2.
Labor organization or a union whose personality to sue
Rule 3: Parties to a Civil Action
Sec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. —
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by
law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may
refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term
"defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the
third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant.
Who may be parties to a civil action
1. Natural Persons – one whose legal personality is
determined by birth. (Art. 40, Civil Code)
2. Juridical Persons – one whose legal personality is
created by law.
The following are juridical persons:
(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public
interest or purpose, created by law; their personality
begins as soon as they have been constituted according to
law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private
interest or purpose to which the law grants a juridical
personality, separate and distinct from that of each
shareholder, partner or member. (Art. 44, Civil Code)
Laws governing juridical persons
 Juridical persons mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the
preceding article are governed by the laws creating or
recognizing them.
 Private corporations are regulated by laws of general
application on the subject.
 Partnerships and associations for private interest or
purpose are governed by the provisions of this Code
concerning partnerships. (Art. 45, Civil Code)
Suability of juridical persons
Juridical persons may acquire and possess property of all
kinds, as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal
actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations of their
organization. (Art. 46, Civil Code)
General Rule
Only natural and juridical persons may sue and be sued or be
parties to a civil action. An entity which has no juridical
personality cannot be sued.
Exceptions
Entities authorized by law may be parties to a civil action:
1. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. —
When two or more persons not organized as an entity with
juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be
sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the
name and addresses of the persons composing said entity
must all be revealed. (Rule 3, Sec. 15)
Note: The ability to be a party under Sec. 15 is confined only to
being a defendant, not as a plaintiff. They can be sued, as XYZ
corporation but they are not allowed to sue as XYZ corporation.
This is clear from the words, “they may be sued.”
and be sued is derived from its registration as such with
the Bureau of Labor Relations.
3. Corporation by estoppel. (Sec. 20, RA No. 11232)
4. Unregistered partnership – a contract of partnership
having a capital of more than P3,000 but which fails to
comply with the registration requirements is nevertheless
liable as a partnership to third persons. (Art. 1772 & Art.
1768, Civil Code)
5. Dissolved corporations – a dissolved corporation shall
nevertheless remain as a body corporate for 3 years, after
the effective date of dissolution for the purpose of
prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and
enabling it to settle and close its affairs among other
things. (Sec. 139, Revised Corporation Code)
6. Roman Catholic Church – may be a party to an action
and as to its properties, the Archbishop to Diocese to
which they belong, may be a party.
Note: For purposes of administering and managing as trustee
the affairs, property and temporalities of any religious
denomination, sect or church, a corporation sole may be
formed by the Chief Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Minister, Rabbi
or other presiding elder of such Religious denomination, sect or
church. (Sec. 108, Revised Corporation Code)
7. Estate of deceased persons – the estate of the
deceased person may be a party to an action. It is a
juridical entity that has a personality of its own.
Estate of a deceased person cannot become a
party to a civil action per se
A deceased person does not have the capacity to sue and may
not be made a defendant in the case. Section 1 of rule 3 of the
revised Rules of Court, unequivocally states that Only natural
or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
parties in a civil action.
In applying this legal provision, the court in Ventura vs.
Militante declared that neither a deceased person nor his
estate has the capacity to be sued, explaining thus, parties
may be either plaintiffs or defendants. The plaintiff in an action
is the party complaining and a proper party plaintiff is essential
to confer jurisdiction of the court.
In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff
must have an actual legal existence. That is, he, she or it must
be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a
natural or an artificial person, and no suit can be lawfully
prosecuted, saved in the name of such person.
The rule is no different as regards party defendants. It is
incumbent upon a plaintiff when he institutes a judicial
proceeding to name the proper party defendant to his cause of
action. In a suit or proceeding in personam of an adversarial
character, the court can acquire no jurisdiction or the purpose
of trial or judgement until a party defendant who actually or
legally exists and is legally capable of being sued is brought
before it. It has even been held that the question of legal
personality of a party defendant is a question of substance
going to the jurisdiction of the court and not one of procedure.
Neither a dead person or his estate may be a party plaintiff in a
court action. A deceased person does not have such legal
entity as is necessary to bring action so much so that a motion Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the
to substitute cannot lie and should be denied by the court. authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of
An action begun by a decedent’s estate cannot be said to have persons that is made a party, must be averred.
been begun by a legal person, since an estate is not a legal
entity. Such an action is a nullity and a motion to amend the
party plaintiff will not likewise lie, there being nothing before the Hence, for failing to show that its is a juridical entity, endowed
court to amend. by law with capacity to bring suits in its own name, SSHA is
devoid of any legal capacity, whatsoever, to institute any
Considering that the capacity to be sued is a correlative of the action. (Santos-Duenas vs. Santos Subd. Homeowners
capacity to sue to the same extent a decedent does not have Association)
the capacity to be sued and may not be named a party
defendant in a court action. (Gaffney vs. Butler)
How to aver legal personality
Capacity – Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be
Deceased person or his estate may not be impleaded
sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a
A deceased person or his estate may not be impleaded as
representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized
defendant in a civil action because they lack legal personality.
association of persons that is made a party, must be averred.
In our case, when Mateo died, his legal personality ceased and
he can no longer be impleaded as defendant in an action for
A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of
collection.
any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which
In the language of the old rules, the complaint against him
shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly
should be dismissed on the ground that the pleading asserting
within the pleader’s knowledge. (Rule 8, Sec. 4)
the claim states no cause of action or for failure to state a
cause of action pursuant to the old Rule 16, Sec 1(g) of the old
Ex: Plaintiff XYZ Corporation is a corporation duly organized
Rules of Court because a complaint cannot possibly state a
and existing under Philippine laws. It has its principal office in
cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil
1234 Makati City, Philippines. Copy of its Certificate of
action.
Incorporation is attached hereto as ANNEX “A”.
Instead of filing a case of collection, he can bring a claim
against Mateo’s estate in the proceeding for the settlement of Parties in interest
the same under Rules 86 and 87 of the Rules of Court. There Sec. 2. Parties in interest – A real party in interest is the
has to be a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
deceased person, which is Mateo in this case. And Gerald, in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
what he can do, is register his claim there in the said Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
proceedings. action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest.
Plaintiff and Defendant
Plaintiff Defendant  The plaintiff, as the real party in interest, must appear to
be the present real owner of the right sought to be
- Original Claiming Party - Original Defending
enforced.
- Counter-Claimant; Party;
 The defendant, as the real party in interest, must appear
- Cross-Claimant; - Defendant in a Counter-
to be the person whose acts or omissions stand as the
- Third(etc.)Party Plaintiff Claim;
basis for the plaintiff’s cause of action.
- Cross-Defendant;
- Third(etc.) Party Plaintiff
Must be real party in interest even on appeal
Legal existence of an organized association The requirement that the party instituting a civil case must be a
real party in interest must consequently extend to a party filing
of persons must be averred an appeal of a civil case to the higher courts. (Rural bankers
Under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, only association of the Philippines vs. Tanghal-Salvana)
natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may
be parties in a civil action. Article 44 of the Civil Code
enumerates the various classes of juridical persons. Under
Meaning of interest
Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be
said Article, an association is considered a juridical person if
affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of
distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved.
his members.
One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in action.
The records of the present case are bare of any showing by
SSHA that it is an association duly organized under Philippine
By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as
Law. It was thus an error for the HLURB-NCR Office to give
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
due course the complaint given the SSHA’s lack of capacity to
subordinate or consequential interest. (Sps. Oco vs. Limbaring)
sue in its own name. Nor was it proper for said agency to treat
the complaint as a suit by all the parties who signed and
verified the complaint. The members cannot represent their Requisites
association in any suit without valid and legal authority. Neither (1) To institute or defend an action, the plaintiff or the
can their signatures confer on the association any legal defendant must be the real party in interest; and
capacity to sue. (2) The action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest.
 co-owners who filed suit is an indispensable party thereto. The
Purpose other co-owners are not indispensable parties.
 To prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without
They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can
any right, title or interest in the case;
be afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the
 To require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be
suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-
the one to prosecute the action;
owners. (Catedrilla vs. Lauron)
 To avoid multiplicity of suits; and
 To discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds,
pursuant to sound public policy. Partnership suits
Under Article 1768 of the Civil code, a partnership has a
Contract disputes juridical personality separate and distinct from that of each of
the partners. hence, if the contract was entered into by the
GR: In a breach of contract, the real parties in interest are the
partnership in its name, it is the partnership and not its officers
parties to a contract.
or agents which should be impleaded in any litigation involving
property registered in its name. A violation of the rule will result
Relativity of contracts
in dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of
Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns
action. (Aguila vs. CA)
and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations
arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature,
or by stipulation or by provision of law. (Art. 1311, Civil Code) Failure to include name of a party in the
XPN:
pleading
The mere failure to include the name of a party in the title of
1. Contracts containing Stipulations Pour Autrui or
the complaint is not fatal because the Rules of Court requires
stipulations expressly conferring benefits to a non-party
the courts to pierce the form and go into the substance and not
may sue under the contract provided such benefits have
be misled by a false or wrong name in the pleadings. The
been accepted by the beneficiary prior to its revocation by
averments are controlling and not the title. Hence, if the body
the contracting parties.(Art. 1311, Civil Code)
indicates the defendant as a party to the action, his omission in
the title is not fatal.
2. Contracts intended to defraud creditors – the contracts
entered into in fraud of creditors may be rescinded when
the creditors cannot in any manner collect the claims due Situations
them. Thus, a creditor who is not a party to a contract can Plaintiff Dismissible
sue to rescind the contract to redress the fraud committed 1. Not a natural or a Yes. On the affirmative
upon him. (Art. 1313 & Art. 1381, Civil Code) juridical person or an defense that the plaintiff has
entity authorized by law. no legal capacity to sue.
Recovery of possession 2. Has capacity to sue but Yes. On the affirmative
Should a lawful possessor be disturbed in his possession, it is he is not the real party defense that pleading
the possessor and not necessarily the owner of the property in interest. asserting the claim states no
who can bring the action to recover possession. The argument cause of action or that
that the complaint states no cause of action because the suit failure to state a cause of
was filed by a mere possessor and not by the owner is not action, because there
correct. (Philippine Trust Company vs. CA) cannot be a cause of action
against one who cannot be
a party to a civil action.
Ejectment suits 3. Failed to include the No. If the substance of the
In an action for forcible entry, the possessor/ lessee is the real name of a party in the complaint still indicates the
party in interest as plaintiff and not the owner/ lessor. The issue title of the complaint. defendant as a party to the
in an action for forcible entry is mere possession. However, in action, his omission in the
an action to recover damages for damage caused by the title is not fatal.
defendant on the property, the owner/ lessor is the real party in
interest as plaintiff.
When an association has standing to file a
Corporate suits suit for its members
If the cause of action belongs to the corporation, the proper The modern view is that an association has standing to
party to sue is the Board of Directors. However, if the Board complain of injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal
neglects or refuses to sue despite demand by the stockholders identity of an association with that of its members. An
to sue and protect or vindicate corporate rights, a stockholder association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its
is allowed by law to file a Derivative suit in the corporate name. lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action.
In such a suit, the real party-in-interest is actually the An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its
corporation and the stockholder filing the action is a mere constituents.
nominal party.
Herein petitioner's Amended Articles of Incorporation contains
a similar provision just like in Executive Secretary, that the
Actions to recover co-owned property association is formed "to represent directly or through
In suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in approved representatives the pharmaceutical and health care
interest. However, pursuant to article 487 of the Civil code, any industry before the Philippine Government and any of its
one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the agencies, the medical professions and the general public."
recovery of the co-owned property. Therefore, only one of the Thus, as an organization, petitioner definitely has an interest in
fulfilling its avowed purpose of representing members who are
part of the pharmaceutical and health care industry.
Petitioner is duly authorized to take the appropriate course of
action to bring to the attention of government agencies and the
courts any grievance suffered by its members which are
directly affected by the RIRR. Petitioner, which is mandated by
its Amended Articles of Incorporation to represent the entire
industry, would be remiss in its duties if it fails to act on
governmental action that would affect any of its industry
members, no matter how few or numerous they are.
Hence, petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its
members, should be considered as a real party-in-interest
which stands to be benefited or injured by any judgment in the
present action. (Pharmaceutical and Health care association of
the Philippines vs. Health Secretary Duque III)
Locus standi
Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a right of
appearance in a court of justice on a given question. It is a
party’s personal and substantial interest in the case such that
he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement. Legal standing ensures that a party seeking a
concrete outcome or relief that may be granted by courts.
(Falcis vs. Civil Registrar General)
1. Private suits – standing is governed by the real parties
in interest rule. (Rule 3, Sec. 2)
 Standing in private suits require that actions be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party
in interest, interest being material interest or an
interest in issue to be affected by the decree or
judgment of the case not just mere curiosity about the
question involved.
2. Public suits – the rule on locus standi governs. It
connotes a personal and substantial interest in a case
such that the party will sustain or will sustain direct injury
as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged.
 The gist of the question on standing is whether a party
alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assume that concrete adverseness
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which
the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.
 The plaintiff who asserts a public right in assailing an
allegedly illegal official action does so as a
representative of the general public. He may be a
person who is affected no differently from any other
person. He could be suing as a stranger or in the
category of a citizen or a taxpayer in the case of a
taxpayer suit. In either case, he has to adequately
show that he is entitled to seek judicial protection. In
other words, he has to make out a sufficient interest in
the vindication of the public order and the securing of
relief as a citizen or a taxpayer.
Direct injury test
The Supreme Court has adopted the direct injury test in our
jurisdiction to determine standing in public suits. It holds that
the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a
personal or substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result.
Rule on locus standi may be relaxed when
there is transcendental importance
Being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus
standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its
distraction. Thus, where the transcendental importance of the
case prompts liberality from the court or where the petition has
far-reaching implication, the rule on locus standi is relaxed.
Instructive determinants of transcendental
importance
There being no doctrinal definition of transcendental
importance, the following instructive determinants formulated
by former Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano are
instructive:
(1) the character of the funds or other assets involved in
the case;
(2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
respondent agency or instrumentality of the government;
and
(3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and
specific interest in raising the questions being raised.
(Francisco jr. vs. House of representatives)
Present substantial interest
Whether a suit is public or private, the parties must have a
present substantial interest, not a mere expectancy or future
contingent subordinate or consequential interest. Those who
bring the suit must possess their own right to the relief sought.
Party must claim some kind of injury in fact
Even for exceptional suits filed by taxpayers, legislators, or
concerned citizens, this Court has noted that the party must
claim some kind of injury-in-fact.
1. Concerned citizens – they must show an allegation that
the continuing enforcement of a law or any government act
has denied that party some right or privilege to which they
are entitled, or that the party will be subjected to some
burden or penalty because of the law or act being
complained of.
2. Taxpayers – they must show sufficient interest in
preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by
taxation.
3. Legislators – they must show that some government act
infringes on the prerogatives of their office.
4. Third-party suits – it must be brought by litigants who
have sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the
dispute. (Falcis vs. Civil Registrar General)
Commonality
Locus standi as a Real party in interest
requirement for a right of requirement for maintaining
action a cause of action
 Both rules are directed towards ensuring that only
certain parties can maintain an action.
 Both requirements are, in effect, limitations on a
prospective litigant’s ability to bring suit.
Distinctions
 Locus standi Real party in undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
interest principal except when the contract involves things belonging
Concept Has constitutional Strictly a to the principal.
underpinnings. concept of civil

