultaneous with the finality
of the jud gm e nt or final order. It was understood then
tha t the finality of a jud gm e nt or final order, for purposes
of appeal or execution, took place by operation of law by
the lapse of the re glem enta ry 15- or 30- day period, but
the ent ry thereof may take place therea fte r as i t is the
physical act of actuall y recording the dispositive portion
of the j udgm e nt or final order in the book of entrie s of
j ud gm e nt s .
Thus, i t was repeatedl y held tha t the finality of the
judgme nt was entirely distinct from its entry and the delay
in the latter does not affect the effectivity of the former
which is counted from the expiration of the period to appeal
(Munez, et al. us. CA, et al., L-46040, July 23, 1987, and
cases cited therein,).
This a m e n dm e n t in Sec. 2 makes finality and entry
s i m u l t a n e o u s by ope rat i on of law an d e l i m i na t e s the
confusion and guesswork whene ver the pa rtie s could not
have access, for one reason or anot her, to the book of
entrie s of jud gm e nt s. It also avoids the usual problem
where the physical act of writing out the entry is delayed
by neglect or sloth.
R UL E 36 J U D GM E N T S , FINA L ORDE R S
AN D E N TR Y T H E R E O F
SE C S . 3- 5
NOTES
424
J U D G M E N T S , FINA L
SE C . 6
ORDE R S AN D ENTR Y
T HE R E O F
425
RUL E 37 R E M E D I A L LA W COMPENDIU M SE C . 1
RULE 37
NOTE S
426
RULE 37 NE W T R I A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N SE C . 1
4.. It has been held, however, tha t even if the motion for
re c onsi de ra ti on is based on subst a nt ia l l y the same
grounds as movant ' s memorandum whe n the case was
submitte d for decision, it is not pr o forma if it specifically
points out the conclusions allegedly not su pp or t e d by the
evidence (Maturan vs. Araula, et al, G.R. No. 57392, Jan.
30, 1982), aside from st a t i n g a d di t i on a l specific
re asons for said grounds (Vina vs. CA, et al, L-39498,
Dec. 23, 1983).
RUL E 37 NE W TR I A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N SE C . 1
429
R UL E 37 RE ME DI A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 1
431
RUL E 37 R E M E D I A L LA W COMPENDIU M SE C . 1
13. A motion for reopening the trial, unlike a motion for new
trial, is not specifically mentioned in the Rules but is
ne vertheless a recognized procedural recourse or device
de r i vi n g va l i di t y an d a c c e p t a n c e from long established
usage. It differs from a motion for new trial,
RUL E 37 NE W TR I A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N SE C . 2
NOT E S
435
REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 6
NOTES
NOTES
NOTES
439
RUL E 37 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 9
NOT E
NOTES
441
R UL E 38 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 3
5. A petition for relief under Sec. 1 of this Rule has bee n held
to be a p p l i c a b l e to all ki nd s of spe c ia l proceedings,
such as land registration (Elvira vs. Filamor,
56 Phil. 305), intestate settlement (Reyes vs. Gonzales,
47 Phil. 339; Onas vs. Javilo, 54 Phil. 602) an d
gua rdianship proceedings (Panis vs. Yangco, 52 Phil.
498).
NOT E S
1. The two periods for the filing of a petition for relief are not
extendible and never inte rrupt ed (Quijano vs. Tameta, L-
16473, April 20, 1961). Thus, a petition for certiorari does
not suspend the periods prescribed by this section
(Palomares vs. Jimenez, 90 Phil. 773), and n e i t h e r does a
mot i o n for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of th e order subject of the
petition for relief (Cruz vs. Oppen, Inc., L-23861, Feb. 17,
1968), especially if filed in the wrong court. These periods
cannot be subject to a condition or a contingency as they
are devised to meet a condition or a contingency (Vda.
de Salvatierra vs. Garlitos, etc., et al., 103 Phil. 157). Both
periods must be complied with (see Phil. Rabbit Bus
Lines, Inc. vs. Arciaga, et al., L-29701, Mar. 16, 1987).
443
R UL E 38 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 3
NOTES
44 6
RUL E 3 8 RE L IE F FR O M J U D G M E N T S , SE C .
6 O R D E R S O R O T HE R P R O C E E D I N G S
NOTES
448
RULE 39
I f th e a p pe a l ha s be e n dul y p e r f e c t e d an d
finally r e s ol v e d , th e e xe c u t i o n ma y f or t hw i t h be
a ppl i e d for in the court of ori gi n, on moti on of the
j u dg me n t obl i ge e , s u b mi t t i n g t h e r ew i t h ce r ti fi e d
true c opi e s of the ju dg me n t or j u dg me n t s or final
or de r or or de rs s oug h t to be e nf orce d and of the
e ntry thereof, wit h notic e to the a dve r se party.
The a ppe l l ate court may, on moti on in the same
case w he n , the i nte res t of justi c e so requires, direct
the court of origin to issue the writ of e xec uti on,
(n)
NOTES
vs. Zulueta, 106 Phil. 264; cf. Denso [Phil.], Inc. vs.
IAC, et al., G.R. No. 75000, Feb. 27, 1987; Montilla vs.
CA, et al., L-47968, May 9, 1988).
2. On the aspect of appealability, these revised Rules use th e
adjective "final" with re spe c t to orde r s and resolutions
since, to terminate a case, the trial courts issue orders, while
the appellate courts and most of the quasi- judicial agencies
issue resolutions. Jud gme nt s are not so qualified since the
use of th e so-called i nte rl oc ut or y judgm ent s is not favored
in this jurisdiction, while such categorization of an order or
a resolution for purposes of de noti n g tha t i t is appeal able
is to di st i ngui sh them from interlocutory orders or
resolutions. However, by force of extended usage, the
phrase "final and executory jud gm e nt " i s sometime s used
and tole rate d, although th e use of "e xe c ut or y" alone
would suffice. T hes e o bs e r va t i on s also apply to th e
se ve ra l and s e pa ra t e judgme nts contemplated in Rule 36,
or pa rtia l judgments which totally dispose of a particular
claim or severable part of the case, subject to the power of
the court to suspend or defer action on an appeal from or any
further proceeding in such special judgment, or as
provided by Rule 35 on the m at t e r of partial summar y
judgme nts which are not c o n s i d e re d as a p p e a l a b l e (see
Sec. 4, Rule 35 an d explanation therein).
The second pa ra gra ph of this section is an innovation
in response to complaints over the delay caused by the
former procedure in obtaining a writ of execution of a
judgme nt, which has already been affirmed on appeal,
with notice to the parties. As things then stood, after the
entry of judgm ent in the appellate court, the prevailing
party had to wait for the records of the case to be remanded
to the court of origin when and where he could then move
for the issuance of a writ of execution. The intervening
time could sometimes be substantial, especially if the court
a quo is in a remote province, and could also be availed of
by the losing part y to delay or thwa rt actual execution.
450
RUL E 3 9 E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N AN D SE C
1 EFFECT S O F J U D G M E N T S
the period to appeal, tha t is, even before the judgm ent or
order has become executory.
When execution is a matt er of right, the judgment
debtor need not be given advance notice or prior hearing
of such motion for execution (Pamintuan, et al. vs. Muhoz,
et al., L-26331, Mar. 15, 1968; Far Eastern Surety &
Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Vda. de Hernandez, et al., supra;
Development Bank of Rizal vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 75964,
Dec. 1, 1987). An ex parte motion for the issuance of the
writ would suffice since the trial court may take judicial
notice of the record of the case to determine the propriety
of the issuance thereof. However, where the losing party
shows tha t subsequent facts had take n place which would
render execution unjust, a hearing on the motion should
be held (Luzon Surety Co. vs. Beson, L-26865-66,
Jan. 30, 1976).
4 . W h e r e th e j u d g m e n t o r o rde r ha s be come
executory, the court cannot refuse to issue a writ of
execution, except:
(a ) Whe n s u b s e q u e n t facts an d c i r c u m s t a n c e s t r a n s p i r e
whi c h r e n d e r suc h e x e c u t i o n u nj u s t o r impossible,
such as a supervening cause like the act of the
C om m i ss i o ne r of Civil Service findi ng th e pl aint iff
administrativel y guilty and which constituted a bar to his
re i nsta t em e nt as ordered by the trial court in a civil case
(Butuan City vs. Ortiz, et al, L-18054, Dec. 22, 1961), or
where the defendant bank was placed under receivership
(Lipan vs. Development Bank of Rizal, G.R. No. 73884,
Sept. 24, 1987);
(b) On equitable grounds, as when there has been a c h a n g
e in th e s i t u a t i o n of th e p a r t i e s whic h ma ke s
exe c ut i on i n e q ui t a bl e (Albar vs. Carandang, L-18003, Sept.
29, 1962; Heirs of Pedro Guminpin vs. CA, et al, L-
34220, Feb. 21, 1983; Luna vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
68374, June 18, 1985);
RUL E 3 9 E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N SE C
1 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
(c) Where the judgment has been novated by the pa rtie s (Fua
Cam Lu vs. Yap Fauco, 74 Phil. 287; cf. Zapanta vs. De
Rotaeche, 21 Phil. 154; Salvante vs. Cruz,
88 Phil. 236; Dormitorio vs. Fernandez, et al., L-25889
Aug. 21, 1976);
(d) When a petition for relief or an action to enjoin the
j udgm e nt is filed and a preliminary injunction is prayed
for and granted (see Sec. 5, Rule 38);
(e) When the judgm ent has become dormant, the 5-year period
under Sec. 6 of this Rule having expired without the
judgment having been revived (Cunanan vs.
CA, et al., L-25511, Sept. 28, 1968); or
(f)Where the judgment turns out to be incomplete (Del Rosario
vs. Villegas, 49 Phil. 634; Ignacio, et al. vs. Hilario, et al., 76
Phil. 605) or is conditional (Cu Unjieng, etc. vs. Mabalacat
Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 380) since, as a matter of law, such
judgment cannot become final.
5. Quashal of a writ of execution is proper when
(a) it was improvidently issued; (b) it was defective in
substance; (c) it is issued against the wrong party; (d) the
judgment was already satisfied; (e) it was issued without
authorit y; (f) a change in the situation of the parties
renders execution inequitable; and (g) the controversy was
never validly submitted to the court (Cobb Perez vs. Lantin, L-
22320, May 22, 1968; Sandico, et al. vs. Piguing, et al.,
L-26115, Nov. 29, 1971). The same remedy is also available
where the writ of execution varies the terms of the
judgment, or where it is sought to be enforced against
p ro pe r t y exe m p t from execut ion or wher e t he r e i s
ambiguity in the terms of the judgment. Ultimately, these
defects may also be challenged on appeal or in certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus actions (Limpin, et al. vs. IAC,
et al., G.R. No. 70987, Jan. 30, 1987).
Where there is substa ntial variance between the
judgment and the writ of execution issued to enforce the
453
R UL E 39 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 1
455
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W COMPENDIU M SE C . 1
NOTES
NOTES
459
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C 4
NOTES
461
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SEC . 4
In People's Bank & Trust Co. vs. San Jose, et al. (96
Phil. 895), immediate execution was allowed for the
pa ym e nt of support of an heir of the e state under
admi nistration, and his urgent need therefor, not the
filing of the bond, was the pa ra m ount consideration
for such order. To consider the mere posting of a bond
as a "good re a s o n " for i m m e d i a t e e x e c ut i o n of
judgme nts pending appeal would become routinary,
o r th e rul e r a t h e r t ha n th e exc e pt i on, and this
situation is not contemplated or intended in the Rules.
5. . While insol ve nc y of th e j u d g m e n t de bt o r or
i mm i ne n t da n ge r there of has been considered a good
reason for discretionary execution, that rule does not apply
whe re, a ssumi n g tha t one of th e j udgm e n t debtors is
insolvent, the other judgme nt co-debtor is not and, under
the te rms of the judgm ent , the liability of the latter is
either subsidiary to or solidary with the former (Philippine
National Bank vs. Puno, et al., G.R. No. 76018,
Feb. 10, 1989).
466
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 4
vs. CA, et al. (G.R. No. 64931, Aug. 31 , 1984) holding that
as long as such motion is filed before th e appeal is
perfected, the writ may issue after the period for appeal.
In Yabut vs. IAC, et al. (G.R. No. 69208 ,
May 28, 1986), respondents received a copy of the decision
on July 23, 1984, and the y appealed the following day.
