le 12 – Motions for Bill of Particulars • RULES ON BILL OF PARTICULARS ON THE GROUND OF VAGUE

COMPLAINT o If an action (like this case) is one for the annulment of documents
1. SANTOS V. LIWAG (G.R. No. L-24238 November 28, 1980)
DOCTRINE: The allowance of a motion for a more definite statement or bill of
particulars rests within the sound judicial discretion of the court and, as usual in
matters of a discretionary nature, the ruling of the trial court in that regard will
not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion or a clearly
erroneous order. EMERGENCY RECIT (Very short case – please refer to the facts
below)
FACTS: • June 8, 1964: Jose Santos filed a complaint against Lorenzo Liwag with
the CFI of Manila, which seeks to annul certain documents which were alleged to
be done with malice, threats, false pretenses, machination, misrepresentations,
and other fraudulent means, with damages and costs.
• July 4, 1964: Santos filed a motion asking the court to order Liwag (petitioner)
to submit bill of particulars on certain allegations of the complaint believed to be
vague and conflicting, and that he be informed of the charges filed against him to
prepare an intelligent and proper pleading necessary and appropriate in the
premises
that have been allegedly executed by reason of deceit, machination, false
pretenses, misrepresentation, threats, and other fraudulent means. o Deceit,
machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats, however, are
largely conclusions of law and mere allegations thereof without a statement of the
facts to which such terms have reference are not sufficient. The allegations must
state the facts and circumstances from which the fraud, deceit, machination, false
pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats may be inferred as conclusions. § In his
complaint, the appellant merely averred that all the documents sought to be
annulled were all executed through the use of deceits, machination, false
pretenses, misrepresentations, threats, and other fraudulent means without the
particular-facts on which alleged fraud, deceit, machination, or misrepresentations
are predicated.
• FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER TO FILE OF A BILL OF
PARTICULARS RESULTS IN DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT o Hence, it was
proper for the trial court to grant the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars,
and when the plaintiff failed to comply with the order, the trial court correctly
dismissed the complaint.

• Liwag opposed the said motion and said that the allegations in the complaint
filed are sufficient and contains the facts needed for a cause of action to exist and
Santos’ motion is indeed evidentiary in nature Trial Court

• Granted the motion and directed the plaintiff to submit a bill of particulars with
respect to the paragraphs specified in defendant’s motion

• When plaintiff failed to comply with the order of the court, the complaint was
dismissed with costs against the plaintiff

ISSUE: 1. WON the trial court erred in granting the motion for bill of particulars
filed by Liwag.

HELD/RATIO: 1. NO. • BILL OF PARTICULARS ARE DISCRETIONARY UPON

THE COURTS o The allowance of a motion for a more definite statement or bill of
particulars rests within the sound judicial discretion of the court and, as usual in
matters of a discretionary nature, the ruling of the trial court in that regard will
not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of discretion or a clearly
erroneous order. o Complaint was indeed drawn and suffers from vagueness and
generalization to enable the defendant properly to prepare a responsive pleading
and to clarify issues and aid the court in an orderly and expeditious disposition in
the case.