Scope Broader as it
procedure.
Involves only
Who are representatives
1. A trustee on behalf of an express trust;
encompasses both public private suits,
2. A guardian on behalf of his ward;
and private suits. specifically civil
3. An executor or administrator on behalf of an estate;
actions.
4. An agent on behalf of his principal; or
Test Whether the parties have whether the
5. Any other party authorized by the law or Rules.
sustained, or are in party stands to
immediate danger of be benefited or
sustaining, some direct injured by the
injury as the result of the judgment in the
enforcement of suit or entitled to
governmental action. the avails of the How are representatives appointed
suit. Party Appointment
Exception If the issue involved is one Found in the Natural Person He may appoint another
of transcendental Rules of Court. person to represent him in
importance. the suit by executing a
special power of attorney
Petition for nullity of marriage cannot be Corporation
under the laws on agency.
There has to be a board
filed by persons other than the husband or resolution empowering a
certain person to represent
the wife it. This resolution is
Compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of evidenced by a secretary
the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for certificate.
declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
spouse filed in the regular courts. Representatives under the rules
1. In the act of verification of a pleading – A pleading is
The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign
construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of said verification. The authorization of the affiant to act on
marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party who behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or certificate or a special power of attorney, should be
the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Elsewise stated, attached to the pleading. (Rule 7, Sec. 4)
plaintiff must be the real party in-interest. For it is the basic in
procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and 2. In certifying against forum shopping – The
defended in the name of the real party-in interest. authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party in
signing a certification against non-forum shopping,
Thus, in Niñal v. Badayog, the Court held that the children whether in the form of a secretary certificate or in special
have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of power of attorney, should also be attached in the pleading.
marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it (Rule 7, Sec. 5)
affects their successional rights. (Carlos vs. Sandoval)
3. Appearance during pre-trial – A representative, through
Suits to recover property of the estate a special power of attorney, may appear on behalf of a
party during pre-trial, but shall be fully authorized in writing
GR: All suits to recover property of the estate must be filed by
to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to
the executor or administrator.
alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into
stipulations or admission of facts and documents. (Rule
XPN:
18, Sec. 4)
The heirs may file if:
(1) If the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to
bring suit; Rule if case if prosecuted by a representative
(2) When the administrator is alleged to have participated in Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by
the act complained of and he is made a party defendant; a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the
and beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
(3) When there is no administrator or executor. deemed to be the real party in interest.

Representatives as parties Effects of failure to include name of

Sec. 3. Representatives as parties – Where the action is
allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative
beneficiary or principal
 Improper service of summons
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
As a rule, a case is dismissible if there is improper service of
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed
summons because the court cannot obtain jurisdiction over the
to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a
person of the defendant. Where the name of the beneficiary of
trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor, or
principal is omitted, it may result in the improper service of
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules.
summons. However, the improper service of summons in such
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
cases may be cured by the service of an alias summons.
(Spouses Anunciacion vs. Bocanegra)
 Unauthorized complaint does not produce any effect
If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as
plaintiff but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such
complaint is not deemed filed and the court does not acquire
jurisdiction over it. An unauthorized complaint does not
produce any legal effect. Corollary, the defendant can assail
the facts alleged therein and the action may be dismissible on
the ground that the plaintiff has no capacity to sue, that is, that
he does not have the representation he claims. (Aron vs.
Realon)
 A mere formal defect curable by amendment
The weight of jurisprudence is to the effect that a simple
mistake consisting in failure to implead a person represented is
a mere formal defect. It can therefore be cured by amendment.
Trustee
Before a person can sue for the benefit of another under a
trusteeship, he must be a trustee of an express trust. Thus,
under this provision, “in order that a trustee may sue or be
sued alone, it is essential this his trust should be express, that
is, a trust created by the direct and positive acts of the parties,
by some writing, deed or will or by proceedings in court.
The provision does not apply in cases of implied trust, that is, a
trust which may be inferred merely from the acts of the parties
or from other circumstances. (PAL, Inc. vs. Heald Lumber
Company)
Guardian
A guardianship is a trust relation of the most sacred character,
in which one person, called a “guardian” acts for another called
the “ward” whom the law regards as incapable of managing his
own affairs.
A guardianship is designed to further the ward’s well-being, not
that of the guardian. It is intended to preserve the ward’s
property, as when as to render any assistance that the ward
may personally require. It has been stated that while custody
involves immediate care and control, guardianship indicates
not only those responsibilities, but those of one in loco parentis
as well. (Francisco v. Court of Appeals)
Executor or Administrator
Any judgement on an action filed after the death of a party is
void for lack of jurisdiction over his person. He was not, and he
could not have been validly served with summons.
He had no more civil personality. His juridical personality was
lost through death. The same conclusion would still inevitably
be reached notwithstanding joinder of the estate as
codefendant. It is a well settled rule that an estate can sue or
be sued through an executor or administrator in his
representative capacity. (Ching vs. CA)
Heirs may represent the estate
Even if administration proceedings have already been
commenced, the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator
has not yet been appointed. This is the proper modality despite
the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party
representation, namely Section 3, Rule 3 and Section 2, Rule
87 of the Rules of Court.
The above-quoted rules, while permitting an executor or
administrator to represent or to bring suits on behalf of the
deceased, do not prohibit the heirs from representing the
deceased. These rules are easily applicable to cases in which
an administrator has already been appointed. But no rule
categorically addresses the situation in which special
proceedings for the settlement of an estate have already been
instituted, yet no administrator has been appointed.
In such instances, the heirs cannot be expected to wait for the
appointment of an administrator; then wait further to see if the
administrator appointed would care enough to file a suit to
protect the rights and the interests of the deceased; and in the
meantime, do nothing while the rights and the properties of the
decedent are violated or dissipated.
Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence
recognizes two exceptions, viz: (1) if the executor or
administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit; and (2) when
the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act
complained of and he is made a party defendant.
All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing
to sue for the recovery of the property of the estate during the
pendency of administration proceedings has three exception,
the third being when there is no appointed administrator such
as in this case. (Rioferio et. al vs. CA)
Party authorized by law
Receivers and similar persons
Receivership is a provisional remedy under Rule 59, in which
the court appoints a person to preserve, administer, dispose of,
and prevent the loss or dissipation of the real or personal
property in litigation during the pendency of an action, during
the pendency of an appeal, or as an aid in the execution of a
judgement when the writ of execution has been returned
unsatisfied. A receiver is a representative of the court
appointed by the court for the purpose of the receivership.
Unions
It is the function precisely of a labor union to carry the
representation of its members against the employer’s unfair
labor practices against it and its members and to file an action
for their benefit and behalf without joining them and to avoid
the cumbersome procedure of joining each and every member
as a separate party. (Davao Free Workers Front v. CIR)
Agent acting in his own name and for the
benefit of an undisclosed principal
Situation Effect
Does not involve the The agent may sue or be
property of the principal sued without joining the
principal.
Involves the property of The agent can only sue if he
the principal discloses and joins the
principal.
The reason for the difference is to avoid prejudice to the
economic interests of the principal by the unauthorized acts
of his agent.
How to implead parties
Situation Example
Ordinary way (1 plaintiff, 1 Maja, Plaintiff, versus Sarah,
defendant) Defendant.
Plaintiff, who is a minor, is Majess, represented by her
represented in the filing of mother Maja, Plaintiff,
an action versus JZE, Defendant.
 Defendant, who is a minor, Maja, Plaintiff, versus XPN: Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable Parties.
is represented Hyunbin, represented by his
legal guardian, Lee Min-ho,
Defendant.
Permissive Joinder
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in
Claim against an estate Maja, Plaintiff, versus Estate
whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or
of Matteo, represented by
arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions
administrator Gerald,
is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
Defendant.
alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these
Plaintiff sues through her Maja, represented by her
Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one
agent attorney-in-fact, JZE,
complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all
Plaintiff, versus Pia,
such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the
Defendant.
action; but the court may make such orders as may be just
Interpleader JZE versus Pia and Maja. to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest.
Requisites
Spouses Permissive joinder of parties requires that:
Sec. 4. Spouses as parties – Husband and wife shall sue 1. The right to relief arises out of the same transaction or
or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. series of transactions;
2. There is a question of law or fact common to all the
plaintiffs or defendants; and
Effect of failure to join one spouse 3. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions
The case should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to join of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue.
her husband. Nor should the case be remanded to the court
below and a new trial ordered on this account. The complaint
may and should be amended here, to cure the defect of party
Joinder of parties is encouraged
plaintiffs, after final decision is rendered, Provided, the 1. To promote convenience in trial;
husband is not hostile to his wife's claims. (Cuyugan vs. Dizon) 2. To prevent multiplicity of suits;
3. To expedite the termination of litigation; and
4. To attain economy of procedure considering that several
Exceptions to the rule demands arising out of the same occurrence may be tried
1. If there is a complete separation of property and one together thus avoiding the repetition of evidence relating to
spouse sues or is sued with respect to such property. facts common to all claims.
2. If there is a conjugal partnership of gains, and the suit
involves exclusive property.
3. If there is legal separation.
Joinder of parties is joinder of causes of
action but joinder of causes does not mean
Minors joinder of parties
Sec. 5. Minor or incompetent persons – A minor or a  One can have several causes of action against only one
person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with party.
the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has  Several parties may have only one cause of action against
none, a guardian ad litem. a single defendant. Where the vehicle owner and the
partially subrogated insurer jointly sued the defendant. The
Minor SC declared that there was only one cause of action
Includes a person who has not yet reached the age of majority possessed by two parties separately because there was
(below 18 years old). only one delict.