Petitioner, on the other hand, received his copy of said
decision on Jul y 20, 1984 and filed a motion for execution
pe nd i n g a ppea l on Jul y 25 , 1984. Said motion was
seasonably filed as the appeal of the respondent was not
perfected on the day they filed their notice of appeal but
on the expiration of the last day to appeal, which was
Au gus t 7, 1984 (cf. Montelibano vs. Bacolod-Murcia
Milling Co., Inc., G.R. No. 69800, May 7, 1985; Belgado
vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74975, Jan. 12, 1987). See,
howe ve r , th e a m e n d e d Sec. 9 of Rul e 41 wit h th e
m odifi ca t i ons an d c l a ri f i c a t i on s o n thi s m a t t e r , as
explained therein.
10. The surety is charged under the supersedeas bond upon the
te rmination of the case on appeal and the bond may be
executed on motion, unlike the proc edure for recovery of
da ma ge s from bonds in a t t a c hm e n t or in• junction which is
governed by Sec. 20, Rule 58 (Apacheche, et al. vs. Rovira,
et al., L-28454, May 18, 1978).
11. . An order for execution of a j udgm e nt pending appeal
can be enforced on a counte r-bond which was posted to
lift the writ of preliminary at ta c hme nt issued by
R UL E 39 E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N SEC . 5
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E NT
S
NOTES
467
RUL E 39 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 6
NOTES
469
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 6
471
RUL E 39 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 6
9. It has been held tha t Art. 1155 of the Civil Code, whic h
p ro vi d e s t h a t th e p r e s c r i p t i o n of ac ti on s i s interrupte d
when the y are filed with the court or when there is a
writ ten extrajudicial demand by the creditors or a writte n
acknowledgment of the debt by the debtors, does not apply
to actions to revive a dorma nt judgme nt (PNB vs. Deloso,
supra), but only to actions to collect not based upon a
judgm ent .
However, it was later held tha t the filing of a first
revival action within the 10-year period under Sec. 6 of
this Rule tolls the runni ng thereof and such inte rrupt ion
lasts during the pendency of said action. When such action
was dismissed for failure of summons and a second revival
action was again filed within the balance of said period,
after deducti ng the period of i nte rrupt i on, the second
action was still seasonably filed. Art. 1155 of the Civil
Code, which provides that the prescription of actions is
interrupte d when they are filed in court, is unqualified.
Under this view, the cases oiConspecto vs. Fruto (31 Phil.
148) and Oriental Commercial Co., Inc. vs Jureidini (71 Phil. 25),
which held that the effect of a revival action upon the 10-
year period depends on whether the dismissal was due to
pl aint iffs a ba ndonm e nt or not, are now of doubtful
applicability (Board of Liquidators vs. Zulueta, L-30738, July
30, 1982).
RUL E 39 E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N SE C . 6
AN D E FF ECT S O F J U D G M E N T S
10. In Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. IAC, et al. (G.R. No. 72645,
Jun e 30, 1987), the question was raised as to whether a
judgm ent creditor who failed to enforce the original
judgment is entitled to revive said judgment only once, in
view of the provisions of Sec. 6 of this Rule in relation to
Art. 1144(3) of the Civil Code which requires that actions
upon judgments "must be brought within ten years from the
time the right of action accrues." The Supreme Court took
note of its earlier ruling in PNB vs. Bondoc (L-20236, July 30,
1965) where it answered the question in the negative,
holding that Sec. 6 of this Rule makes no distinction as to
the kind of judgment which may be re vi ve d by ordi na r y
i n de pe n de n t action. It, therefore, ruled therein that a
judgment rendered in an action for the revival of a
previous unsatisfied judgment is a new judgment in itself;
hence if it could not be enforced within the first five years
from its finality, a second revival action may be resorted to
within the succeeding five years to revive said second
judgment.
However, it decided to abandon said doctrine and
adopt as the better view that in the subsequent case of
PNB vs. Deloso, supra, which held that the ten-year period
is to be reckoned from the finality of the original judgment;
hence, if within tha t period a j udgm e nt reviving the
original j ud gm e n t was obtained but again re m ai ne d
unsatisfied, a second revival action beyond the prescriptive
ten-year period is not allowed. The effect of the judgment
in such first revival action is only to grant the judgment
creditor another period of five years to execute the said
judgment by mere motion, failing which a second revival
action can no longer be instituted.
With the adoption of the last sentence in this amended
Sec. 6, the foregoing seesawing decisions have been laid
to rest. Jus t like the rule on an original judgment, the
revived judgment may now also be enforced by motion
within 5 years from the date of its entry and, thereafter,
by filing another revival action should it again become
473
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 7
d o r m a nt , pro vi de d i t i s filed wi t hi n th e s t a t u t e of
limitations. That second revived judgment can also be
enforced in the same ma nne r as the original judgme nt
and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 6.
NO TES
475
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 8
NO T E S
5. While the general rule is that the portion of the decision that
becomes subject of execution is that ordained
SE C . 8
R UL E 39 E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T S
479
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 9
9. . Whe n th e j u d g m e n t de bt o r ha s s i m u l a t e d a transfer
of his property to evade execution, said property may be
levied upon for the satisfaction of the judgment without the
need of an independent action to rescind or a nn u l th e
t ra ns fe r since an abol ute l y s i m u l a t e d or fictitious
contract is void and non-existent (De Belen vs. Collector
of Customs, 46 Phil. 241).
483
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W COMPENDIU M SE C . 11
P h i l i p p i n e s , th e c o u r t i n lie u o f d i r e c t i n g a
c o n v e ya n c e t h e r e o f ma y b y a n o r d e r di ve s t th e
title o f an y pa r t y an d ve s t i t i n o t h e r s , wh i c h sha l l
ha v e th e force an d effect of a c o n v e ya n c e e x e c u t e d in
du e for m of law. (10a)
(b)Sale of real or personal property. — If th e j u d g m e n t b e fo r
th e s a l e o f r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t o sell suc h
p r o p e r t y , d e s c r i b i n g it, an d a p p l y th e p r o c e e d s i n
c o n f o r m i t y w i t h th e j u d g m e n t . (8[c]a)
(c)Delivery or restitution of real property. — Th e officer sha l l
d e m a n d o f th e p e r s o n a ga i n s t who m th e j u d g m e n
t for th e d e l i ve r y o r r e s t i t u t i o n o f rea l p r o p e r t y i s
r e n d e r e d an d all p e r s o n s c l a i m i n g ri ght s u n d e r hi m t
o p e a c e a b l y va c a t e th e p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h r e e (3)
w o r k i n g d a ys , an d r e s t o r e p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f t o th
e j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e , o t h e r w i s e , th e officer sha l l ous
t all suc h p e r s o n s t h e r e f r o m wit h th e a s s i s t a n c e , i f
n e c e s s a r y , o f a p p r o p r i a t e pe a c e o ffi c e r s , an d
e m p l o y i n g s u c h m e a n s a s ma y b e r e a s o n a b l y
n e c e s s a r y t o r e t a k e p o s s e s s i o n , an d pl a c e th e
j u d g m e n t obl i ge e i n p o s s e s s i o n o f suc h p r o p e r t y .
An y c o s t s , d a m a g e s , r e n t s o r p r o f i t s a w a r d e d b y th e
j u d g m e n t shal l b e sa t i s fi e d i n th e sam e m a n n e r a s
a j u d g m e n t for m on e y . (13a)
(d) Delivery of personal property. — In j u d g m e n t s for th e
d e l i ve r y o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , th e officer s ha l l t a k
e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e sa m e an d f o r t h w i t h d e l i v e r i t t o
th e p a r t y e n t i t l e d an d s a t i s f y an y j u d g m e n t for
m o n e y a s t h e r e i n p r o vi d e d . (8a)
NOT E S
2. Pars, (b), (c), (d) and (e) hereof were formerly separate
sections under this Rule, but have now been consolidated
under this section as they all involve the performance of
particular acts directed by a judgment.
3. When a pa rt y refuses to yield possession of a property as
ordered by a writ of execution, contempt is not the
remedy. The sheriff must oust said part y from the
property but if demolition is involved, there must be a
hearing on motion and due notice for the issuance of a
special order under Sec. 14 (now, Sec. 10(dJ) of this Rule
(Fuentes, et al. vs. Leviste, et al., L 47363, Oct. 28, 1982;
Atal Moslem, et al. vs. Soriano, et al., L-36837, Aug. 17,
1983).
485
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 12
NOTE
NOTES
ot h e r p r o fe s s i o na l s no t e x c e e d i n g t h r e e h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d pe so s i n va l ue ;
(h) On e f i s h i n g b o a t a n d a c c e s s o r i e s no t e x c e e d i n g th
e tot a l va l u e o f on e h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d pe so s owne d
by a fi s h e r m a n an d by th e lawful us e o f whic h h e
e a r n s hi s li vel i hood;
(i) So muc h of th e s a l a r i e s , wa ge s , or e a r n i n g s o f th e
j u d g m e n t obl i go r for hi s p e r s o n a l s e r vi c e s wi t hi n th
e four m o n t h s p r e c e d i n g th e levy a s ar e ne c e s s a r y for
th e s u p p o r t of hi s famil y;
( j ) L e t t e r e d g r a ve s t o n e s ;
( k ) M o n i e s , be n e f i t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r a n n u i t i e s a c c r u i n g
o r i n an y m a n n e r g r o w i n g ou t o f an y life i n s u r a n c e ;
(1) Th e ri gh t to re ce i v e legal s u p p o r t , or m o ne y o r p r o p e r t
y o b t a i n e d a s s uc h s u p p o r t , o r an y p e n s i o n o r
g r a t u i t y from th e G o ve r n m e n t ;
(m) P r o p e r t i e s spec i al l y e x e m p t e d by law.
Bu t n o a rt i c l e o r spec i e s o f p r o p e r t y m e n t i o n e
d i n t h i s s e c t i o n s ha l l b e e x e m p t fro m e x e c u t i o n
i ssue d upo n a j u d g m e n t r e c o ve r e d for its pric e or
u p o n a j u d g m e n t of f o r e c l o s u r e of a m o r t g a g e
t h e re o n . (12a)
NOT E S
489
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 13
Aga i n s t suc h a c o n t e nt i o u s b a c k g r o u n d an d to
fo re s t a l l c o m p l i c a t e d s o l u t i o n s , o n p r a g m a t i c con•
siderations of the pe re nnia l housing problems and the
s e n t i m e n t a l a t t a c h m e n t of Fil ipinos to t hei r family
residences, the Supre m e Court decided to gran t total
exemption to the family home without re gard to its value,
subject only to specific una voidable exceptions. This
amendment in the first pa ra gra ph of this section does not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights, but merely
operates as a means of implementing an existing right,
hence it deals merel y with proce dure (see Fabian vs.
Desierto, etc., et al., G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998).
RUL E 39 E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N SE C . 13
AN D E FF ECT S O F J U D G M E N T
S
NOTE
495
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 16
b y th e a p pe l l a t e c our t . I n th e cas e o f pe r s on a l
pr ope r ty c apa bl e of man ua l de l i ver y, the sale shall
be held in the pl ac e w he r e the pr ope rty i s located.
(18a)
NOTE
NOTES
498
Jan. 22, 1976; Bayer Phil., Inc. vs. Agana, supra). Said
t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a n t ca nno t a ppea l nor a va i l of
certiorari as a remedy (Sierra vs. Rodriguez, et al., L-25546,
April 23, 1974; Northern Motors, Inc. vs. Coquia, et al., L-
40018, Mar. 21, 1975) since he is not a part y to the
original action.
499
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 16
500
10. It will be noted that under this section, a third part y
cl ai m a nt see ki ng to vindicate his claim to the property, or
a judgment obligee with a claim for damages, may enforce
their claims in a separate action instituted for that
purpose and not in the same court where the execution
proceedings are being conducted. On the other hand, such
claims contemplated and arising in attach• ment
proceedings (Sec. 14, Rule 57) and replevin suits (Sec. 7,
Rule 60) may be litigated in the same action involved or in a
separate suit. The reason for the difference is that the
judgme nt in the case subject of this section is already final
and executory, while Rules 57 and 60 involve actions still
pending in the trial court.
11. . As shown in the foregoing discussion, a separate case,
distinct from that in which the execution was issued, is
proper if instituted by a "stranger" to the latter suit. On the
other hand, if the claim of impropriet y in the execution
proceedings is made by a party to the action, not a stranger
thereto, any relief therefrom may only be applied for and
obtained from the executing court.
It has been held that a spouse who was not a party to the
suit but whose conjugal property is being executed because
the other spouse is the judgment obligor, is not considered a
stranger to the suit. That spouse cannot be allowed to file a
separate action to question the execution of their conjugal
property since they could have easily questioned the
execution in the main case itself.