Incompetent In such case, two plaintiffs may, in one complaint sue a

The word incompetent includes: single defendant. Because joinder of parties is permissive,
1. persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction; they may also sue the same defendant separately.
2. hospitalized lepers; (Pantranco v. Standard Insurance)
3. prodigals;
4. deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write
5. those who are of unsound mind, even though they have
Kinds of parties in a civil action
lucid intervals; and 1. Real parties in interest;
6. persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of: 2. Representatives as parties;
 age; 3. Indispensable parties;
 disease; 4. Necessary parties;
 weak mind; 5. Indigent parties; and
 and other similar causes; 6. Pro-forma parties.

cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and
manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for
deceit or exploitation.
Joinder of Parties
GR: Not mandatory, permissive only.
Indispensable parties
Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties –
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can
be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants.
Definition Principle of Res inter alios acta alteri nocere
 An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an
interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final
non debet
 Things done between strangers must not cause an injury
adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without
to the people who are not parties to such acts. If a case
injuring or affecting that interest (CSC v. Rasuman)
were to proceed without an indispensable party in interest
who stands to be ultimately injured by the judgment in the
 An indispensable party is one whose interest will be
suit, this principle (res inter alios acta) is violated.
affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without
whom, no final determination of the case can be had. The
 An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest
party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the
in the controversy or subject matter that a final
relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other
adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without
parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the
injuring or affecting that interest. A person who was not
proceeding is an absolute necessity (Imson v. Court of
impleaded in the complaint cannot be bound by the
Appeals)
decision rendered therein, for no man shall be affected by
a proceeding in which he is a stranger. Otherwise sated,
things done between strangers ought not to injure those
who are not parties to them. (Sps. Garcia vs. Garcia)
An indispensable party is a real party in
interest
If petitioner is not a real party in interest, he or she cannot be Duty of court when an indispensable party is
an indispensable party. (Relucio v. Lopez)
not impleaded
1. When it appears of record that there are other persons
Joinder of parties compulsory for interested in the subject matter of the litigation (who are
indispensable parties not made parties to the action), it is the duty of the court to
suspend the trial until such parties are made either
 Joinder of parties is permissive, not mandatory. However,
plaintiffs or defendants.
if a party is considered an indispensable party, his joinder
in the action is compulsory.
2. Where the petition failed to join as party defendant the
 The joinder of all indispensable parties is required under
person interested in sustaining the proceeding in the court,
any and all conditions, their presence in the action being a
the same should be dismissed. When an indispensable
sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power. (Borlasa v.
party is not before the court, the action should be
Polistico)
dismissed. (Florete vs. Florete)
 The burden of procuring the presence of all indispensable
parties is on the plaintiff (Plasabas v. Court of Appeals)
Note: There is nothing in Florete (and the cases that preceded
it) that says anything about automatic dismissal. In fact, the
When indispensable party is unimpleaded prevailing rule on non-joinder does not mandate dismissal
If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any under Rule 3, Sec.11.
judgment rendered would have no effectiveness. It is precisely
when an indispensable party is not before the court that an
action should be dismissed.
Non-joinder of indispensable parties not a
ground for dismissal
The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent In instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, remedy is to implead them not to dismiss the case. xxx The
not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. A non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the
decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there dismissal of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding
is want of indispensable parties. (CSC v. Rasuman) and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the
motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If
Purpose of compulsory joinder the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite
the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for
1. The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable
the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order (refers to Rule 17,
parties is a complete determination of all issues, not only
Section 3). The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to
between the parties themselves, but also as regards other
be indispensable. (Divinagracia v. People)
persons whom may be affected by the judgment.

2. The evident purpose of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of Summary: What court should do when
suits, by requiring the person attesting a right against the
defendant to include with him, either as co-plaintiffs or as
indispensable party is not impleaded
1. The court should neither dismiss the case outright nor
codefendants, all persons standing in the same position,
proceed with trial.
so that the whole matter in dispute may be determined
2. The court should suspend trial in the meantime and order
once and for all-in-one litigation.
the plaintiff to implead the indispensable party.
3. If the plaintiff does not comply with the order, the court can
3. If the court determines an action that does not include a
dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 17, Section 3.
proper indispensable party, it allows the indispensable
party to be prejudiced without giving him an opportunity to
be heard. When that happens, there is a violation of the Defendants cannot compel plaintiff to
due process clause of the Constitution.
prosecute against another party
A plaintiff has the right to choose which of several persons to
implead as defendant in, or to drop from, his complaint. None
of the defendants has the right to compel said plaintiff to
prosecute the action against a party if he does not wish to do
so. Of course, the plaintiff will have to suffer the consequences
of any error he might commit in exercising his option.
For the defendant that he does not implead, or drops from the
action, may well be an indispensable party, in which event his
action will have to be dismissed, since according to the law, no
final adjudication can be had of the action without such an
indispensable party.
The remedy of a co-defendant who is not dropped, therefore, is
not to insist that the plaintiff continue to prosecute his action
against the dropped defendant, but to move for dismissal of the
action against himself, or take such appropriate action as might
otherwise be proper. (Bank of America NT & SA vs. CA)
Action for partition
 In an action for partition of land, all co-owners thereof are
indispensable parties. (Divinagracia vs. Parilla)
 An action for partition of real estates is at once an action
for the determination of the co-owners of the subject
property and an action for the eventual conveyance of
specific portions thereof to the co-owners.
The Court added that while this subject matter is incapable
of pecuniary estimation, the proper court which would
have jurisdiction over the action would still depend on the
subject property’s assessed values in accordance with
Secs. 19(2) and 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended. (Heirs of Agarrado vs. Agarrado)
Annulment of Partition
In action for annulment of partition, all of the heirs or coowners
must be made parties making them all indispensable parties
(Caram vs. CA)
Recovery of co-owned property from a third
party
In suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in
interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and
the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an
action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned
properties.
Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner
who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is
an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not
indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for
a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their
participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for
the benefit of all co-owners. (Catedrilla vs. Lauron)
Summary: Characteristics of Action for
partition of real estate
 It is a special civil action under Rule 69.
 An action capable of pecuniary estimation but also a real
action. Thus, the determination of jurisdiction is subject to
the assessed value of property.
 An action quasi in rem.
Action for simple recovery of land
In an action for simple recovery of ownership of land, the
person who claims to be the owner of the land is the
indispensable party defendant and not the one in possession
as tenant (Sanidad vs. Cabotaje)
Test in determining indispensability of a
party
 There are two essential tests of an indispensable
party:
(1) can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the presence
of the other party? and
(2) can the case be decided on its merits without
prejudicing the rights of the other party?
There is, however, no fixed formula for determining who is an
indispensable party; this can only be determined in the context
and by the facts of the particular suit or litigation. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan)
Inseparability of interest from the other
parties
A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest
in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the
interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be
directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete
justice between them.
Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his presence
would merely permit complete relief between him and those
already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the
subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to
declare a person to be an indispensable party that his
presence will avoid multiple litigation. (Lucman vs. Malawi)
Other examples of indispensable parties
1. Joint but indivisible obligation.
The obligation to deliver the car is indivisible since it is
incapable of partial performance. If the car is not delivered, the
creditor must file an action for specific performance against
both debtors for delivery of the entire car.
2. Party who party who prevailed in the assailed decision
in an action for certiorari.
Under Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, such party is
interested in sustaining the assailed CA Decision, considering
that he would benefit from such judgment. As such, his non-
inclusion would render the petition for certiorari defective.
A person not a party to the proceedings in the trial court or in
the CA cannot maintain an action for certiorari in the Supreme
Court to have the judgment reviewed. Stated differently, if a
petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not a
party in the lower court, he has no standing to question the
assailed order. To rule otherwise would allow revival of cases
by the assistance of intervenors.
It may be true that Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court
clearly provides that a motion to intervene may be filed at any
time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. However,
by the time petitioner filed the instant petition on the sole basis
that he acquired an interest in a portion of the disputed estate,
the assailed CA Decision had long become final and executory. 6. Person whose very right to office is challenged.
(Pascual vs. Robles) (Galarosa vs. Valencia)

3. Determination of just compensation. 7. Owners of property over which reconveyance is

There would never be a judicial determination of just
compensation absent respondent Land Bank's participation.
Logically, it follows that respondent is an indispensable party in
an action for the determination of just compensation in cases
arising from agrarian reform program. (Gabatin vs. Landbank)
4. Solicitor general in criminal cases.
He excluded the most important party in the case which is the
People of the Philippines represented by the OSG. All criminal
actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the petitioners
(respondents herein) to implead the People of the Philippines
as respondent in the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to
comment on the petition.
In this case, it is evident that the CA proceeded to render
judgment, i.e., the September 28, 2011 Decision and April 17,
2012 Resolution, without an indispensable party, i.e., the
People, having been impleaded. Thus, in light of the foregoing
discussion, these issuances should be set aside and the case
be remanded to the said court. (People vs. Go)
asserted. (Acting registrars of land titles and deeds of
pasay city vs. RTC of Makati)
Transferee pendente lite not an
indispensable party
A transferee of property pendent lite stands exactly in the
shoes of his predecessor in interest, the original defendant,
and is bound by the proceedings had in the case before the
property was transferred to him. He is a proper, but not an
indispensable, party as he would, in any event, have been
bound by the judgment against his predecessor. (Santiago
Land vs. CA)
Necessary party
Sec. 8. Necessary party – A necessary party is one who is
not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if
complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties,
or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim
subject of the action.