However, there have been instances where a spouse was
allowed to file a separate case against a wrongful execution,
but they rest on different factual bases. Thus, the institution
of a separate and independent action was allowe d whe n th
e p r o p e r t y wa s th e exclusive or paraphernal property of a
spouse who was not a party to the case the judgment
wherein was sought to be executed. In such a situation, the
aggrieved spouse was deemed to be a stranger to that
main action (Ching vs. CA, et al.,
501
RUL E 3 9 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M S E C S . 17 , 1 8
NOTES
1. A sale without the required notice is null and void (Ago vs.
CA, et al., L-17898, Oct. 31, 1962), and subjects the officer
to liability for da ma ge s. The creditor who induced the
sheriff to sell without notice will be solidarily liable as a
tortfeasor (Campomanes vs. Bartolome, et al., 38 Phil.
808).
NOTES
2.The judgm ent creditor can bid and purchase at the public
auction (see Sec. 21), but the officer conducting the
execution sale or his deputy are disqualified. Other
persons disqualified from participating in said public sale
are enum e ra t e d in Art. 1491 of the Civil Code, viz.:
"Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire
by purc ha se , even at a public or judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons
who may be under his guardia nshi p;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may
have been int rust e d to them, unless the consent of the
principal has been given;
(3) Executors and admi nistrators, the property of the
estate under admini st rati on;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the
Stat e or of any subdivision thereof, or any g o ve r n m e n
t owne d or cont roll e d corpora ti o n or inst itut ion, the
a dm i ni s t r a t i o n of which has been intrusted to them;
this provision shall apply to judges an d g o v e r n m e n t
e x p e r t s who , i n an y m a n n e r whatsoever, take par t
in the sale;
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorne ys, clerks of
superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
e m pl o ye e s c onne c te d wit h the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
justice, the propert y and ri ghts in litigation or levied
upon an execution before the court within whose
jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective
f unc t i o ns ; thi s p r o h i b i t i o n i n c l u de s th e act of
acquiring by assi gnm ent and shall apply to lawyers,
with respect to the property and rights which may be
the object of any litigation in which they may take
par t by virtue of their profession;
505
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SECS . 21 22
NOTE
NO TES
507
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 26
NOTES
509
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 29
NOTES
511
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 29-3 0
513
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 29- 3 0
11. . It has moreover been ruled that under a stat ute limiting
the ri ght of re dem pti on, the pendenc y of an action,
brought in good faith and relating to the validity of the
sale of the propert y involved, tolls the term of the ri ght
of re dem pti on (Consolidated Bank & Trust Corp. vs. IAC, et
al., supra, citing Ong Chua vs. Carr,
53 Phil. 975; see Lichauco vs. Olegario, supra).
515
o f a tenant . All re n t s , e a r n i n g s an d inc om e de r i ve
d
516
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SEC . 33
NOTE
from the date of the registr ati on of the certi fic ate of
sale, the pur chase r is entitle d to a c onv e y an c e and
p o s s e s s i o n o f th e p r ope r t y ; or, i f s o r e d e e m e d
w he ne ve r sixty (60) days have el a pse d and no other
r e d e m p t i o n ha s bee n ma de , and n oti c e t he re f o r
given, and the ti me for re de mpti on has e xpi re d, the
last r e de mpti on e r i s entitle d to the c onv e y an c e and
pos s e s si on , but in all case s the j u dg me n t obl igor
shall hav e the entire period of one (1) year from the
date of the regi str ati on of the sale to re de e m the
property. The dee d shall be e xe c ute d by the officer
ma ki n g the sale or by his suc c e ss or in office, and in
th e latte r cas e shal l hav e th e sam e v al i di t y a s
thoug h the officer ma ki n g the sale had c ont i n u e d
in office and e xec ute d it.
Upon the e xpi r ati on of the right of rede mpti on ,
the pu r ch a se r or rede mpti one r shall be su bs ti tute d
to and ac qu i r e all th e r i ghts , ti tle , i nte re s t and
clai m of the judg me n t obligor to the property as of
the ti me of the levy. The pos se s si on of the property
shall be gi ve n to the pu rcha se r or last rede mpti one r
by the same officer unle ss a third party is actually
h ol di n g th e pr ope r t y a dve r se l y t o th e j u dg me n t
obligor. (35a)
NOTES
1. This section was taken from the former Sec. 35 of this Rule
but contains two important differences there• from. The
re vi se d rule i s tha t th e p u r c h a s e r or redemptioner shall
now be substituted for the judgment obligor upon the
expiration of the right of redemption. Consequently, he shall
acquire all the rights, title, interests and claims of the
judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the
levy.
Unde r th e former Sec. 35 , th e p u r c h a s e r or
redemptioner is substituted for the judgment obligor only
518
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SEC . 3 3
4. After the deed of sale has been executed, the vendee the rei n
is entitled to a writ of possession but the same shall
issue only where it is the judgment debtor or his
successors in intere st who are in possession of the
pre mises. Where the land is occupied by a third party,
the court should order a hearing to determine the n a t u r e
of his a d ve rs e posse ssi on (Guevarra, et al. vs. Ramos,
et al., L-24358, Mar. 31, 1971; Unchuan vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. 78715, May 31, 1988). The writ shall issue where
the period of redemption has expired (Banco Filipino vs.
IAC, et al., G.R. No. 68878, April 8, 1986).
5. A writ of possession may be issued only in a land
registration proceeding, in extrajudicial foreclosure of a
real estate mortgage and in judicial foreclosure if the
debtor is in possession and no third person, not a party to
the suit, had intervened (Gatchalian vs. Arlegui, L-41360,
Feb. 17, 1977). It has been held, however, that a writ
of possession is a complement of the writ of execution.
Hence, if under a final judgment, the prevailing party
ac qui res absolute owne rshi p over the real prope rt y
involved, the writ may be issued for him to obtain
possession without the need of filing a separate action
a ga i nst the possessor (Olego vs. Rebueno, L-39350,
Oct. 29, 1975). A writ of possession should also be
sought from and issued by the court where a third party
is holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor
(Roxas, et al. vs. Buan, et al., G.R. No. 53778,
520
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 3 4
NOT E
522
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 37
NOTE
NOTE
5
RUL E 39 RE ME DI A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C S . 40-4 2
NOTES
526
RUL E 3 9 E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N SE C S . 44-4
5 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
NOT E
NOT E
528
RUL E 3 9 E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N SE C . 4
7 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
NOTE S
530
To be more accurate, the first requirement should
properly state that the former judgment or final order must
be final and executory (see notes under Sec. 1, Rule 39).
Regarding the second requisite, note should be taken of
the fact that , a lt hou gh the re has been no trial or
presentati on and consideration of evidence the rein, a
di sm issa l of th e compla int unde r the ci rc um st a nce s
provided in Sec. 3, Rule 17 shall have the effect of an
adjudication of the case on the merits, unless otherwise
declared by the court. The same rule applies when the
case is dismissed for non-suit due to the unjustified failure of
the plaintiff to a ppea r at the pre -t rial of his case (Sec.
5, Rule 16).
The dismissal by the Supreme Court of a petition for
review on certiorari through a minute resolution is an
adjudication on the merits and constitutes a bar to a
reliti gation of the case under the rule of res judicata
(Commercial Union Ass. Co., Ltd., et al. vs. Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Co., et al., L-43342, Oct. 30, 1978; Sy vs. Tuvera,
etc., et al., G.R. No. 76639, July 16, 1987).
531
R UL E 39 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 47
6. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply where the second
action is precisely to annul the judgment in the first
action, as one of the requisites of res judicata is that there
must be a former valid judgm ent (Almeda vs. Cruz, 84 Phil.
636; Dayrit vs. Dayrit, et al, 97 Phil. 758). Neither does said
doctrine apply where the action is to annu l the execution
sale and acts done in pursua nc e thereof as there is no
identity between the parties, subject- m a t t e r and cause of
action involved in the case, the decision wh e re i n wa s th e
subje ct of th e challe nge d exe c ut i on sale (Ramos, et al.
vs. Pablo, et al, G.R. No. 53682, Nov. 26, 1986).
Thus, even if the parties in both actions remain the
same, there can be no identity in the subject-matter since
that in the judgme nt sought to be annulled is the thing,
contract, propert y or wrongful act involved in the action,
while in the case for annulme nt the subject-matter is the
SEC . 4 7
RUL E 39 E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
533
RUL E 39 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 48
NOT E S
535
RUL E 3 9 R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 4 8
NOTE
537
R UL E 40 R E M E D I A L LA W COMPENDIU M SEC . 3
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
539
RUL E 40 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 5
the ori gi nal rec ord or the rec ord on appe al , as the
case may be. (n)
NOT E S
1. Prior to B.P. Blg. 129, there were holdings that the failure
to pay the docket fee within the reglementary period was
fatal to an appeal (Dacudao vs. Duenas, et al.,
108 Phil. 95; Lanting vs. Guevarra, et al., L-22799,
April 25, 1969). If the docket fee paid was insufficient
due to an error of the trea sure r, the appeal should not be
dismissed (Barnido, et al. vs. Balana, et al., L-26275,
July 26, 1966). Thereafter, in NAWASA vs. Secretary of
Public Works and Communications (L-20928, Mar. 31,
1966) and Favis, et al. vs. Municipality of Sabangan (L-
26522, Feb. 27, 1969), it was held that non-pa yment of
the docket fees does not automatically result in dismissal of
the appeal or affect the appellate jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance, the dismissal being discretionary in the
appellate court if there are justifications for its non•
pa yment (see Fontanar, et al. vs. Bonsubre, et al., G.R.
No. 56315, Nov. 25, 1986).
541
(16) days from the perfection of the appeal, the clerk of
court or the branch clerk of court of the lower cour t
shal l tr a n s mi t the or i gi na l rec or d o r th e
542
R UL E 40 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SEC . 7
NOTE
1. This was taken from the former Sec. 5, Rule 40 and Par.
21(b) of the Interim Rules, with the modification that aside
from the original record or the record on appeal, the
transcripts and exhibits taken or submitted in the lower
court shall be elevated to the Regional Trial Court. The
lower court, being a court of record, tra nscri pts of the
proceedings therei n and the documentary evidence of the
parties may be involved in the appeal, hence the specific
mention thereof and the extension of the period from the
ori ginal 5 da ys to 15 days within which the clerk of
court should comply with his duty under this section. A
ce rti fi ca t i on of th e c o m pl e t e n e s s of th e doc um e nt s
tra nsmitte d to the appellate court must be furnished to
the pa rtie s for their verification and appropriate action.
NOTES
544
R UL E 40 R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SEC . 8
NOTE
L- 0, Jan. 30, 1982; Alvir vs. Vera, et al, L-39338, July 16,
1984).
The same procedure, whereby the Regional Trial
Court assumes original jurisdiction over the case without
the need for consent thereto by the parties, is followed
where the case was tried on the merits by the lower court
although it did not have jurisdiction over the subject-
matter. However, since there was an actual trial of the
case on the merits, which normally entailed reception of
evidence on which the judgment of the lower court was
based, in the interest of justice, the parties may be allowed
to file amended pleadings and adduce additional evidence
at the trial of the case in the Regional Trial Court.
NOTES
545
R UL E 40 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 9
550
SE C . 1
RUL E 41 A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRI A L C O U R T S
NOTE S
552
R UL E 41 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 1
554
R UL E 41 R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 2
NOTES
556
R UL E 41 RE ME DI A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 3
NOTES
4. Even if the appeal was filed out of time, the court still has
jurisdiction to admit and give due course to it, provided
there are justifiable reasons therefor (Reyes us. CA, et al, 74
Phil. 235). The trend of the rulings of the Supreme Court in
matters pertaining to the timeliness of
558
R UL E 41 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 3
560
Makati Irs. Co Inc. vs. Reyes etc. et al., G.R. No. 167903,
Aug. 6, 2008).