5. Petition for correction of entries in civil registry. Distinction between indispensable party and
necessary party
There is a necessity to implead the PNP, NAPOLCOM and
Indispensable Necessary party
CSC because they stand to be adversely affected by
party
petitioner’s petition which involves substantial and controversial
Definition A party in interest One who is not
alterations in petitioner’s service records. (Macawadib vs. PNP
without whom no indispensable but
directorate)
final who ought to be
determination can joined as a party if
The essential requirement for allowing substantial correction of
be had of an complete relief is
entries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in
action and who to be accorded as
an appropriate adversarial proceeding. Section 3 of Rule 108
should thus be to those already
requires that all persons who have or claim any interest which
joined either as parties, or for a
would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
plaintiff or complete
proceeding. Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 108 provide for two sets
defendant. determination or
of notices to two different potential oppositors, i.e., (1) notice to
settlement of the
the persons named in the petition; and (2) notice to other
claim subject of
persons who are not named in the petition, but, nonetheless,
the action.
may be considered interested or affected parties.
When joined Must be joined in Joined in the
The two sets of notices are mandated under the Section 4 and the action under action whenever
are validated by Section 5, which provides for two periods (for any and all possible.
the two types of “potential oppositors” within which to file an conditions However, the
opposition (15 days from notice or from the last date of because the court action can
publication). Summons must, therefore, be served not for the cannot proceed proceed even in
purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply without him. his absence
with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the because his
person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so interest is
chooses. separable from
that of the
XPN: There may be cases where the failure to implead and indispensable
notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the parties.
publication of the notice of hearing: Effect when There can be no The case may
(1) Earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to party not joined valid judgment if proceed but the
court all possible interested parties; he is not joined in judgment
(2) The interested parties themselves initiated the correction the action. rendered will not
proceedings; afford a complete
(3) There is no actual or presumptive awareness of the relief in favor of
existence of the interested parties; or the prevailing
(4) When a party is inadvertently left out. (CSC vs. Rasuman) party.
Failure to Dismissal of the Waiver of the
comply with action. (Rule 17, claim against
 order to implead Sec. 3) such party. (Rule
3, Sec. 9)
The non-joinder of either an indispensable or a necessary
party is not, by itself, a ground for the dismissal of the
action.
Complete relief or complete determination
or settlement of claim
In an action for collection of debt instituted by the creditor
against the surety, the principal debtor is merely a necessary
party. Conversely, in action for recovery of debt instituted by
the creditor against the debtor, the guarantor or the surety is
merely a necessary party.
It is the absolute prerogative of the plaintiff to choose the
theory upon which predicates his right of action, or the parties
he desires to sue, without dictation or imposition by the court or
the adverse party. If he makes a mistake in the choice of his
right of action, or in that of the parties against whom he seeks
to enforce it, that is his own concern as he alone suffers
therefrom. (Vano vs. ALO)
Illustration:
1. Solidary obligation
There can be concurrence of two or more creditors or two or
more debtors in one and the same obligation.
Where it is stipulated, for example, each one of the debtors is
bound to render entire compliance with the obligation, the
obligation is solidary.
If the obligation is not paid, the creditor can sue 1 debtor only
to demand satisfaction or payment. Complete relief or
complete determination or settlement of the claim can be
obtained without impleading the other debtors which are
neither indispensable or necessary parties.
2. Joint obligation
There can be concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or
more debtors in one and the same obligation. In the absence of
solidarity, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided
into as many shares as there are creditors or debtors, the
credits or debts being considered distinct from one another.
If the obligation is not paid, take note that C can sure D1 only
for the latter’s share. For share, C is a real party in interest and
D1 is the real party in interest and indispensable party.
Because it is his share in the obligation, so you have to sue
him from that.
But because the obligation is merely joint, C’s cause of action
against D1 is merely separate from his cause of action against
D2 or D3. However, complete relief cannot be afforded to C if
he does not implead D2 and D3 which are necessary parties.
Liability of joint tortfeasors
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (Art. 2176,
Civil Code)
The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for
quasi-delict is solidary. (Art. 2194, Civil Code)
The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only
for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons
for whom one is responsible:
 The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by
their employees in the service of the branches in which the
latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry. (Art. 2180, Civil
Code)
ex: Maja was bumped by a bus operated by Sarah. Maja
sustained minor injuries. In this case, Maja has a cause of
action against the negligent driver (Art. 2176) the driver’s
employer (Art. 2180). Because, the liability of joint-tortfeasors
is solidary, Maja can sue Sarah only or the driver only. The
entire obligation to pay damages is demandable from either
one of them.
Guaranty and suretyship
By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to
the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case
the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself
solidarily with the principal debtor, the contract is called a
suretyship. (Art. 2047, Civil Code)
Action for collection of debt
In an action for collection of a debt instituted by the creditor
against the surety, the principal debtor is merely necessary
party. Conversely, in an action for recovery of debt instituted by
the creditor against the debtor, the guarantor or surety is
merely necessary party. The creditor may sue, separately or
together, the principal debtor and the surety. (Nassco vs.
Torrento)
The surety or guarantor has a right to recover from the
principal debtor
 The guarantor who pays for a debtor must be indemnified
by the latter. (Art. 2066, Civil Code)
 The guarantor who pays is subrogated by virtue thereof to
all the rights which the creditor had against the debtor. Art.
2067, Civil Code)
 Those already parties (Rule 3, Sec. 8) include the surety
himself. Thus, to avoid multiplicity of suits and for the
surety to get reimbursement, the principal debtor should
be joined in the action.
Remedy when the plaintiff-creditor does not want to
implead the principal debtor
 The surety, solidary debtor and joint torefeasor may file a
third-party complaint under Rule 6, Sec. 11.
Foreclosure of mortgage
In an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage instituted
by the first mortgagee, the second mortgagee is merely a
necessary party. (Somes vs. Government)
The buyer must be made a defendant because she is an
indispensable party in relation to the seller. The foreclosure or
replevin is premised on the default of buyer, the debtor. The
seller would have no right to foreclose the mortgage or
repossess the car without establishing the default of the buyer
unless the obligation of the buyer to seller was assigned with
the consent of Bangs, which act thereby novates the obligation.
Right to appeal not limited to indispensable
parties
There is nothing in the Rules of Court that prohibits a party in
action before the lower court to make an appeal merely on the
ground that he is not an indispensable party. The Rules of
Court does not distinguish whether the appellant is an
indispensable party or not. To avail of the remedy, the only
requirement is that the person appearing must have a present
interest in the subject matter of the litigation and must be
aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment.
The fact that a person is a party to a case before the lower
court, and eventually be made liable if the judgment against
him, necessarily entitles him to exercise his right to appeal. To
prohibit such party to appeal is nothing less than an outright
violation of the rules on fair play. (Gabatin vs. Land Bank)
Effect of non-joinder of a necessary party
(1) The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent
the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party..
(2) Non-joinder being a mere procedural defect, the court at
any time order the inclusion.
Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded –
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should
the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it
may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without
justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim
against such party. The non-inclusion of a necessary party
does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action,
and the judgment rendered therein shall be without
prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
Unwilling co-plaintiff
Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff — If the consent of any
party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained,
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall
be stated in the complaint.
Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties — Neither
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal
of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of
the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at
any stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any
claim against a misjoined party may be severed and
proceeded with separately.
ex:
1. Misjoinder
The driver and his employer were sued for the driver's personal
debt. The court may upon motion or motu proprio order that the
employer be dropped as defendant.
2. Non-joinder
C1 and C2 are solidary creditors of debtor D. D paid C2. C2 did
not give C1 his share. C1 sues D, not knowing the payment
made by D to C2. Naturally, C2 ought to be included as a party
plaintiff but refuses to sue because he was already paid. The
court may order inclusion of C2 as party.
Class suit
 This is an exception to the general rule that all parties
interest must be included in the case or prosecuted and
defended in the name of real party in interest.
 This is known as the Doctrine of Virtual Representation
and is adopted from common law.
Sec. 12. Class suit — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
parties, a number of them which the court finds to be
sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect
the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
intervene to protect his individual interest.
Requisites of a class suit
(1) The Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or
general interest to many persons; and
(2) The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to
bring them all before the court.
Adequate representation
In determining the question of fair and adequate representation
of members of a class, the court must consider:
a) Whether the interest of the named party is coextensive
with the interest of the other members of the class;
b) The proportion of those made parties as it so bears to the
total membership of the class; and,
c) Any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party
to speak for the rest of the class. (MVRS publications vs.
Islamic Da’wah)
Representative suit
A representative suit is akin to a class suit in the limited sense
that the phrases found in Sec. 12 of Rule 3, “one or more may
sue or defend for the benefit of all, and the parties actually
before it is sufficiently numerous and representative, are
similar to the phrase may sue or be sued without joining the
party for whose benefit the action is presented or defended”
found in Section 3 of the same rule. In other words, both suits
are always filed on behalf of another or others. That is why the
two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
One right or cause of action
What makes the situation a proper case for a class suit is the
circumstance that there is only one right or cause of action
pertaining or belonging in common to many persons
(emphasis supplied), not separately or severally to distinct
individuals. The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or
against numerous persons as a group or as an integral entity,
and not as separate, distinct individuals whose rights or
liabilities are separate from and independent of those affecting
the others
In the present case, there are multiple rights or causes of
action pertaining separately to several, distinct employees
who are members of respondent Union. Therefore, the
applicable rule is that provided in Sec. 3, Rule 3, of the Rules
of Court on "representative parties," and not the rules on class
suits. (Llana’s Supermarket vs. NLRC)
Derivative suit
Every derivative suit is necessarily grounded on an alleged
violation by a corporation’s board of directors, of its fiduciary
duties, committed by mismanagement, misrepresentation, or
fraud, with the latter two situations already implying bad faith.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that where corporate
directors are guilty of a breach of trust — not of mere error of
judgment or abuse of discretion — and intracorporate remedy
is futile or useless, a stockholder may institute a suit in behalf
of himself and other stockholders and for the benefit of the
corporation, to bring about a redress of the wrong inflicted
directly upon the corporation and indirectly upon the
stockholders. (Cua vs. Tan)
Requisites for a derivative suit
A stockholder or member may bring an action in the name of a
corporation or association, as the case may be, provided that:
(1) He was a stockholder or member at the time the acts or
transactions subject of the action occurred and at the time
the action was filed;
(2) He exerted all reasonable efforts, and alleges the same
with particularity in the complaint, to exhaust all remedies
available under the articles of incorporation, by-laws, laws
or rules governing the corporation or partnership to obtain
the relief he desires;
(3) No appraisal rights are available for the act or acts
complained of; and
(4) The suit is not a nuisance or harassment suit. (Rule 8,
Sec. 1 Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate
Controversies)
Appraisal right
Appraisal right means that a stockholder who dissented and
voted against the proposed corporate action, may choose to
get out of the corporation by demanding payment of the fair
market value of his shares.
Alternative defendants
Sec. 13. Alternative defendants – Where the plaintiff is
uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to
relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the
alternative, although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the other.
Unknown identity or name of defendant
Sec.14. Unknown identity or name of defendant –
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown,
he may be sued as the unknown owner heir devisee, or by
such other designation as the case may require, when his
identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be
amended accordingly.
Entity without juridical personality as
defendant
Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as
defendant – When two or more persons not organized as
an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction,
they may be sued under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses
of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed.
Death of party
Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel – Whenever a
party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the
court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary
action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period
of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear
within the specified period, the court may order the opposing
party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of
an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased
and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of
the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be
recovered as costs.
Duties of counsel if his client dies
(1) To inform the court of his client’s death within 30 days
after death; and
(2) To give the name and address of his client’s legal
representatives.
effects if counsel does not perform his duties
(1) A ground for disciplinary action against the counsel;
(2) It will not invalidate the proceedings and the judgment
thereon if the action survives the death of such party and
the decision rendered shall bind his successor-in-interest.
Legal representatives of the deceased party
Heirs under this rule may be allowed to be substituted for the
deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator. The appointment of an executor or administrator
may be difficult to procure and may lead to delay.
The second paragraph of the rule is plain and explicit: the heirs
may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without
requiring the appointment of an administrator or executor.
However, if within the specified period a legal representative
fails to appear, the court may order the opposing counsel,
within a specified period, to process the appointment of an
administrator or executor who shall immediately appear for the
estate of the deceased.
The heirs cannot be expected to wait for the appointment of an
administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator
appointed would care enough to file a suit to protect the rights
and the interests of the deceased; and in the meantime do
nothing while the rights and the properties of the decedent are
violated or dissipated.
Since the Rules do not specifically prohibit them from
representing the deceased, and since no administrator had as
yet been appointed at the time of the institution of the
Complaint, we see nothing wrong with the fact that it was the
heirs who represented his estate in the case.
The heirs of the estate of Oscar Casa do not need to first
secure the appointment of an administrator of his estate,
because from the very moment of his death, they stepped into
his shoes and acquired his rights as devisee/legatee of the
deceased Loreto San Juan. Thus, a prior appointment of an
administrator or executor of the estate of Oscar Casa is not
necessary for his heirs to acquire legal capacity to be
substituted as representatives of the estate.42 Said heirs may
designate one or some of them as their representative before
the trial court. (San Juan jr. vs. Cruz)
Duty of court after the counsel performs his
duties
The court shall determine whether the claim is extinguished by
the party’s death.
 If the claim is extinguished – no substitution.
 If claim is not extinguished – substitution of the deceased
party is necessary.
Legal capacity of the deceased heirs matters
If the heir is a minor, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem.
A minor is deemed incompetent to prosecute or defend a civil
action.
Counter-claimant or transferee pendente lite
not considered as a legal representative
The legal representatives that the provision speaks of, refer to
those authorized by law – the administrator, executor or
guardian who, under the rule on settlement of estate of
deceased persons, is constituted to take over the estate of the
deceased. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment
of an executor or administrator.
The reason for the Rule is to protect all concerned who may be
affected by the intervening death, particularly the deceased
and her estate. the transferee who has his own interest to
protect, cannot at the same time represent and fully protect the
interest of the deceased transferor. (Sumaljag vs. Sps.
Literato)
Substitution of deceased party
 The court shall issue an order of substitution to the effect
that the legal representatives should appear in the action
and be substituted within a period of 30 days from the
receipt of notice of order.
 Service of summons is not necessary.
 The purpose behind the rule on substitution of parties is
the protection of the right of every party to due process. It
is to ensure that the deceased party would continue to be
properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed
legal representative of his estate. (Torres vs. CA)
 Non-compliance with the rule on substitution of a
deceased party renders the proceedings and judgment of
the trial court infirm because the court acquired no
jurisdiction over the persons of the legal representatives or
of the heirs on whom the trial and the judgment would be
binding. (Brioso vs. Mariano)
Ex: How the case is titled after substitution
“Matteo, deceased plaintiff, substituted by representative
Gerald versus, Rayver, Defendant.”
Formal substitution not an absolute rule
 No right to procedural due process was violated when the
counsel for the respondents failed to notify the court of the
fact of death and even if no formal substitution of parties
was effected after the such death. The rationale behind
the rule on substitution is to apprise the heir or the
substitute that he is being brought to the jurisdiction of the
court in lieu of the deceased party by operation of law.
The said purpose was not defeated even if no proper
substitution of party was made because the heir of the
deceased was already impleaded by petitioner as a party-
defendant when petitioner filed his Amended Complaint.
(Cardenas vs. Heirs of Aguilar)
 The continued appearance and participation of the estate's
representative, in the proceedings of the case dispensed
with the formal substitution of the heirs in place of the
deceased. (Sps. Ibanez vs. Harper)
 This Court has ruled that formal substitution of parties is
not necessary when the heirs themselves voluntarily
appeared, participated, and presented evidence during the
proceedings. (Sps. Bertot vs. Siapno)
Summary: When formal substitution may be
dispensed with
1. When the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared,
participated in the case and presented evidence;
2. When the heir himself was already a party to the case in
which the death of the party occurred; or
3. When the heirs were actually able to file pleadings and
motions and the same were acted upon by the court.
Instances when executor or administrator
must be appointed
1. When counsel for the deceased does not name a legal
representative; or
2. When the legal representative does not appear within the
period specified in the order of substitution.
Nature of the rule on substitution
When a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not
extinguished, the Rules of Court require a substitution of the
deceased. The rule on substitution by heirs is not a matter of
jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. The rule on
substitution was crafted to protect every party's right to due
process. It was designed to ensure that the deceased party issuance of a worthless check are deemed instituted in a case
would continue to be properly represented in the suit through for violation of B.P. 22; the death of the accused did not
his heirs or the duly appointed legal representative of his automatically extinguish the action. The independent civil
estate. liability based on contract, which was deemed instituted in the
criminal action for B.P. 22, may still be enforced against the
Moreover, non-compliance with the Rules results in the denial accused’s estate. (Bernardo vs. People)
of the right to due process for the heirs who, though not duly
notified of the proceedings, would be substantially affected by Independent civil action/separate civil action instituted to
the decision rendered therein. (Sarsaba vs. Vda. De Te) enforce liability arising from other sources of obligations
 Death occurred during pendency of the case – Actions
effect on non-substitution may be continued against the estate or legal
representative after proper substitution of the deceased
It is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the
party. (Rule 3, Sec. 16)
deceased is not represented by any legal representative or
heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the
 There is already final judgment – The judgment shall be
resulting judgment therein. (Sarsaba vs. Vda. De Te)
enforced for prosecuting claims against the estate. (Rule
87)
Actions that survive the death of a party
1. Actions and obligations arising from delicts (Aguas vs.
Llemos);
Actions that do not survive death of party
Actions that do not survive are purely personal in nature.
2. Actions for damages caused by the tortuitous conduct
Examples are:
of the defendant (Melgar vs. Buenviaje);
 Action for support;
3. Action to reover real and personal property from the
 Annulment of marriage;
estate and actions to enforce a lien thereon;
 Legal separation; and
4. Actions to recover damages and injury to a person or
 Action to revoke a donation on the ground of ingratitude;
property (Aguas vs. Llemos);
5. Action for quieting of title (Saligumba vs. Calanog);
The question as to whether an action survives or not depends
6. Ejectment, being an action involving recovery of real
on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the
property and thus a real action (Vda. De Salazar vs.
causes of action which survive, the wrong complained [of]
CA);
affects primarily and principally property and property rights,
7. Action against or by heirs to compel execution of
the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the
public document (Art. 1357, Civil Code)
causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of
8. Civil liability arising from crime;
is to the person, the property and rights of property affected
9. Actions for recovery of money arising from contract,
being incidental. (Cruz vs. Cruz)
express or implied. (Rule 3, Sec. 20)

Distinction
Actions that Actions that do
survive not survive
Wrong/injury Affects primarily To the person.
complained of and principally
property and
property rights
Merely incidental Injuries to the Property and
Civil liability arising from a crime/liability person property rights
affected
deemed impliedly instituted with the Basis Based on Purely personal
criminal case contract, property actions
Party who died Effect and other sources
Private complainant Substitution (Rule 3, Sec. 16) of obligations
Accused Before arraignment – Dismiss the Duty of court Order substitution Dismiss the case
case. The court will not be able to
obtain jurisdiction over the person
of the accused.
Summary: Procedure on death of a
After arraignment – The civil party
liability arising from the delict is 1. Determine first if the action survives or not after
extinguished without prejudice to death.
the civil action that the offended  If action does not survive – Civil action will be
party may file against the estate of dismissed. Upon the death of the defendant, a
the deceased. testate/intestate proceeding shall be instituted in the
proper court wherein all his creditors must appear and file
XPN: Violation of B.P 22. their claims.