559
RUL E 41 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 3
NOTES
5
RUL E 41 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C . 6
565
R UL E 41 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 9
a t th e i n s t a n c e o f th e a p p e l l e e , ma y di r e c t its
a me n d me n t by the i nc l u si o n of an y omi tte d matte rs
whic h are de e me d e s se nt i a l to th e de te r mi na ti o n of
the issu e of law or fact i nvol ve d in the appeal. If
the trial court or der s the a me n d me n t of the record,
the appe ll ant, w ithi n th e ti me l i mi te d in th e order,
or suc h e xt e n s i o n the reo f as ma y be gr ante d , or i f
no ti me i s fixed by the or de r w ithi n te n (10) days
from re c e i p t thereof, shal l redr aft th e rec or d by
i n c l u d i n g t h e r e i n , i n thei r pr ope r c h r on ol og i c a l
s e q u e n c e , suc h a ddi ti on a l matte r s a s th e court may
h a v e d i r e c t e d hi m t o i n c o r p o r a t e , an d s ha l l
t h e r e u p o n submi t the redrafted recor d for approval,
upo n notic e to th e a ppe l l e e , in li ke ma n n e r as the
or i gi nal draft. (7a)
NOTES
NOTES
570
RUL E 41 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 10
574
R UL E 4 1 R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 10-11
NOTE
1. The former rule was that although the clerk of the lower
court has the duty to elevate the records to the
appellate court, the appellant must see to it that such duty
is complied with, otherwise the appeal can be dismissed
for failure to prosecute (Sarmiento vs. IAC, et al., G.R. Nos.
75409-10, Aug. 17, 1987). This was often criticized since it in
effect penalized the appellant for the failure of the clerk to
comply with his official duties.
RUL E 41 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SE C . 13
NO TES
576
R UL E 42 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SEC . 13
c e r t i o r a r i , p r o h i b i t i o n , m a n d a m u s , quo w a r r a n t o ,
employers' liability cases (then Sec. 17) and in habeas
corpus cases (then Secs. 18 to 21) were discarded and no
longer applied to appeals in the aforesaid cases. However,
Sec. 3 of Rule 41 was subsequentl y amended, effective
July 15, 2001, to restore the rule tha t appeals in habeas
corpus cases shall be take n within 48 hours from notice of
the judgm ent or order appealed from.
RULE 42
NOTES
577
RUL E 42 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 2
rec or d a s w oul d su pp or t th e a l l e g a t i o n s o f th e
pe ti ti on.
The pe ti ti one r shall also submit toge the r with
the pe ti ti on a certi fic ati on unde r oath that he has no
t t h e r e t o f o r e c o m m e n c e d an y ot h e r a c t i o n
invol vi ng the same issues in the Su pre me Court, the
Court of Appe al s or different di vi si ons thereof, or any
other tri bunal or agency; i f there i s suc h othe r acti on
or pr oc e e di ng, he mus t state the status of the
same, and i f he shoul d thereafter learn that a si mi lar
acti on or pr oc e e di n g has been filed or i s pe n di n g
before the Su pre m e Court, the Court of Appe al s, or
different divisi ons thereof, or any other tr i bu na l o r
a ge n c y , h e u n d e r t a ke s t o pr ompt l y infor m the
aforesaid courts and other tri bunal or agency the re of
within five (5 ) days therefrom, (n)
NOTES
1. The first para graph details the form and contents required
for the sufficiency in form and substance of the petition. As
now provided herein, the appeal under this Rule may be on
either questions of fact or of law or on mixed questions of
fact and law. It further specifically states that the lower
courts or judges that rendered the judgme nt or final order
complained of should not be impleaded as pa rt ie s. The
same prohibition is now provided in petit ions for review
on ce rtiora ri unde r Rule 45, since these are petitions for
purposes of appeal and not p e t i t i o n s in ori gi na l a ct i ons .
The ot he r requirements, which will also be found in the
subsequent Rules, are taken from Revised Circular No. 1-
88 which was adopted by the Supreme Court purposely for
dispatch in appellate proceedings.
2. The second paragraph, herein referred to as the certification
against forum shopping, is also incorporated in the
subsequent Rules by way of detailed implementation
579
RUL E 42 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C S . 3 , 4-5
NOTE
NOTES
581
RUL E 42 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 8
NOTES
1. The first two pa ra gra phs re iterate the rule as to when the
appellate court acquires, and the trial court
correspondingly loses, jurisdiction over the case save to
perform or allow certain acts to be done in connection with
the case in the sam e m a nne r as provided in the last
pa ra gra ph of Sec. 9, Rule 41 .
2. The third pa r a gr a p h is the general rule that a perfected
appeal sta ys the challenged judgment or final order. That
stay of judgment, however, is not applicable to civil cases
unde r the Rule on Sum ma r y Procedure which, as
revised, provides in Sec. 21 thereof that the
R UL E 42 P E T I T I O N FOR R E VI E W SE C . 9
FRO M TH E RTC T O TH E C A
NOTES
583
RUL E 43
N OT E S
July 14, 2006 cf. Alcaraz vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 164715
Sept. 20, 2006).
NOTES
586
RUL E 4 3 A P P E A L S FR O M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S SE C .
3 T O TH E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
NOTES
2. . As a ge n e r a l pr op os i t i on , a p p e a l s on pur e
questions of law are brought to the Supreme Court since
Sec. 5(2)(e), Art. VIII of the Constitution includes in the
enumeration of cases within its jurisdiction "(a)ll cases in
which only an error or question of law is involved." I t
should not be overlooked, however, tha t the same
provision vesting jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the
cases enumerated therein is prefaced by the statement that
it may "(r)eview, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide," the judgments or final orders of lower courts in
the cases therein enumerated. Accordingly, the aforesaid
provisions of Rules 42 and 43 constitute the exceptions.
For that matter, this is the same reason why appeals
from the judgment or final order of the inferior courts,
even on pure questions of law, are appealable to the
Regional Trial Court in line with the specific provision
therefor in Sec. 1, Rule 40.
R UL E 43 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M S E C S . 4-5
588
R UL E 4 3 A P P E A L S FRO M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S SE C .
6 T O TH E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
NOTE
1. . In view of th e n a t u r e , s u b j e c t - m a t t e r an d
procedure in cases before the quasi -judicial agencies
unde r thei r different governi ng laws, the a p pe l l a t e
procedure and re quirem ent s in this Rule are somewhat
different from those in re gul a r appe al s . Thus , th e
periods and requirements for the appeal are more stringent
an d specific p r o vi s i o n s ar e mad e for m o t i o n s for
reconsideration and extensions of time.
NOTE
NOTE
690
R UL E 4 3 A P P E A L S FRO M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S S E C S . 9-10
T O T H E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
NOTE
NOTES
592
R UL E 4 3 A P P E A L S FR O M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S SE C . 1
3 T O TH E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
NOTES
RULE 44
NOTE
594
R UL E 44 OR D I N A R Y A P P E A L E D C A SE S SE C S . 3, 4
NOTES
2. Under the former rule, it was held that the power to dismiss
the appeal under this section pertained to the appellate
court (Sec. lfcj, Rule 50), as the only instance when the trial
court may dismiss an appeal was under Sec. 13, Rule
41 (Agoncillo vs. CA, et al., L-32094, Nov. 24, 1972). At
that time, Sec. 1(c) of Rule 50 provided, as a ground for
dismissal of the appeal, the "failure of the appellant to
prosecute his appeal under section 3 of Rule 46" (now,
Rule 44). These revised Rules, however, eliminated that
ground for dismissal of an appeal by its deletion from the
enumeration in Sec. 1 of Rule 50, hence this section has
been correspondingly amended.
5
RUL E 44 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C S . 5-7
NOTES
period for filing the appellant ' s brief as the same would
be unnecessary should the motion be granted (Alonso vs.
Rosario, 105 Phil. 654).
3. The failure to file the appellee's brief does not affect
the appeal. The filing of the reply brief is optional on the
par t of the appellant.
4. The number of copies of the briefs to be filed and
served ha s been reduce d and the same are no longer
required to alwa ys be pri nte d but may either be type•
writte n or mimeogra phed.
NOTES
598
R UL E 44 OR D I N A R Y A P P E A L E D C A SE S SE C S . 11-13
NO TES
600
R UL E 44 ORDI NAR Y AP P E AL E D CASE S SE C . 13
NOT E S
NOT E S
604
R UL E 44 O R D I N A R Y A P P E A L E D C A SE S SEC . 15
606
R UL E 44 ORDI NAR Y APP E AL E D CASE S SEC . 15
AP P E A L B Y C E RTI O R AR I
T O TH E S U P R E M E COUR
T
NO T E S
AP PE A L
608
B Y CE RTI OR A RI T O TH E SE C . 1
S U P R E M E C OU R T
609
decision appealed from (PNB vs. Romillo, etc., et al., G.R.
No. 70681, Oct. 16, 1985). When
608
RUL E 45 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M SEC . 1
610
Phil. 401; Roque vs. Buan, G.R. No. 22459, Oct. 31, 1967; Leonardo
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 51263, Feb. 28, 1983; Republic vs. CA,
et al., G.R. No. 61647, Oct. 12, 1984; Moran vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No. 59956, Oct. 13, 1984;Nakpil & Sons, et al. vs. CA,
et al, G.R. No. 47851, Oct. 3, 1986);
(g) When the Court of Appeals manifestly over• looked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion
(Abellana vs. Dosdos, LI9498, Feb. 26, 1965; Uytiepo vs.
Aggabao, L-28671, Sept. 30, 1970; Carolina Industries, Inc.
vs. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., L-46908,
May 17, 1980); or
(h) Where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
cont rar y to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions
without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set
forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent,
or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted by the
evidence of record (Manero vs. CA, et al, L-49542, Sept.
12, 1980; Ducusin vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No. 58286, May 16, 1983; Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan,
et al, G.R. Nos. 54719-50, Jan. 17, 1985; Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan,
et al, G.R. Nos. 66497-98, July 10, 1986; Manlapaz vs.
CA, et al, G.R. No. 56589, Jan. 12, 1987).
6. Certiorari as a mode of appeal under this Rule, should be
distinguished from certiorari as an original spec ial civil
action (Rule 65), unde r the following considerations:
a. In appeal by certiorari, the petition is based on questions of
law which the appellant desires the appellate court to
resolve. In certiorari as an original action, the petition raises
the issue as to whether the lower court acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
611
RUL E 45 REMEDIA L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 2
(G.R. No. 12560, Dec. 4, 1997); see also San Miguel Corp.,
et al. vs. Layos, Jr., et al, (G.R. No. 149640, Oct. 19, 2007).
7. The Supre m e Court can trea t a petition filed erroneously
under Rule 65 as one filed under Rule 45 if the petitioner
had alleged grave abuse of discretion in said petition under
the following circumtances: (1) If the petition was filed
within 15 days of notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution appealed from; or (2) If the petition is meritorious
(Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. vs.
CA, et al, G.R. No. 167938, Feb. 19, 2009).
NOT E
613
extension of time within which to file his petition for review
on certiorari, but he must within that period submit the
614
RUL E 45 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M 8E C . 3
NOTES
616
( e ) c o n t a i n a s w o r n c e r t i f i c a t i o n a ga i n s t foru m
s h o p p i n g a s p r o v i d e d i n th e las t p a r a g r a p h o f
se c ti on 2 , Rul e 42. (2a)
617
RUL E 45 R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M S E C S . 5-6
NOT E S
NOT E S
NOT E
618
RULE 46
ORIGINAL CASES
NOTES
1. This rule formerly governed the cases which were within the
original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, i.e., petitions
for m a nda m us , prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas
corpus and other writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 30, R.A. 296).
2. Under B.P. Blg. 129, the Intermediate Appellate Court
(now, the Court of Appeals) has original jurisdic• tion to
issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,
whether or not they are in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
and it has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulme nt of judgments of Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 9;
cf. Pars. 14 and 15, Interim or Transitional Rules and
Guidelines).
Petitions for habeas corpus have been excluded from
the coverage of the present revised Rule since they are
actuall y special proceedings and the corre spondi n g
619
RUL E 46 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 3
6
R UL E 46 OR I GI N A L C A SE S SEC . 3
t h e r e t o f o r e c o m m e n c e d an y ot he r ac ti o n i n vo l vi n g
th e sam e i ssue s i n th e S u p r e m e Court , th e C ou r t o f
Ap pe a l s o r di ffe re n t di vi s i o n s there of, o r an y o t h e r
t r i b u n a l o r a ge nc y ; i f t he r e i s suc h ot h e r a c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m us t sta t e th e st a t u s o f th e sa m e ;
an d i f h e s h o u l d t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t a s i m i l a r
ac ti o n o r p r o c e e d i n g ha s bee n filed o r i s p e n d i n g
before th e S u p r e m e Court , th e Cour t o f Ap p e a l s , o r
di ffe re nt d i vi s i o n s there of, o r an y ot h e r t r i b u n a l o r
a g e n c y , h e u n d e r t a k e s t o p r o m p t l y i n f o r m th e
a f o r e s a i d c o u r t s an d o t h e r t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y
t h e r e o f wi t hi n five (5) da y s t h e re f r o m .
Th e p e t i t i o n e r sha l l pa y th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
doc ke t an d ot h e r lawful fees t o th e Cl er k o f Cour t
an d de p o s i t th e a m o u n t o f P500.00 for cost s a t th e
tim e of th e filing of th e pe t i t i o n .
Th e fa il ure of th e p e t i t i o ne r t o com pl y wit h an y
o f th e f o re go i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s shal l b e suffi c ie nt
g r o u n d for t h e d i s m i s s a l o f th e p e t i t i o n , (n )
(As amended by Resolution of the Supreme Court, dated
July 21, 1998)
NOTE S
622
RUL E 46 ORIGINA L C A SE S SE C . 3
4. . W he r e th e re a l p a r t y in i n t e r e s t i s a body
corporate, just like in other pleadings earlier discussed, an
officer of the corporation can sign the certificate against
forum shopping, bu t he must be duly aut horized by a
resolution of the board of directors (Eslaban, Jr., etc. vs.
Vda. de Onorio, G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001).
N OT E S
624
RULE 46 ORIGINAL CASES SEC. 7
NOTE S
NOT E
626
RUL E 4 6 O R I G I N A L C A SE S SE C . 7
A N N U L M E N T OF J UD G M E N T S OR
FINAL O RDERS AN D RESO LUTIO N S
NOTES
628
R UL E 4 7 ANNULMEN T O F JUDGMENT S O R SEC .
2 F I N A L OR D E R S AN D R E S O L U T I O N S
NOTE S
630
RUL E 47 A N N U L M E N T OF J U D G M E N T S OR SEC .
3 FINA L ORDE R S AN D RE SOL UT I ON S
NOTE S
c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o th e n u m b e r o f r e s p o n d e n t s . A
c e rt i fie d tru e cop y o f th e j u d g m e n t o r final o r de r o r
r e s o l u t i o n shal l b e a t t a c h e d t o th e o ri gi na l copy o
f th e p e t i t i o n i n t e n d e d for th e cour t an d i n d i c a t e d a s
suc h b y th e p e t i t i o n e r .
Th e p e t i t i o n e r shal l also su bm i t t o g e t h e r wit h
th e pe t i t i o n a ffi da vi t s o f w i t n e s s e s o r d o c u m e n t s
s u p p o r t i n g th e c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r de fe ns e an d a
s w o r n c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t h e ha s no t t h e r e t o f o r e
c o m m e n c e d an y ot h e r a c t i o n i n vo l vi n g th e sa m e
i ssue s i n th e S u p r e m e Court , th e Cour t o f Ap p e a l
s o r di ffe re n t di vi si on s there of, o r an y ot he r
tribuna l o r a g e n c y ; i f th e r e i s suc h o t h e r ac ti o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m us t sta t e th e st a t u s o f th e sam e ,
an d i f h e s h o u l d t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t a s i m i l a r
a ct i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g ha s bee n filed o r i s p e n d i n g
before th e S u p r e m e Court , th e Cour t o f Appe a l s , o r
di ffe re nt di vi si on s the reof, o r an y ot he r t r i b u n a l o r
a ge n c y , h e u n d e r t a k e s t o p r o m p t l y i n f o r m th e
a f o r e s a i d c o u r t s an d o t h e r t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y
t h e re o f w i t h i n five (5 ) da y s t h e re fr om , (n)
NOTE S
1. Just like motions for new trial and petitions for relief from
judgment, the verified petition for annulment under this
section must state with particularity the facts and law
su st a i n i n g the ground therefor, and those supporting the
petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
de fe nse . The first i s the f u n da m e nt a l requirement, but
the second is just as important in order to convince the
court that something may indeed be achieved should the
petition be given due course. This second r e q u i re m e n t
must furt he r be s up po rt e d by affidavits or documents
showing, at least prima facie, the validity of petitioner's
claim.
633
RUL E 47 R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE C S . 56
NOTES
NOTES
635
R UL E 47 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C S . 8-9
NOT E
a s j u s t i c e an d e q u i t y ma y w a r r a n t u n d e r th e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , (n)
NOT E
NOT E
1. Sec. 19(6), in relation to Sec. 9(2), both of B.P. Blg. 129, is consider
power of the Regional Trial Courts to annul the judgments
or final orders of the lower courts.
RU LE 48
P R E LI M IN AR Y C O N FE R E N C E
639
R UL E 48 PRELIMINAR Y CO NF ERE NC E SE C . 3
NOT E S
1. These new Rule has adopted most of the grounds for pre-
trial in the trial courts and with virtually the same
objective, that is , to explore and utilize all such appropriate
means as may assist in the early disposition of the case.
The minor difference is that in the Court of Appeals, this
procedural device may be availed of not only in original
actions but also in cases on appeal wherein a new trial
was granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
It will be recalled that the Court of Appeals can act as a
trier of facts, hence the preliminary conference authorized
by this Rule is a convenient adjunct to such power and
function.
ORAL AR GU ME N T
NOT E S
641
RUL E 49 ORA L A R G U M E N T
NOT E
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
6
R UL E 50 DI SMI SSA L O F APPEA L SEC . 1
NOTES
645
R UL E 50 DI SMI SSA L O F APPEA L SEC . 1
NOTES
1. This provision, together with Sec. 6 of Rule 56, was taken
from Circular No. 2-90 of the Supreme Court
RUL E 5 0 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 2
646
RUL E 50 DI SMI SSA L O F APPEA L SE C . 2
6
RULE 51
J UD GMEN
NOTES
650
RUL E 51 JUDGMEN T SEC . 2
4. The law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered
on a former appeal. It means that whatever is once
irrevocably established, as the controlling legal rule or
decision between the same parties in the same case,
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts before
the court. Unde r such c i rc um s t a nc e s , no que st i on
necessarily involved and decided on that appeal will be
considered on a second appeal or writ of error in the same
case. The rule on the law of the case does not apply to
resolutions re ndere d in connection with the case but
wherein no rationale has been expounded on the merits
of that action (Jarantilla vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 80194,
Mar. 21, 1989).
NOT E
652
R UL E 51 JUDGMEN T SE C . 3
for th e p r o n o u n c e m e n t of a j u d g me n t or final
resol uti on. (2a)
NOTE S
NOTE
654
R UL E 51 JUDGMEN T SE C . 6
forth i n th e de c i si on , orde r , o r re s o l u t i o n a p p e a l e d
from. (Sec. 40, BP Blg. 129) (n)
NOT E S
NOTES
NOTES
658
R UL E 51 JUDGMEN T SEC . 11
NOTES
1. The first paragraph of this section provides for
the basic rule that the execution of a judgment or final
resolution may be applied for only after its entry, the
RUL E 51 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 11
e x c e pt i o n be i n g w he r e th e sam e i s o rde re d t o be
immediately executory. In fact, such order is not necessary
where , by provision of thes e Rules or unde r settled
jurisprudence , the judgm ent is immediatel y executory.
See, for i n s t a n c e , Sec. 4 of Rule 39 and th e notes
thereunder.
2 . Th e sam e p a r a g r a p h f u rt h e r de c l a r e s the
f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t t ha t the motion for such
execution may be filed only in the proper court, and the
general rule is that the writ therefor may be sought in
and issued by the court from which the action originated,
that is, the court of origin or a quo.
Thus, in actions originally commenced in the Court
of Appeals, the writ of execution shall be issued by it and
addressed to any appropriate officer for its enforcement.
To obviate any possible que st i ons, the writ shall be
accompanied by a certified tru e copy of the ent ry of
judgment, final order or resolution.
4. Where the appealed case has been finally resolved and the
judgment has become executory, the situation is
governed by the amended and amplified provisions of Sec.
1, Rule 39.
660
RULE 52
NOT ES
1. The present Rule, which now bears the title of "Motion for
Reconsideration," contains new provisions substantially
different from and abandoning the previous practice in the
former Rule 52 which was entitled "Re• hearing." Thus, for
instance, a copy of the motion for reconsideration must be
served on the adverse party, thereby eliminating the
confusion caused by Sec. 1 of the former Rule which
provided for the filing thereof ex parte.
R UL E 62 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SE C S . 14
Subsequentl y, effective July 28, 1986, Sec. 11 of B.P. Blg. 129 was
a that in the former Inte rmediate Appellate Court, which
was therein renamed as the Court of Appeals, "no second
motion for reconsideration from the same party shall be
entertained" (Sec. 6). This restriction has been adopted
663
R UL E 52 M OTI O N FOR R E C O N S I D E R A TI O N S E C S . 1-4
NEW TRIAL
NOTES
665
R UL E 53 NE W TRIA L SEC . 1
NOTES
666
R UL E 53 NE W TRIA L SE C S . 2- 4
the time the first motion for new trial was filed, e.g., where
the first motion was based on fraud and the second is based
on newly discovered evidence the requisites for which
concurred only after the filing of the first motion. This
would not be possible in the Court of Appeals where the
only ground for a motion for new trial is newly discovered
evidence.
667
RULE 54
INTERNAL B U S I N E S S
NOTES
PUBLICATION OF JUDGM E NT S
AN D FINAL RESO LUTIO NS
NOTE
670
RUL E 5 5 P U B L I C A TI O N O F J U D G M E N T S SE C
2 AN D F I N A L R E S O L U T I O N S
NOTE S
in Fuellas. x x x"
NOTES
672
PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT
RULE 56
A. ORIGINAL CASES
NOTES
NOTES
6
B. APP EALED CASES
NOTE
Sec. 4 . Procedure. — Th e a p p e a l s h a l l be
gove r ne d by and di spose d of in ac c or dan c e wit h the
a p p l i c a b l e p r ov i s i o n s o f th e C o n s t i t u t i o n , law s ,
Rule s 45, 48, sec ti on s 1, 2, and 5 to 11 of Rule 51, 52
and thi s Rule, (n)
NOTE
676
RUL E 56 APPEALE D C A SE S SE C . 5
NOTES
677
R UL E 56 R E M E D I A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC . 7
NOTES
NOTES
680
R UL E 56 APPEALE D C A SE S SE C . 7
683
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
684
RUL E 56 PROVISIONA L RE ME DI E S SE C . 5
685
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
686
RUL E 56 PROVISIONA L REMEDIE S SE C . 6
687
RULE 57
NOT E S
690
RUL E 57 PREL IMINAR Y ATTAC HM E N T SEC . 1
6. . Ba se d on th e a va i l a bi l i t y and effects of
attachment, it may be classified as (a) preliminary, which
is resorted to at the commencement of the action or at any
time before entry of judgment, for the temporary seizure of
property of the adverse party; and (b) final, or levy
upon execution, which is available after the judgment in
the main action has become executory, and for the
satisfaction of said judgment.
As to form and procedure of enforcement, there is the
re gular form of a tt a c hm e nt which refers to corporeal
property in the possession of the party, and garnishment
which refers to money, stocks, credits and other incorporeal
property which belong to the party but are in the possession
or under the control of a third person.
The purposes of preliminary attachment are (a) to
seize the propert y of the debtor in advance of final
judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying said
judgment, or (b) to enable the court to acquire jurisdiction
over the action by the actual or constructive seizure of
the property in those instances where personal service of
summons on the creditor cannot be effected (Mabunag
vs. Gallimore, 81 Phil. 354; Quasha, et al. vs. Juan, et
al., L-49140, Nov. 19, 1982). Thus, a proceeding in
attachment is in rem where the defendant does not appear,
and in personam where he appears in the action (Banco
Espahol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921). Where a lien
already exists, e.g., a maritime lien, the same is equivalent
to an attachment (Quasha, et al. vs. Juan, et al, supra),
just like that under a real estate mortgage.
RULE 57 REME DIAL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC. 1
NOTE S
NOTES
694
R UL E 57 PRELIMI NAR Y AT TAC H M E N T SE C . 4
NOTE S
696
RUL E 57 PRELIMI NAR Y ATTAC HM E N T SEC . 6
r e a s o n a b l e di l i ge nc e a t t a c h , t o a wa i t j u d g m e n t an d
e x e c u t i o n i n th e a c t i o n , onl y s o m u c h o f th e
p r o p e r t y i n th e P h i l i p p i n e s o f th e p a r t y a ga i n s t
who m th e wri t i s i ssue d, no t e xem p t from e xe c ut i on
, a s ma y b e s u f f i c i e n t t o sa t i s f y th e a p p l i c a n t ' s
d e m a n d , unl e s s th e forme r m a ke s a de posi t wit h th e
c o u r t fro m w h i c h th e wri t i s i s s u e d , o r gi ve s a
c o u n t e r - b o n d e x e c u t e d t o th e a p p l i c a n t , i n a n
a m o u n t e qua l t o th e bond fixed b y th e c our t i n th e
orde r o f a t t a c h m e n t o r t o th e va lu e o f th e p r o p e r t
y t o b e a t t a c h e d , e x c l u s i v e o f c o s t s . N o lev y o n
a t t a c h m e n t p u r s u a n t t o th e wri t i s s u e d u n d e r
s e c t i o n 2 h e r e o f s ha l l b e e n f o r c e d u n l e s s i t i s
p r e c e d e d , o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y a c c o m p a ni e d , b y
s e r vi c e of s u m m o n s , t o g e t h e r wit h a copy of th e
c o m p l a i n t , th e a p p l i c a t i o n for a t t a c h m e n t , th e
a p p l i c a nt ' s affi da vi t an d bond, an d th e o rde r an d
wri t o f a t t a c h m e n t , o n th e d e f e n d a n t wi t hi n th e
Philippines .