 If action survives – Bubstitution of the deceased party

Independent civil liabilities survive death (Rule 3, Sec. 16)
The independent civil liabilities survive death and an action for
recovery may be generally pursued but only by filing a 2. Determine if the action that survives is a contractual
separate civil action. The civil liabilities arising from the money claim or a non-contractual money claim.
 If contractual money claim:
a. Plaintiff died – the case will continue.
b. Defendant died:
Before entry of final judgment – Action shall be
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
Plaintiff cannot execute the judgment but it shall be
enforced against the estate of the deceased party .
After entry of final judgment but before execution –
Plaintiff cannot execute the judgment. A favorable
judgment in favor of plaintiff shall be enforced against
the estate of the deceased.
 If non-contractual money claim – Claimant must file a
case against the executor/administrator or the heirs. (Rule
87)
Note: If a defendant dies in a money claim, the case must be
decided until final judgment against the legal representatives of
the deceased party under the rule on substitution. (Rule 3,
Sec. 16)
When duty of the court to order legal
representatives to appear arises
Section 16 is explicit that the duty of the court to order the legal
representative or heir to appear arises only "upon proper
notice." The notation "Party-Deceased" on the unserved
notices could not be the "proper notice" contemplated by the
rule. As the trial court could not be expected to know or take
judicial notice of the death of a party without the proper
manifestation from counsel, the trial court was well within its
jurisdiction to proceed as it did with the case.
Likewise, the plaintiff or his attorney or representative could not
be expected to know of the death of the defendant if the
attorney for the deceased defendant did not notify the plaintiff
or his attorney of such death as required by the rules.
(Saligumba vs. Palanog)
Substitution by widow in election protest
Pursuant to Rule 14 of the PET Rules, only two persons, the
2nd and 3rd placers, may contest the election. By this express
enumeration, the rule makers have in effect determined the
real parties in interest concerning an on-going election
contest.Rule 3, Section 16 is the rule on substitution in the
Rules of Court allows substitution by a legal representative.
It can be gleaned from the citation of this rule that
movant/intervenor seeks to appear before this Tribunal as the
legal representative/substitute of the late protestant prescribed
by said Section 16. However, in our application of this rule to
an election contest, we have every time ruled that a public
office is personal to the public officer and not a property
transmissible to the heirs upon death. Thus, we consistently
rejected substitution by the widow or the heirs in election
contests where the protestant dies during the pendency of the
protest.
In Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias, we recognized substitution
upon the death of the protestee but denied substitution by the
widow or heirs since they are not the real parties in interest.
Mrs. FPJ, herself denies any claim to the august office of
President. Thus, given the circumstances of this case, we can
conclude that protestant’s widow is not a real party in interest
to this election protest.
The interest which allows a person to intervene in a suit must
be in the matter of litigation and of such direct and immediate
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the
effect of the judgment. In this protest, Mrs. FPJ will not
immediately and directly benefit from the outcome should it be
determined that the declared president did not truly get the
highest number of votes.
If persons not real parties in the action could be allowed to
intervene, proceedings will be unnecessarily complicated,
expensive and interminable – and this is not the policy of the
law. (Poe vs. Macapagal-Arroyo)
Death or separation of a party who is a
public officer
Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public
officer – When a public officer is a party in an action in his
official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or
otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued
and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty
(30) days after the successor takes office or such time as
may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the
court by any party that there is a substantial need for
continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or
continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or
officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto,
shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor
and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
Situation under Section 17
A public officer is sued in his official capacity and during its
pendency he dies, resigns or otherwise ceases to hold office
and someone succeeds his office.
 If the successor intends to continue the policy and
there is a substantial need for continuing the action – the
action may be continued and maintained by or against the
successor (substitution).
 If the successor does not intend to continue the policy
– the case will be dismissed.
Effect of non-substitution
Petitioner had ceased to hold office when he was replaced by
an officer-in-charge since he died from an acute myocardial
infarction. The failure to make the substitution is a procedural
defect. Inasmuch as no such substitution was effected, the
mandamus petition cannot prosper in the absence of a
supplemental pleading showing that the successors of Mayor
Galvez and the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Balagtas, Bulacan had adopted or had continued or threatened
to adopt or continue the action of their predecessors in
enforcing the assailed resolution which ordered the closure of
the subject cockpit arena.
The appointed OIC no longer pursued the "closure policy" of
Mayor Galvez. Thus, the mandamus petition should have been
dismissed for non-compliance with the substitution procedure
pursuant to Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court. (Heirs of
Galvez vs. CA)
Sec. 18. Incompetency or incapacity – If a party becomes
incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with
notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against
the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his
legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
 Sec. 19. Transfer of interest – In case of any transfer of
interest, the action may be continued by or against the
original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted
in the action or joined with the original party.
Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims – When the
action is for recovery of money arising from contract,
express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of
final judgment in the court in which the action was pending
at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall
be enforced in the manner especially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person.
Sec. 21. Indigent party – A party may be authorized to
litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the
court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of
dock et and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
stenographic notes which the court may order to be
furnished him. The amount of the dock et and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be
a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the
indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at
any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the
court should determine after hearing that the party declared
as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or
property, the proper dock et and other lawful fees shall be
assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is
not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall
issue or the payment thereof, without prejudice to such
other sanctions as the court may impose.
Suit by indigent parties
Section 21 is known as a suit in forma pauperis. If the court,
upon an ex parte application and hearing is satisfied that the
party who has no money or property sufficient and available for
food, shelter, and basic necessities for himself and his family,
the indigent party is allowed to litigate while being exempt from
the payment of docket and other lawful fees.
The amount of docket and other lawful fees which the indigent
was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment
rendered in the case favorable to the indigent unless the court
provides otherwise.
 If the adverse party does not agree that his opponent
is an indigent party – he may contest the grant of such
authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the
trial court.
 If the court should determine after hearing that the
party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with
sufficient income or property – the proper docket and
other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the
clerk of court.
 If the payment is not made within the time fixed by the
court – execution shall issue or the payment thereof,
without prejudice to other sanctions as the court may
impose such as contempt.
Pangcatan vs. Maghuyop
Guarantee of free access to courts enshrined in the
Constitution
If the complaint is filed but the prescribed fees are not paid at
the time of filing, the courts acquire jurisdiction only upon the
full payment of such fees within a reasonable time as the
courts may grant, barring prescription. Nonetheless, Section
11, Article III of the Constitution has guaranteed free access to
the courts. This guarantee of free access to the courts is
extended to litigants who may be indigent by exempting them
from the obligation to pay docket and filing fees. But not
everyone who claims to be indigent may demand free access
to the courts.
Exemption extended only to natural party litigants
The exemption may be extended only to natural party litigants;
the exemption may not be extended to juridical persons even if
they worked for indigent and underprivileged people because
the Constitution has explicitly premised the free access clause
on a person's poverty, a condition that only a natural person
can suffer.
When the application to litigate as an indigent litigant is filed,
the trial court shall scrutinize the affidavits and supporting
documents submitted by the applicant to determine if he
complies with the income and property standards prescribed in
the present Section 19 of Rule 141.
Income and property standards under Rule 141, Sec. 19
(1) that his gross income and that of his immediate family do
not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage
of an employee; and
(2) that he does not own real property with a fair market value
of more than P300,000.00;
If the trial court finds that he meets the income and property
requirements, the authority to litigate as indigent litigant is
automatically granted, and the grant is a matter of right; that,
however, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements
have not been met, it should then set a hearing to enable the
applicant to prove that he has no money or property sufficient
and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family.
Rule 141, Section 19 vis-à-vis Rule3, Section 21
Section 19 clearly states that the litigant shall execute the
required affidavits in order to support by sufficient evidence his
indigent status. What he has presented before the court a quo
was only a Certification from the Office of the Provincial
Assessor's Office that he has no land holdings or real
properties.
We note that while Rule 141, Section 19 lays down specific
standards, Rule 3, Section 21 does not clearly draw the
parameters for exemption from payment of fees in case of an
indigent party. Knowing that litigants may abuse the grant of
authority, the trial court must use sound discretion and
scrutinize evidence strictly in granting exemptions in order to
determine whether the applicant has hurdled the precise
standards under Rule 141.
Rule on indigent litigants
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property
requirements under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of
his application is mandatory. On the other hand, when the
application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the
application should not be denied outright; instead, the court
should apply the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3 and
use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer
for exemption.
For the CA to annul the judgment rendered after trial based
solely on such non-payment was not right and just considering
that the non-payment of the filing fees had not been entirely
attributable to the plaintiff alone. For sure, all that Pangcatan
had done was to apply for the exemption, leaving to the RTC
the decision whether or not to grant his application.
Exemption of PAO Clients
The exemption of the clients of the PAO like him from the
payment of the legal fees was expressly declared by law for
the first time in Republic Act No. 9406, particularly its
amendment of Section 16-D of the Administrative Code of
1987. Such exemption by virtue of Republic Act No. 9406 was
recognized by the Court Administrator through OCA Circular
No. 67-2007,28 but the clients of the PAO remained required to
submit relevant documentation to comply with the conditions
prescribed by Section 19, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
The exemption of clients of the PAO from the payment of the
legal fees under Republic Act No. 9406 and OCA Circular No.
121-2007 was not yet a matter of law at the time Pangcatan
initiated the civil case. The remand to the RTC for the purpose
of determining the factual basis for the exemption would be
superfluous. To start with, the exemption, being a matter of
procedure, can be retrospectively applied to his case. They
may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. Thus, the judgment
of the RTC in favor of Pangcatan and against Maghuyop and
Bankiao should be allowed to stand.
Notice to the Solicitor General
Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General – In any action
involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in
its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor
General who may be heard in person or through a
representative duly designated by him.
GR: The solicitor general brings and defends actions on
behalf of the state
The general rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring or
defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines and
that actions filed in the name of the Republic, or its agencies
and instrumentalities for that matter, if not initiated by the
Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed. The authority of
the Office of the Solicitor General to represent the Republic of
the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, is embodied
under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987. (CDA vs. Dolefil Arb Cooperative)
XPN: As an exception to the general rule, the Solicitor General
is empowered to deputize legal officers of government
departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the
Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in
cases involving their respective offices, brought before the
courts and exercise supervision and control over such legal
officers with respect to such cases. (Republic vs. G Holdings
Inc.)
effect of failure to implead the People of the
Philippines
It is undisputed that in their petition for certiorari before the CA,
respondents failed to implead the People of the Philippines as
a party thereto. Because of this, the petition was obviously
defective. As provided in Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions are
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the petitioners (respondents
herein) to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent
in the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to comment on
the petition.
In this case, it is evident that the CA proceeded to render
judgment, without an indispensable party, i.e., the People,
having been imp leaded. Thus, in light of the foregoing
discussion, these issuances should be set aside and the case
be remanded to the said court. (People vs. Go)
Cases where the Solicitor General must be
included
1. Declaratory relief (Rule 63, Sec. 3);
2. Quo warranto (Rule 66, Sec. 2);
3. Escheats (Rule 91, Sec. 1);
4. Change of name (Rule 103, Sec. 4); and
5. In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law,
ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules
or regulation. (Rule 3, Sec. 22)
Nominal or Pro-forma party
A nominal or pro forma party is one who is joined as a plaintiff
or defendant, not because such party has any real interest in
the subject matter or because any relief is demanded, but
merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the
presence of such party on the record. (Samaniego vs. Aguila)
Examples of nominal parties
1. Registry of deeds – being the custodian of all land
records in actions affecting the status of land.
2. Adjudicating judge, officer or tribunal – as a public
respondent in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65.
Accordingly, a judge whose order is being assailed is merely a
nominal or formal party. In such capacity, therefore, he should
not appear as a party seeking the reversal of the decision that
is unfavorable to the action taken by him. A judge is not an
active combatant in such proceeding and must leave the
opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the
appellate court to decide the issues without his active
participation. (Calderon vs. Solicitor General)
Rule 4: Venue
Venue
Venue is simply the place where the case is to heard or tried. It
is governed by procedural law. The rules governing venue are
important because prospective litigants cannot be left to
determine venue for themselves while trying to choose which
place of trial would best serve their selfish interests and to
secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the
defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more
friendly venue.
Distinction between Jurisdiction and Venue
Jurisdiction Venue
Definition The authority to hear The place where
and determine a case. the case is to be
heard or tried.
 How By substantive law (B.P By procedural law 2. where the defendant resides.
determined 129) (Rules of court)
Relation Establishes a relation Establishes a When there are multiple plaintiffs and defendants residing
established between the court and relation between in different cities or municipalities
the subject matter of the plaintiff and In effect, there are as many choices of venue as there are
action. defendant. parties. In a way, it can be a permissible forum shopping
Governing Fixed by law and cannot Fixed by rules but because the plaintiff can choose where to file the case.
rule be conferred by may be conferred
agreement of the by the act or
parties. agreement of the When there are several or alternative reliefs
When Can be objected to at
parties.
Can be objected
prayed for
Where several or alternative reliefs are prayed for in the
objected any stage of the to in the
complaint, the nature of the action as real or personal is
proceedings. defendant’s
determined by the primary object of the suit or by the nature of
answer.
the principal claim. Thus, where the purpose is to nullify the
Subject to NO. YES. May be title to real property, the venue of the action is in the province
waiver waived by failure where the property lies, notwithstanding the alternative relief
to object or by sought, recovery of damages, which is predicated upon a
stipulation of the declaration of nullity of the title. (Navarro v. Lucero)
parties.
Absence Ground for motu proprio Not a ground for BPI v. Hontanosas
dismissal. motu proprio
dismissal unless
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the respondents
the action is
seek the nullification of the promissory notes, continuing
covered by
surety agreement, checks and mortgage agreements for
summary rules.
being executed against their will and vitiated by irregularities,
not the recovery of the possession or title to the properties
Venue in Criminal cases burdened by the mortgages.
In criminal proceedings, improper venue is lack of jurisdiction
because venue in criminal cases is an essential element of There was no allegation that the possession or title to the
jurisdiction. Unlike in a civil case where venue may be waived, properties burdened by the mortgages. There was no
this could not be done in a criminal case because it is an allegation that the possession of the properties under the
element of jurisdiction. Thus, one cannot be held to answer for mortgages had already been transferred to the petitioner in the
any crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it meantime. Thus, the action was unquestionably a personal
was committed. (Navaja vs. De Castro) action. Venue, therefore, was improperly laid and the correct
docket fees were not paid.
Importance of determination of foundation Spouses Saraza v. Francisco
of action (Real or Personal)
1. To determine jurisdiction. Although the end result of the respondent’s claim was the
2. To determine the proper docket fees to be paid. transfer of the subject property to his name, the suit was still
3. To determine the proper venue of the action. essentially for specific performance, a personal action,
because it sought Fernando’s execution of a deed of absolute
sale based on a contract which he had previously made.
Venue of Real Actions
Sec. 1. Venue of real actions — Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be Meaning of Residence
commenced and tried in the proper court which has For purposes of venue, the less technical definition of
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, residence is adopted. It is understood to mean as the personal,
or a portion thereof, is situated. actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or
place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and
actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and
merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal
tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city
residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily
wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is
presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile
situated.
requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to
make it one’s domicile. (Saludo v. American Express)
Venue of Personal Actions
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions — All other actions may GR: The word residence in relation to the rules on venue, has
be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the been uniformly interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of actual or physical residence, not domicile.
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election XPN: Residence as used in said rule is synonymous with
of the plaintiff. domicile. This is defined as the permanent home, the place to
which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, on intends to
For personal actions, the venue will depend on the return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the sense
residence of the parties, at the election of the plaintiff: that they disclose intent.
1. the place where the plaintiff resides; or
The plaintiff is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, while the
defendant is a resident of Catbalogan, Samar. Such being the
case, plaintiff has no choice other than to file the action in the
court of first instance of the latter province.
The allegation that the plaintiff “for purposes of filing and
maintaining this suit, temporarily resides at 576, Paltoc, Santa
Mesa, Manila” Cannot serve as basis for the purpose of
determining the venue for that is not the residence
contemplated by the rule.
If that were allowed, we would create a situation where a
person may have his residence in one province and, to suit his
convenience, or to harass the defendant, may bring the action
in the court of any other province. That cannot be the
intendment of the rule. (Corre v. Tan-Corre)
Residence of Corporations
Under the corporation law, the residence of a corporation is the
place where its head or main office is situated which is usually
the address stated in its articles of incorporation.
GR: According to the Supreme Court, a corporation may sue
and be sued only in the place where its principal office is
situated, which office is usually the one stated in its articles of
incorporation. The fact that it has branches is not controlling.
The fact that it maintains branch offices in some parts of the
country does not mean that it can be sued in any of these
places. To allow an action to be instituted in any place where a
corporate entity has its branch offices would create confusion
and work untold inconvenience to the corporation. (Clavecilla
vs. Antillon)
XPN:
1. The case is a real action;
2. The corporation is the defendant and it is sued in the place
of residence of the plaintiff;
3. The corporation is a co-plaintiff and they chose to sue in
the place of residence of the defendant;
4. The corporation is a co-plaintiff and they chose to sue in
the place of residence of its co-plaintiff;
5. The case falls under Rule 4, Sec. 4; and
6. The address stated in the articles of incorporation is no
longer its actual physical address and the opponent has
knowledge of this fact.
Goldern Arches Development Corp. vs. St. Francis
Square Holdings
According to the Supreme Court, respondent's complaint,
being one for enforcement of contractual provisions and
recovery of damages, is in the nature of a personal action
which, under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, shall be
filed at the plaintiff's residence. Although respondent's
Amended Articles of Incorporation of 2007 indicates that its
principal business address is at Metro Manila, venue was
properly laid in Mandaluyong since that is where it had actually
been residing (or holding its principal office) at the time it filed
its complaint.
The letters of petitioner itself to respondent dated November 2,
2006, December 18, 2006 and January 2, 2007 indicate the
address of respondent to be at St. Francis Square Mall, Julia
Vargas, Ortigas Center, just as the letters of respondent to
petitioner before the filing of the complaint on May 4, 2007
indicate its (respondent's) address to be at St. Francis Square
Mall, Julia Vargas, Ortigas Center. Petitioner was thus put on
notice that at the respondent's filing of the complaint, the
latter's business address has been at Mandaluyong.
Sole proprietorship
A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality
separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the
enterprise. The law does not vest a separate legal personality
on the sole proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an
action in court. Thus, not being vested with legal personality to
file this case, the sole proprietorship is not the plaintiff in this
case but rather Guina in her personal capacity. Logically then,
it is the residence of private respondent Guina, the proprietor
with the juridical personality, which should be considered as
one of the proper venues for this case. (Mangila vs. CA)
Note: The rules on corporations will not apply to sole
proprietorship because a sole proprietorship does not have
juridical personality separate and distinct from that of its owner.
Ang vs. Ang
The petitioner's complaint is a personal action as it primarily
seeks the enforcement of a contract. The Rules give the
plaintiff the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He
can file it in the place (1) where he himself or any of them
resides, or (2) where the defendant or any of the defendants
resides or may be found. The plaintiff or the defendant must be
residents of the place where the action has been instituted at
the time the action is commenced.
However, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the
complaint in such case may only be filed in the court of the
place where the defendant resides. There can be no election
as to the venue of the filing of a complaint when the plaintiff
has no residence in the Philippines. The petitioners, being
residents of Los Angeles, California, are not given the choice
as to the venue of the filing of their complaint.
Residence of Attorney-in-fact, not allowed
Atty. Aceron is not a real party in interest in the case below as
he does not stand to be benefited or injured by any judgment
therein. He was merely appointed by the petitioners as their
attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of filing and prosecuting
the complaint against the respondents. Such appointment,
however, does not mean that he is subrogated into the rights of
petitioners and ought to be considered as a real party in
interest.
Venue in case of non-residents
According to Section 2, personal actions may be commenced
and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant, where he
may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
This means that the defendant is not actually residing in the
Philippines, meaning he is not domiciliary of the Philippines,
but he is temporarily around because he can be found here.
You can therefore sue him where he may be found in the
meantime. If he decides to stay in Davao, this is where the
venue of the action lies rather than his permanent residence.
Sec. 3. Venue of actions against non-residents — If any
of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the
Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the
court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
Difference between the non-resident defendant in Section
2 and the non-resident defendant in Section 3
In Section 2, the non-resident defendant may be found in the
Philippines. Meaning, he is temporarily here. All you have to do
is to catch him here not by way of handcuffing him but by
catching him where he lives. That is where you can file a case
against him. But in Section 3, he does not reside and cannot
be found in the Philippines.
Take note that jurisdiction over the person may be
substituted by jurisdiction over the res. Hence, even if the
Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant but the subject of the controversy or the res is in
the Philippines, then the non-resident defendant can also be
sued in the Philippines. The court can now acquire jurisdiction
over the res. Since the res is here, the judgment can be
enforced. This is what Section 3 provides.
Actions that can be filed against a non-
resident defendant who is not in the
Philippines
1. Action that affects the personal status of the plaintiff.
Ex: Majess was abandoned by her illegitimate father. The
illegitimate father left the Philippines for good. Majess wants to
file a case against the father for compulsory recognition, at
least to improve her status.
2. Action that affects the property or any portion thereof
of said defendants which is located here in the
Philippines.
Ex: The non-resident defendant owns a piece of land located
here in the Philippines and the plaintiff want to recover
ownership of the piece of land.
In order to validly sue a non-resident defendant not found in
the Philippines, the action must be in rem or at least quasi in
rem. But if the action is purely in personam, then there is no
way by which you can sue him.
Remedy in case of personal actions against
non-resident defendants
Convert your action into an action quasi in rem by locating the
defendant's property in the Philippines and have it attached
under Rule 57. If the property is now in custodia legis by
reason of that attachment, the case may push through even
without personal service of summons upon the non-resident
defendant in the Philippines.
exclusions
Sec. 4. When Rule not applicable – This Rule shall not
apply:
a. In those cases where a specific rule or law provides
otherwise; or
b. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before
the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.
Cases where a specific rule or law provides
otherwise
1. Civil action arising from Libel under Article 360 of the
RPC – Libel could give rise to an independent civil action
for damages. The criminal action for libel shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the RTC of:
a. The province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published; or
b. Where any of the offended parties actually resides at
the time of the commission of the offense.
c. If one of the offended parties is a public officer, whose
office is in the City of Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in
the RTC Manila, or in the RTC of the province where
he held office at the time of the commission of the
offense.
2. Change of venue to avoid miscarriage of justice – The
SC may order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
a miscarriage of justice. (Sec. 5(4), Article VIII of the
Constitution)
3. Venue in estate proceedings. (Rule 73)
Where estate of deceased persons settled
If the decedents are an inhabitant of the Philippines at the
time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will
shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and
his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the
province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if
he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First
Instance of any province in which he had estate. (Rule 73,
Sec. 1)
Agreement as to exclusive venue
It is possible that the parties will enter into a contract and
stipulate that any suit involving the contract will be tried only at
a particular place. The stipulation must be:
1. In writing; and
2. Made ante litem motam or before the filing of the action.
If the parties stipulate on the venue of the civil action other that
those found in the Rules of Court, the stipulated venue is
considered merely as an additional venue (in addition to
Sections 1 and 2), unless the stipulation contains restrictive
words which shows the intention of the parties to limit the place
stipulated as the exclusive venue.
Permissive stipulation
The stipulation that “the parties agree to sue and be sued in
the courts of Manila,” does not preclude the filing of suits in the
residence of plaintiff or defendant. The plain meaning is that
the parties merely consented to be sued in Manila. Qualifying
or restrictive words which would indicate that Manila and
Manila alone is the venue are totally absent therefrom.
We cannot read into that clause that plaintiff and defendant
bound themselves to file suits only or exclusively in Manila.
Their agreement did not change or transfer venue. It simply is
permissive. The parties solely agreed to add the courts of
Manila as tribunals to which they may resort. They did not
waive their right to pursue remedy in the courts specifically
mentioned in the Rules on venue. (Polytrade Corp. vs. Blanco)
exclusive stipulation
“The venue for all suits, whether for breach hereof or damages
or any cause between the LESSOR and the LESSEE, and
persons claiming under each, being the courts of appropriate
jurisdiction in Pasay City.” (Gesmundo vs. JRB Realty)
Summary: Rule on stipulation of venue
 The addition of the words “exclusively” or “only” shows the
intention of the parties to limit the venue of the action only
in that place. Hence, if the venue is not exclusive, Rule 4
 still applies and the stipulated venue is just an additional
one.
 Even if the words “exclusively” or “only” are not present,
venue would still be exclusive if this can be gleaned from
the provision of exclusivity.
Sweet Lines vs. Teves
educational attainment (being a lawyer by profession and the
Municipal Mayor of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan), he must be
charged with notice of the condition limiting the venue to
Quezon City, and by affixing his signature thereon, he signified
his assent thereto. Thus, the ruling in Sweet Lines, Inc. v.
Teves, Et Al., is not applicable in this case.