Th e r e q u i r e m e n t o f pri o r o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s
s e r vi c e o f s u m m o n s s ha l l no t a p p l y w h e r e th e
s u m m o n s coul d no t b e s e r ve d p e r s o n a l l y o r b y
s u b s t i t u t e d se rvi c e de s pi t e di li ge n t efforts, o r th e
de f e n d a n t i s a re s i d e n t of th e P h i l i p p i ne s t e m p o ra •
ril y a b se n t t h e re f r o m , or th e d e f e n da n t i s a non •
re s i d e n t of th e P h i l i p p i ne s , or th e ac ti o n i s on e in
rem or quasi in rem. (6a)
NOTES
6
R e g i s t r a t i o n D e c r e e , th e n ot i c e shal l cont ai n a
re f e re nc e to th e n um b e r of th e ce rti fi ca t e
700
RULE 57 REME DIAL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC. 7
NOTES
701
RUL E 57 RE MEDI AL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC. 7
703
RULE 57 RE MEDI AL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC. 8
NOT E
1. Ga r ni sh m e n t is a species of a t t a c hm e n t for
reaching property or credits pertaining or payable to a
judgment debtor. It results in a forced novation by the
substitution of creditors, that is, the judgment debtor who
is the original creditor of the garnishee is, through service
of the writ of garnishment, substituted by the judgment
creditor who thereby becomes the creditor of the garnishee.
Garnishment has also been described as a warning to a
person, who has in his possession property or credits of
the judgment debtor, not to pay the money or deliver the
property to the latter but to instead appear and answer
the plaintiffs suit.
It is not necessary to serve summons upon the
garnishee in order that the trial court may acquire
jurisdiction to bind him. He need not be impleaded as a
party to the case. All that is necessary is the service upon
him of the writ of garnishment, as a consequence of which
RUL E 57 PRELIMI NAR Y AT TAC H M E N T S E C S . 9-10
7
r e s p e c t i n g hi s p r o p e r t y , an d ma y b e e x a m i n e d o n
oa th. Th e cour t ma y, after such e x a m i n a t i o n , orde r
705
RUL E 57 REME DIAL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC. 11
NOTES
708
RULE 57 REME DIAL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC 13
NOTES
1. Preliminary attachment shall be discharged when it is
established that -
(a) The debtor has posted a counter-bond or has made the
requisite cash deposit (Sec. 12);
(b) The attachment was improperly or irregularly issued (Sec.
13) as where there is no ground for attachment (see Sec. 1),
or the affidavit and/or bond filed therefor are defective or
insufficient (Sec. 3);
RUL E 57 P R E L I M I N A R Y ATTAC H M E N T SEC . 1 3
711
RUL E 57 P R E L I M I N A R Y ATTAC H M E N T SE C . 1 4
NOTES
713
R UL E 57 P R E L I M I N A R Y ATT AC H M E N T SE C . 17
NOTES
NOT E
714
RUL E 57 P R E L I M I N A R Y ATTAC H M E N T SE C . 2 0
NOTES
718
RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
NOTES
719
RULE 68 REME DIAL LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC S 1. 9
720
right is material and substantial, (b) the right of the
complainant is clear and unmistakable, and (c) there
721
RUL E 58 PRELIMI NAR Y INJUNCTIO N SE C S . 1, 9
722
RUL E 58 PREL IMINAR Y INJUNCTIO N SE C S . 1, 9
NOTES
726
R UL E 58 PRELIMI NAR Y I NJUNCT I O N SEC . 2
c o m pl e t i o n of g o ve r n m e n t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e proj ec t s
(Appendix V).
NOTES
730
R UL E 58 PREL IMINAR Y INJUNCTIO N SEC . 4
e n j o i n e d . I n a n y e v e n t , s u c h n o t i c e shal l b e
p reced e d o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y a c c o m p a n i e d b y
s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a c o p y o f th e
c o m p l a i n t o r i n i t i a t o r y p l e a d i n g an d t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s
a f f i d a v i t s an d b o n d , u p o n t h e a d v e r s e p a rt y i n th e
Philippines .
H o w e v e r , w h e r e th e s u m m o n s c o u l d no t b e
se rve d pe rs on a ll y o r b y s u b s t i t ut e d servic e despit e
d i l i g e n t e f f o r t s , o r th e a d v e r s e p a r t y i s a r e s i d e n t o f
th e P h i l i p p i n e s t e m p o r a r i l y a b s e n t t h e r e f r o m o r i s
a n o n r e s i d e n t t h e re o f , th e r e q u i r e m e n t o f p ri o r o r
c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s s h a l l no t
apply .
(d) Th e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n •
in g o r d e r s h a l l t h e r e a f t e r b e a c t e d u p o n o n l y af t e r
al l p a r t i e s ar e h e a r d i n a s u m m a r y h e a r i n g w h i c h
s h a l l b e c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n t w e n t y - f o u r (24 ) h o u r s
a f t e r th e s h e r i f f s r e t u r n o f s e r v i c e a n d / o r th e
r e c o r d s ar e r e c e i v e d b y th e b r a n c h s e l e c t e d b y raffl e
an d t o w h i c h t h e r e c o r d s s h a l l b e t r a n s m i t t e d
i m m e d i a t e l y , (n )
NOTE S
732
RUL E 58 PRELIMI NAR Y INJUNCTIO N SE C . 4
734
of the status quo desirable or essential, but the affected
party neither sought such relief nor did the allegations in
735
RUL E 58 PREL IMINAR Y INJUNCTIO N SEC . 4
NOTES
7
RUL E 58 PRELIMI NAR Y INJUNCTIO N SE C S . 6-7
NOTES
NOTES
743
RULE 59
RECEIVERSHIP
744
RUL E 59 RE CE IVE RSHI P SEC . 1
a d m i n i s t e r i n g , o r d i s p o s i n g o f th e pr ope r t y in
liti gati on.
D u r i n g th e p e n d e n c y o f a n a p p e a l , th e
a ppe l l ate court may allow an applic ati on for the
a ppoi nt me nt of a receiver to be filed in and de ci de d
by the court of origin and the recei ve r appoi nte d to
be subject to the control of said court, (la)
NOT ES
745
RULE 09 RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 2
747
RULE 69 RE MEDI AL LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC S 3-4
NOTE
NOTE
7
RUL E 59 RE MEDI AL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC. 6
NOTES
NOTE
751
RULE 59 REME DIAL LAW COMPENDIU M SEC 9
NOTES
RE P LE V I
Se c ti on 1. Application. — A pa r t y p r a yi n g for
th e r e c o v e r y o f p o s s e s s i o n o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y
ma y , a t th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e a ct i o n o r a t an y
ti m e be fo r e a n s w e r , a p p l y for a n o r d e r for th e
de l i ve r y o f suc h p r o p e r t y t o him , i n th e m a n n e r
h e r e i n a f t e r p r o vi d e d , (la )
NOTE S
753
involved, while attachment may be resorted to even if the
personal property is in the custody of a third person.
7
RUL E 60 RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 2
th e r e o f a c c or di n g t o the be st o f hi s kn ow l e dg e ,
i nfor mati on, and belief;
(c) That the property has not been di strai ne d or take n
for a tax asse s s me nt or a fine pur s uant to law, or sei z e
d unde r a writ of e xe c u t i o n or pre• li mi nary
at tac h me n t , or ot h e rw i s e pl ac e d unde r custodia legis,
or if so seize d, that it is e xe mpt or shoul d be release d
from such seizure or custody; and
(d) The actual mar ket value of the property.
The appl icant must also give a bond, e xe c ute d
to th e a d v e r s e party in dou bl e th e valu e of th e
property as state d in the affidavit afore me nti one d,
for the return of the property to the adver se party
i f th e re tu r n t h e r e o f b e a d j u dg e d , an d for th e
pay me nt to the adverse party of such sum as he may
rec ove r from the appl icant in the acti on. (2a)
NOTE
S e c . 5 . Return of property. — If t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y
o b j e c t s t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s b on d ,
o r o f th e s u r e t y o r s u r e t i e s t h e r e o n , h e c a n n o t
i m m e d i a t e l y r e q u i r e th e r e t u r n o f t h e p r o p e r t y , bu t
i f h e d o e s n o t s o o b j e c t , h e m a y , a t an y t i m e b e f o r e
th e d e l i v e r y o f th e p r o p e r t y t o t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e q u i r e
th e r e t u r n t h e r e o f , b y f i l i n g w i t h t h e c o u r t w h e r e
th e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g a b o n d e x e c u t e d t o th e
a p p l i c a n t , i n d o u b l e t h e v a l u e o f th e p r o p e r t y a s
s t a t e d i n th e a p p l i c a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t fo r th e d e l i v e r y o f
th e p r o p e r t y t o t h e a p p l i c a n t , i f s u c h d e l i v e r y b e
a d j u d g e d , an d fo r t h e p a y m e n t o f s u c h s u m t o h i m
a s m a y b e r e c o v e r e d a g a i n s t t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y , an d
b y s e r v i n g a c o p y o f s u c h b o n d o n th e a p p l i c a n t .
(5a )
sufficienc y of th e bond, or of th e su re t y or s ur e t i e s
t h e r e o n ; o r i f th e a d ve r s e pa rt y s o obj ects, an d th e
cour t affi rms its a p p r o va l of th e a p p l i c a n t ' s bond
or a p p r o v e s a ne w bond , or i f th e a d ve r s e p a r t y
r e q u i r e s th e r e t u r n o f th e p r o p e r t y bu t hi s bon d i s
obj e ct e d t o an d found insuffici ent an d h e doe s no t
f o rt h w i t h file a n a p p r o ve d bond, th e p r o p e r t y shal l
be d e l i ve r e d t o th e a p p l i c a n t . I f for an y re a so n th e
p r o pe r t y i s no t de l i ve re d t o th e a ppli c a nt , th e sheriff
mus t r e t u r n i t t o th e a d ve r s e pa rt y . (6a)
NOTE S
760
ri gh t t o th e posse s si on thereof, s t a t i n g th e gr o u n d s
t h e re fo r , an d serve s such affidavit upo n th e sheriff
757
RUL E 60 RE MEDI AL LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 7
NOTE
NOTES
759
RUL E 60 RE MEDI AL LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC S . 8-10
761
RULE 60 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SECS. S-io
Secti on 1. Application. — At th e c o m m e n c e m e n t
o f th e p r o pe r ac ti o n o r p r oc e e di n g , o r a t an y tim e
p ri o r t o th e j u d g m e n t o r fi nal o r d e r , a ve ri fie d
a p p l i c a t i o n for s u p p o r t pendente lite ma y be filed
b y an y pa rt y s t a t i n g th e g r o u n d s for th e clai m an
d th e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n s o f bot h p a r t i e s , an d
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a ffi da vi t s , d e p o s i t i o n s o r o t h e r
a u t h e n t i c d o c u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t thereof, (la )
NOTES
Sec. 4 . Order. — Th e c o u r t sh a l l d e t e r m i n e
provi si ona ll y th e p e r t i n e n t facts, an d shall re nde r
suc h o r d e r s a s j u s t i c e an d e q u i t y ma y r e q u i r e ,
ha vi n g du e re ga r d t o th e p ro ba b l e out c om e o f the
case an d suc h ot he r c i r c um s t a n c e s as ma y aid i n
th e pr ope r re so l u t i o n of th e que st i o n involved. I f
th e a pp l i c a t i o n i s gra nt e d , th e cour t shall fix the
a m o u n t of mone y to be provi si ona ll y paid or such
ot he r forms of s up po r t as shoul d be pro vi de d, t aki n g
into a c c o u n t th e ne c e ss i t i e s o f th e a p p l i c a n t and
th e t e rm s o f p a ym e n t o r mod e for p r o vi d i n g th e
support . I f th e a p pl i c a t i o n i s de nie d, th e pri nc i pa l
case shal l be trie d an d de c i de d as ea rl y as possible.
(5a)
765
RUL E 61 SUP P OR T P E N DE N T E LITE SE C S . 4-5
Whe n th e p e r s o n or de r e d t o giv e s u p p o r t
pendente lite refuse s or fails to do so, any third
person wh o furnishe s support to the applic ant may,
after due notice and he ari ng in the same case, obtain
a w ri t o f e x e c u t i o n t o e n f o r c e hi s r i g h t o f
r e i m b u r s e m e n t a g a i n s t th e pe r s o n or de r e d t o
provi de such support, (n)
NOT ES
767
RUL E 61 SUPPOR T PEN DEN T E LITE SE C . 6
NOT ES
1. This is a new provision and has for its substantive basis the
directive in Art. 345 of the Revised Penal Code which
pertinentl y provides:
"Art. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of
crimes against chastity. - Persons guilty of rape,
seduction or abduction shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman;
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should
prevent them from so doing;
3. In every case to support the offspring."
This section had, however, to be modified since
Art. 345 of the Code included the crime of abduction where
mere lewd designs, without carnal knowledge, is sufficient,
hence there need not necessarily be an offspring. It
was justified therein because it further provided for
indemnity to the victim. Since this section is on the subject
of support for the offspring as a result of the crime, it
RULE 61 REME DIAL LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 7
Sec. 7 . Restitution. — W he n th e j u d g m e n t or
final orde r of th e cour t finds t ha t th e pe rso n who
ha s bee n p r o vi d i n g s u p p o r t pendente lite is not
liable t he re for, i t shall orde r th e r e c i p i e n t t he re of
t o r e t u r n t o th e forme r th e a m o u n t s a l re a d y paid
with legal int e re s t from th e da te s of a ct ua l pa ym e nt ,
wi t ho u t p re j udi c e t o th e ri gh t of th e re c i pi e n t t o
obt a i n r e i m b u r s e m e n t in a s e pa r a t e acti on from the
768
pe rso n legall y obli ged to give th e support . Should
th e re c i pi e n t fail t o r e i m b u r s e said a m o u nt s , the
pe rso n wh o paid th e sam e ma y seek r e i m b u r s e m e n
t
769
RUL E 61 SUP P OR T P E NDE NT E LITE SEC . 7
NOTE
771
P R E L I M I N A R Y C O N S I D E R A TI O N S
therein cited). Under B.P. Blg. 129, such writs issued by the
Regional Trial Courts are now enforceable within their
respective regions (Sec. 21[1]J).
772
resolve factual questions involved therein (see Veraguth
vs. Isabela Sugar Co., 57 Phil. 266).
773
RULE 62
IN T E R P LE A D E
NOTES
774
RULE 62 INTERPLEADER SECS. 5-7
776
R UL E 62 INT E RP LE ADE R S E C S . 5-7
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
NOTES
785
RUL E 63 R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC S. 2-3
NOTES
781
1. Under Sec. 5, declaratory relief may be refused
by the court where the same would not terminate
the
780
RUL E 63 R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE CS . 4-6
2. In one case, what was sought was not a declara• tion that
the respondent was a corporation, on which there was no
dispute, but that it was separate and distinct from another
corporation for whose liabilities it should not respond. The
rule is that where the relief sought would be
determinative of issues rather than a construction of
definite stated rights, status and other relations commonly
expressed in written instruments, the case is not one for
declaratory judgment. Considering that in a proceeding
for declaratory judgment the relief which may be sought
is limited only to a decla rati on of ri ghts and not a
de te rm i na t i on or trial of issues, a declaratory relief
proceeding is unavailable where a judgment may be made
only after a judicial investigation of the issues (Kawasaki
Port Service Corp., et al. vs. Amores, etc., et al., G.R.
No. 58340, July 16, 1991).
782
4. Since no material relief is sought in an action for
declaratory relief, a third-part y complaint cannot be
entertained therein (Comm. of Customs, et al. vs. Cloribel,
RUL E 63 D E C L A R ATOR Y R E LI E SE C S . 4- 6
F A N D SIMI LAR
RE ME DI E S
783
7. Also, although the actions are for declaratory j udgm e nt s
but the allegations in the complaints are sufficient to
make out a case for reconveyance of real property (Santos
vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 74243, Nov. 14,
784
RUL E 63 R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC S . 4-6
785
RUL E 64 RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SE CS. 1-4
NOTES
786
awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions should be
elevated to the Court of Appeals on a petition
787
R UL E 64 R E VI E W OF J U D G M E N T S , ETC. SEC .
5 OF C OME L E C AN D COA
NOT ES
NOTES
NOTE
C E RT IO R A R I , P R O H I B I T I O N
AND MAND AMUS
NOTES
792
proceedings before said court. This can further be gleaned
from the fact that a special civil action for certiorari may
generally be dismissed motu proprio if the petitioner
793
R UL E 65 CE RTIORARI , P R OHI B I T I O N SE C
1 AN D M A N D A M U S
796
RUL E 66 RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 1
797
RUL E 65 RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 1
13. The rule is that, before certiorari may be availed of, the
pe t it i one r must have filed a motion for the
reconsideration by the lower court of the act or order
complained of (Villa-Rey Transit vs. Bello, L-18957,
April 23, 1963). The purpose of this requirement is to
enable the lower court, in the first instance, to pass upon
and correct its mistakes without the intervention of the
higher court. For this reason, it has been held that such
motion for reconsideration, reiterating the same grounds
against the order sought to be reconsidered, is not covered
by the pro forma rule if it is di rec t e d a ga i ns t an
inte rlocut or y order. In the case of a final order or
judgment, a motion for reconsideration prior to taking
an appeal is not required; hence, in such case, the pro
forma rule applies (BA Finance Corp. vs. Pineda, et al,
G.R. No. 61628, Dec. 29, 1982).
However, even in original actions under this Rule, a
motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order may
be dispensed with:
(a) Where the order is a pa tent nullity (Vigan Electric Light
Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, L-19850, Jan. 30,
1964; Luzon Surety Co. vs. Marbella, et al, 109 Phil. 734;
Dir. of Lands vs. Santamaria, 44 Phil 594), as where the
court a quo had no juri sdicti on (Malayang Manggagawa sa
Esso vs. Esso Standard, Inc., L-24224, July 20, 1965);
R UL E 65 CE RTI OR A RI , P R OHI B I T I O
N AN D M A N D A M U S
SEC . 1
r e l e v a n t an d p e r t i n e n t t h e r e t o , an d a sw or n
certi fic ati on of non-forum shop pi ng as provi de d in
the third paragr aph of secti on 3 , Rule 46. (2a)
NOTE S
801
tical in nature and, as a rule, non-justiciable, since the
remedy there from lies not in the courts but in the
department in regard to which full discretionary authority
is vested, or by the submission thereof to the
judgment
800
RULE 66 RE MEDI AL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC. 2
8
6. Prohibition, and not mandamus, is the remedy where a
motion to dismiss is improperly denied (Enriquez vs.
Macadaeg, 84 Phil. 674).
RUL E 65 C E RTI ORA R I , SEC . 3
P R O HI B I T I O N AN D
MANDAMU S
NOTES
8
upon the propriet y or impropriet y of the act done. If the
law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him
the right to decide how or when the duty shall be
performed, such duty is discretionary and not
ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the
discharge of the same requires
8
RULE 65 RE MEDI AL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC. 3
7. Formerly, when there was no period fixed for the filing of the
petition for mandamus, the time was variable as the ends
of justice may demand (Reparations Commis• sion vs.
Macadaeg, L-20619, July 29, 1968), but the petition must
be filed within a reasonable time and the petitioner must
not be guilty of laches (Contreras vs. Villaraza, et al., G.R.
No. 53372, Aug. 21, 1980). The policy of the Supreme
Court is not to deny the writ if the result would be to
deprive a party of his substantive rights and leave him
without remedy (Centenera vs. Yatco, 106 Phil. 1064; Phil.
Merchant Marine Academy vs. CA, et al, L-38212, Feb.
27, 1976). Now, under the next section, the petition
must be filed not later than 60 days after notice of the
judgment, order or resolution.
12. Where the issue of damages was raised in the trial court
in the same petition for certiorari, prohibition and
m a n d a m u s and th e a dve rs e pa rt y had ample
opportunity to defend itself, the court may validly award
such da m a ge s. Said claim was in the na t ur e of an
independent cause of action, distinct and separate from
the issue of whether or not mandamus will issue, but joined
with the cause of action for the writs prayed for without
opposition on the part of the respondent therein. This is
allowed by Rule 135 which permits the adoption of any
suitable mode or proceeding if no specific procedure is
pointed out and also in order to avoid mutiplicity of
suits (Executive Secretary, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-37999,
June 10, 1988).
RUL E 65 RE MEDI AL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC. 4
I n e l e c t i o n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a n ac t o r a n
o mi ssi on of a munici pal or a regi onal trial court,
th e p e t i t i o n shal l b e filed e xc l u s i v e l y wit h th e
C o mmi s s i o n on El e c ti on s , in aid of its a ppe l l at e
j u r i s di c t i on . (As amended in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC,
effective Dec. 27, 2007)
NOTES
811
al. vs. Bartolome, et al., 95 Phil. 930). Also, the
Court of Appeal s had no jurisdiction to ent e rt a i n a
petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify a writ
of execution as the order granting the writ is not
appealable (J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. vs. Estabello, L-
20610, Jan. 9, 1975).
In a case, the Supreme Court entertained an original
action for certiorari and prohibition where the question
presented in said petition was one of law, by analogy
with the rule tha t appeal s on pure questions of
law are
810
RULE 65 R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SEC. 5
813
RUL E 65 CE RTI OR A RI , P R O HI B I T I O N SE C .
5 AN D M A N D A M U S
NOT ES
NOTES
1. In the petit ions under this Rule filed in the Regional Trial
Court, no prior service of a copy thereof on the respondent
is required. The trial court, as provided in this section,
shall first determine whether the petition is sufficient in
form and substance to justify such process and, if so, shall
order the respondent to comment thereon. Such order shall
be served on said respondent together with a copy of the
petition and any annexes thereto. This procedural aspect is
similar to that in petitions for relief from judgments,
orders and so forth (Sec. 4, Rule 38).
On the other hand, pursuant to the second paragraph
of this section, in petitions for certiorari before the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, there must be
proof of prior service of a copy of said petition on the
respondent, aside from the other requirements such as
the contents and certifications provided therefor. The
failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the fore•
going re quirem ent s shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petitions (Sec. 2, Rule 56, in relation to
Sec. 3, Rule 46).
816
RUL E 65 R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SE CS . 7-8
NOTES
817
RULE 65 R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 9
NOTE
QUO WARRANTO
NOTES
819
RULE 66 RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 1
8
RUL E 66 QU O WAR R A N T O SE C S . 2- 4
NOTES
r e s p o n d e n t i s un l aw fu l l y in p o s s e s s i o n thereof.
All pe r s on s wh o cl ai m to be entitle d to the public
office, positi on or franchise may be made parties,
and their res pe c ti ve rights, to such public office,
p o s i t i o n o r fr a n c h i s e d e t e r mi n e d , i n th e sam e
action. (7a)
NOTE
NOTES
825
RULE 66 REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM SEC. 12
EXPROPRIATION
NOTES
828
R UL E 67 E X P R OP R I ATI O N SEC . 1
8
4. It is the ac t ua l filing of the c om pl a i nt for expropriation
which binds the land, and not a mere notice
830
RUL E 67 RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SEC 2
NOTES
831
RUL E 67 RE M E DI A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC. 2
I t wa s th e G o v e r n m e n t ' s c o nt e nt i o n t h a t th e
expropriation action should be governed by Rule 67, and
not R.A. 8974 as was later held and followed by the judge
presiding over the expropriation court. On review by
certiorari, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Trial
Court's position that, in this particular case, R.A. 8974
had superseded Rule 67.
833
The Government theorizes that the NAIA 3 facilities
cannot be deemed as the "right of way," "site or location"
834
RUL E 67 RE M E DI A L LAW COMPENDIU M SEC. 3
NOTES
835
RUL E 67 RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 4
Afte r th e r e n d i t i o n o f suc h a n or de r , th e
pl a i n t i f f shal l no t b e p e r mi t t e d t o d i s mi s s o r
di sc on ti nu e the pr oc e e di ng e xce pt on such ter ms
as the court dee m s just and equitable. (4a)
NOTES
8
within whic h their report shoul d be filed with the
court.
838
RUL E 67 R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SEC. 5
NOTES
840
R UL E 67 E X P R OP R I ATI O N SE C S . 8- 9
NOTES
3. The nature and the value of the land at the time it was
taken by the Government should be the basis of the price
to be paid to the owner if the taking of possession t h e re o f
wa s mad e before th e i n s t i t u t i o n of th e expropriati on
proceedings. The value at the time of the filing of th e
c om pl a i nt is de t e rm i n a t i v e i f the taking of possession
coincides with or is subsequent to the commencement of
the proceedings, with interest from its taki ng and with
att orne y' s fees to be dete rmi ned by the trial court
(National Power Corp. vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. No. 56378, June 22, 1984, and cases cited therein).
4. The consequential benefits that shall be deducted refers to
the actual benefits derived by the owner on the remaining
portion of his land which are the direct and proximate
results of the improvements consequent to the
expropriat ion, and not the general benefits which he
receives in common with the community (29 C.J.S. 1063;
Republic vs. Vda. de Mortera, et al., 94 Phil. 1042
[Unrep.J).
5. The judgment rendered, requiring the payment of the
award determined as just compensation for the condemned
property and as a condition precedent for the transfer of
title to the Government, cannot be realized upon execution,
as the le gi sla ture must first appropriat e the amount
over and above the provisional deposit (Comm. of Public
Highways, et al. vs. San Diego, et al., L-30098, Feb. 18,
1970).
6. The trial court has the jurisdiction to determine, in the
same expropriation proceedings, conflicting claims
RULE 67 RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M SEC. 10-11
NOTES
846
R UL E 67 E X P R OP R I ATI O N SE C . 12-14
850
RULE 68
FORECLOSURE OF
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
NOTES
NOTES
1. This section reproduces the former Sec. 2 of this Rule but
with the clarification that the judgment obligee
RUL E 68 FORE CL OSUR E O F SEC . 2
REA L E STAT E M ORTAG
E
p e r s o n s h ol di n g pr i o r e n c u m b r a n c e s upo n th e
property or a part thereof, and whe n confir me d by
an or der of th e court, also upon moti on, i t shall
ope rate to di ve st the rights in the property of all
the par ti es to the action and to vest their rights in
the purchase r, subject to such rights of rede mpti on
as may be al l ow e d by law.
Upon the finality of the order of c onfir mati on
or upon the e xpi rati on of the period of rede mpti on
whe n al l ow e d by law, the purchaser at the aucti on
sale or last rede mpti one r, if any, shall be entitle d
to the p o s s e s s i o n of the proper ty unl e s s a thir d
party i s ac tual ly hol ding the same adversely to the
j u d g m e n t o bl i g or . Th e sai d p u r c h a s e r o r las t
re de mpti one r may secure a writ of posse ssi on, upon
m o t i o n , fro m th e c ou r t w h i c h o r d e r e d th e
forecl osure. (3a)
NOTES
4. If the debt is not paid within the period pro• vided for in
Sec. 2, it is the ministerial duty of the court to order the
foreclosure sale of the property. A motion for such order of
sale is non-litigable and may be made ex parte (Gov't
of P.I. vs. De las Cajigas, 55 Phil. 667). However, the motion
for the confirmation of the sale re quire s a he a ri ng to
grant an opportunit y to the mortgagor to show cause
why the sale should not be confirmed (Tiglao vs. Botones,
90 Phil. 275), as by proof of irregularities therein or of
gross inadequacy of the price. Lack of notice vitiates the
confirmation of the sale. Where the property was sold to a
third person before confirmation of the foreclosure sale, said
vendee should be given notice and said sale does not
prevent the court from granting the mortgagor a period
within which to redeem (Rural Bank of Oroquieta vs.
CA, et al, supra).
r e s i d u e , a f t e r p a y i n g of f t h e m o r t g a g e d e b t d u e , th e
s a m e s h a l l b e p a i d t o j u n i o r e n c u m b r a n c e r s i n th e
o r d e r o f t h e i r p r i o r i t y , t o b e a s c e r t a i n e d b y th e
c o u rt , o r i f t h e r e b e n o s u c h e n c u m b r a n c e r s o r t h e r
e b e a b a l a n c e o r re s i d u e afte r p a y m e n t t o t h e m , the
n t o th e m o r t g a g o r o r h i s d u l y a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t ,
o r t o th e p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o it. (4a )
F ORE CL OS
858
U R E O F REAL E STAT E SE C S . 5-6
M ORTGA G E
NOTES
8
within the statute of limitations, he thereby waives any
deficiency claim. This bar to an action for recovery
858
RULE 68 REME DIAL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SE CS. 7-8
8
RUL E 68 F ORE CL OSUR E O F SE C S . 7-8
RE A L E STAT E
M ORTGA G E
NOTES
861
on the principal obligation as stated in the
application obligation as stated in the application
for foreclosure
8
RUL E 68 RE MEDI AL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SE CS. 7-8
PARTITION
NOTES
863
RULE 69 RE MEDI AL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC. 3
864
RULE 69 PARTITION SECS. 4-6
866
RUL E 69 PARTIT I O N SE C S . 9-11
NOTES
868
RUL E 69 PARTIT I O N SE C S . 12-13
870
RUL E 70 FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D SEC . 2
U N L AWF U L D E TAI N E R
NOTES
871
a.Accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding under this Rule,
which may be either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or
unlawful detainer (desahucio), which is
872
RULE 70 REME DIAL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC. 2
et al, L-48419, Oct. 27, 1983; Santos, vs. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 60310, Mar. 27, 1984; Dionio vs. IAC, et
al.,
G.R. No. 63698, Jan. 12, 1987). This applies to verbal
contracts on a month-to-month basis (Zablan vs. CA,
et al, G.R. No. 57844, Sept. 30, 1987; Miranda vs. Ortiz,
et al, G.R. No. 59783, Dec. 1, 1987).
9. Where forcible entry was made through stealth, the one-
year period should be counted from the time the
plaintiff learned thereof (Vda. de Prieto vs. Reyes, L-21470,
June 23, 1965; City of Manila vs. Garcia, et al, L-
26053, Feb. 21, 1967; Elane vs. CA, et al, G.R. No.
80638, April 26, 1989).
Where defendant ' s entry upon the land was with
pl a i nt i ffs tole rance right from the date and fact of
entry, unlawful detainer proceedings may be instituted
within one year from the demand on him to vacate as there
is an implied promise on his part to vacate upon demand
(Yu vs. De Lara, L-10684, Nov. 30, 1962). The status of
such a defendant is analogous to that of a tenant or
lessee, the term of whose lease has expired but whose
occupancy is continued by the tolerance of the lessor
(Vda. de Cachuela vs. Francisco, L-31985, June 25, 1980).
The same rule applies where the defendant purchased
the house of the former lessee, who was already in arrears
in the pa ym e nt of rentals, and thereafter occupied the
premises without a new lease contract with the landowner
(Dakudao, et al. vs. Consolacion, et al, G.R. No. 54753,
June 24, 1973; Peran vs. Presiding Judge, etc.,
G.R. No. 57259, Oct. 13, 1983).
10. Where the complaint fails to specifically aver facts
constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer as where
it does not state how entry was effected or how and when
877
dispossession started, the action should either be accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria in the Court of First
Instance [now, the Regional Trial Court] (Sarona, et al
vs. Villegas, et al, supra; Daveza, et al. vs.
Montecillo,
878
RULE 70 RE MEDI AL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC. 2
13. Where the tenant filed an action in the Regional Trial Court
to compel the landlord to agree to an extension of the lease,
and thereafter the landlord brought an unlawful detainer
suit in the lower court, the case in the
D E TAI N
RUL E 70 FOR C IB L E E N TR Y AN ER
D U N L A WF U L
SEC . 2
NOTE
8
other civil cases where the plaintiffs claim does not exceed
P 10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Excluded from this pre se nt amended Rule are
ejectment cases covered by the agricultural tenancy laws
SE C S . 4-7
RUL E 70 FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L A WF U L
D E TAI N E R
881
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to answer. — Shoul d the
defen dant fail to answ er the complaint within the
period above provided, the court, motu proprio or
on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judg me nt as
ma y be w a r r a n t e d by th e facts a l l e g e d in th e
complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein.
The court may in its discretion reduce the
amount
8
RULE 70 RE MEDI AL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC S. 8-9
1. . W h e t h e r th e par ti e s hav e ar r i ve d at an
amicable settle me nt, and i f so, the ter ms thereof;
2. . The sti pul ati ons or admi ssi ons entered into by
the parties;
3. . Whe ther, on the basis of the pl eadi ngs and the
sti pulati ons and admi ssions made by the parties,
j u dg me n t ma y be ren de re d w i th ou t th e nee d of
further pr oc e e di ngs, in which event the judg me nt
shal l be r e n de r e d w i thi n thir t y (30) day s from
i ssua nc e of the order;
4. A clear speci fic ati on of material facts whic h remain
c ontr ove r te d; and
5. . Such other matters inten de d to e xpe di te the
di sposi ti on of the case. (8, RSP)
o f th e la s t a f f i d a v i t o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f th e p e ri o
d fo r f i l i n g th e s a m e .
Th e c o u r t sh a l l no t r e s o r t t o th e f o r e g o i n g
p r o c e d u r e j u s t t o g a i n t i m e fo r t h e r e n d i t i o n o f th e
j u d g m e n t , (n )
NOTES
889
RUL E 7 0 FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D SE C S . 12-14
U N L AWF U L D E TAI N E R
8
R UL E 7 0 FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D SE C S . 12-14
U N L AWF U L DE TAI N E R
NOTES
891
Preliminary preventive injunction is available in
either case as the first paragraph of Section 15 makes the
provisions of Rule 58 applicable to this special civil
action.
8
RULE 70 REME DIAL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC. 16
NOTES
895
the parties to the building constructed thereon and for the
recovery thereof, jurisdiction is vested in the
894
RULE 70 REME DIAL LAW C OMP E ND I U M SEC S. 17-18
NOTES
8
RUL E 70 FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN SE C S . 17-18
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
897
consistent with the accepted doctrine of conclusiveness
of judgment. There is no reason why the issue of
possession which was duly litigated before and decided
with finality by a municipal trial court in a full-blown
proceeding in an
8
RULE 70 REME DIAL LAW C OM P E N D I U M SE C8 . 17-18
900
RULE 70 SE C . 19
FORCIBLE ENTRY
AND UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
NOTES
903
15-day period to appeal without the plaintiff having
perfected his appeal.
900
RULE 70 REME DIAL LAW C OM PE N D IU M SEC . 19
9
appealed from (Bagtas vs. Tan, 93 Phil. 804), it must be
in the amount determined by the judgment of the lower
court. Attorney's fees awarded in said judgment need
RUL E 70 FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN SE C . 19
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
9
The requirement for the filing of a supersedeas
bond is mandatory and if the bond is not filed, the
execution of the judgment is a mandatory and ministerial
duty of the court (Fuentes vs. Bautista, et al., L-31351, Oct.
26, 1973). Even if appeal has been perfected and a
supersedeas bond has been filed but the accruing rentals
are not duly deposited, immediate restoration of the
premises may still be obtained as the supersedeas bond
answers only for the
9
RUL E 70 REME DIAL LAW COMPENDIU M SEC. 19
11. The mere delay on the part of the plaintiff to apply for
immediate execution due to default in the deposit of
re nta l s does not constitute a waiver of such right
to execution (Silva vs. CA, 86 Phil. 599), but if despite
such default of the defendant, the plaintiff accepted the
belated pa yment of the defendant, then the plaintiff is
deemed to have waived his right to immediate execution
(Manotok vs. Legaspi, 77 Phil. 523).
12. In the execution of judgment in ejectment cases, the
provisions of Sec. 10(d), Rule 39, to the effect that no
i m p ro ve m e n t shall be de st ro yed, demolished or
removed except by special order of the court, is to be
observed. See the cases of Fuentes, et al. vs. Leviste, et
al. (L-47363, Oct. 28, 1982) and Atal Moslem, et al. vs.
Soriano, et al. (L-36837, Aug. 17, 1983) discussed in
Note 3 under Sec. 10, Rule 39.
13. The succeeding Sec. 20 of this Rule has been discussed
earlier, together with Sec. 15 thereof.
NOTES
CONTEMPT
NOTES
908
RULE 71 CONTEMPT SEC. 3
9
RUL E 71 REME DIAL LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 2
NOTES
NOTES
NOTE
915
RULE 71 RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M SEC. 5
NOTE
NOTES
9
R UL E 71 CONTEMP T SE C S . 10-11
NOTES
920
RUL E 71 CONT E MP T SE C . 12
NOTES