Tandog and Tiro sued Sweet Lines for damages and breach of
Comparison of the two cases
Similarities
contract of carriage. Sweet Lines moved for dismissal of the
Sweet Lines vs. Aquero vs. Flojo
complaint on the ground of improper venue. This motion was
Teves
premised on the condition printed at the back of the tickets, i.e.,
Condition No. 14, which reads: “It is hereby agreed and Contract of Contract of Contract (Telegram)
understood that any and all actions arising out of the conditions adhesion (Condition No. 14)
and provisions of this ticket, irrespective of where it is issued, Number of Sweet Lines has RCPI has many
shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu. branches many branches. branches
Stipulation Any and all actions Venue thereof shall
Even if it was not filed in the City of Cebu. Think that the shall be filed in the be in the courts of
stipulation to venue is an exclusive venue stipulation. Any and competent courts in Quezon City alone
all actions must be filed in the City of Cebu. the City of Cebu. and in no other
courts.
Considered in the context of circumstances prevailing in the Difference
interisland shipping industry in the country today, Condition No. Construed Construe the Construe the
14 printed at the back of the passage tickets should be held as against contract against the contract against the
void and unenforceable for the following reasons: first, under one who prepared plaintif because he
circumstances obligation in the inter-island shipping industry, it it, especially was a lawyer.
is not just and fair to bind passengers to the terms of the because of the
conditions printed at the back of the passage tickets, on which hardships in inter-
Condition No. 14 is printed in fine letters, and second, island travel.
Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of
venue of proceedings of this nature, since the same will Rule on stipulation on venue also applies to
prejudice rights and interests of innumerable passengers in
different s of the country who, under Condition No. 14, will personal actions
have to file suits against petitioner only in the City of Cebu. While Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court states that
ejectment actions shall be filed in the municipal trial court of the
It is hardly just and proper to expect the passengers to municipality or city wherein the real property involved is
examine their tickets received from crowded/congested situated, Section 4 of the same Rule provides that the rule shall
counters, more often than not during rush hours, for conditions not apply where the parties have validly agreed in writing
that may be printed much charge them with having consented before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.
to the conditions, so printed, especially if there are a number of
such conditions m fine print, as in this case. Precisely, in this case, the parties provided for a different
venue. In Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda, etc., et al. the Court
Condition No. 14 is subversive of public policy on transfers of upheld the validity of a stipulation in a contract providing for a
venue of actions. For, although venue may be changed or venue for ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules
transferred from one province to another by agreement of the of Court. Since the unlawful detainer action is connected with
parties in writing t to Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, the contract, Union Bank rightfully filed the complaint with the
such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically MeTC of Makati City. (Unionbank vs. Maunlad Homes)
negates the action of the claimants, such as the private
respondents herein. Contracts of adhesion
Contracts of adhesion are perfectly valid. Only if there is an
The philosophy underlying the provisions on transfer of venue
ambiguity that its binding effect can be changed. In case of
of actions is the convenience of the plaintiffs as well as his
ambiguity, construe the contract against the one who required
witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. Considering the
adhesion, not the one who was constrained to merely adhere.
expense and trouble a passenger residing outside of Cebu City
would incur to prosecute a claim in the City of Cebu, he would
A contract of adhesion is just as binding as ordinary contracts.
most probably decide not to file the action at all. The condition
It is true that this Court has, on occasion, struck down such
will thus defeat, instead of enhance, the ends of justice. Upon
contracts as being assailable when the weaker party is left with
the other hand, petitioner has branches or offices in the
no choice by the dominant bargaining party and is thus
respective ports of call of its vessels and can afford to litigate in
completely deprived of an opportunity to bargain effectively.
any of these places.
Nevertheless, contracts of adhesion are not prohibited.

In the case at bar, respondent secured six (6) subscription

Arquero vs. Flojo
In the instant case, the condition with respect to venue in the
telegram form for transmission was printed clearly in the upper
front portion of the form. Considering the petitioner’s
contracts for cellular phones on various dates. It would be
difficult to assume that, during each of those times, respondent
had no sufficient opportunity to read and go over the terms and
conditions embodied in the agreements. Respondent
continued, in fact, to acquire in the pursuit of his business
subsequent subscriptions and remained a subscriber of
petitioner for quite some time. (Piltel vs. Tecson)
Requisites for a valid exclusive venue
stipulation
An exclusive venue stipulation is valid and binding, provided
that:
a. The stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in nature
or in intent;
b. It is expressed in writing by the parties thereto; and
c. It is entered into before the filing of the suit.
The venue stipulation here, “Should any of the parties renege
or violate any terms and conditions of this lease contract, it
shall be liable for damages. All actions or cases filed in
connection with this lease shall be fixed with the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City, exclusive of all others”.
Conversely, a complaint directly assailing the validity of the
written instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive
venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in
accordance with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it
would be inherently consistent for a complaint of this nature to
recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact,
precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which such
stipulation is contained.
It must be emphasized that the complaint directly assails the
validity of the subject contracts, claiming forgery in their
execution. Given this circumstance, Briones cannot be
expected to comply with the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his
compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition of
their validity. Hence, pursuant to the general rules on venue,
Briones properly filed his complaint before a court in the City of
Manila where the subject property is located.

The above provision clearly shows the parties’ intention to limit

the place where actions or cases arising from a violation of the
Summary of Rules
GR:
terms and conditions of the contract of lease may be instituted.
 For real actions, follow Section 1.
This is evident from the use of the phrase “exclusive of all
 For personal actions, follow Section 2.
others” and the specification of the locality of Pasay City as the
 For others, follow Section 3 – (Venue of actions against
place where such cases may be filed.
nonresidents).
The SC held that the fact that this stipulation generalizes that
XPN:
all actions or cases of the aforementioned kind shall be filed
1. There is a specific rule or law that provides otherwise; or
with the RTC of Pasay City, to the exclusion of all other courts,
2. The parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing
does not mean that the same is a stipulation which attempts to
of the action on the exclusive venue;
curtail the jurisdiction of all other courts. It is fundamental that
jurisdiction is conferred by law and not subject to stipulation of
Xpn to this rule:
the parties.
If the plaintiff specifically contests the validity of the whole
agreement itself. (Briones vs. CA)
Hence, following the rule that the law is deemed written into
every contract, the said stipulation should not be construed as
Note: If not exclusive, the venue stipulated is merely an
a stipulation on jurisdiction but rather, one which merely limits
additional (permissive) venue.
venue. (Ley Construction and Development Corp. vs. Sedano)

Ex: Stipulation provides that “Exclusive to RTC of Davao”, Wrong venue not a ground for motu proprio
but it is an MTC case.
dismissal
A court may motu proprio dismiss a claim when it appears from
Effects:
the pleadings or evidence on record that it has no jurisdiction
 Implement stipulation as to exclusivity of venue but
over the subject matter; when there is another cause of action
disregard stipulation as to exclusivity of court. You cannot
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or
file the case in RTC when the RTC has no jurisdiction over
where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of
it.
limitations. Improper venue not being included in the
 Case should be filed in the MTC of Davao.
enumeration, it should follow that motu proprio dismissal on
 The venue (Davao) is valid, but it is not valid that it should
said ground would still not be allowed under the 1997 Rules of
be only exclusive to the RTC.
Civil Procedure.
Briones vs. CA
Under the Rules, if no motion to dismiss has been filed,
improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in
The venue stipulation in the subject contracts stating that:
the answer, and upon the direction of the court, a preliminary
“All legal actions arising out of this notice in connection with the
hearing may be made thereon as if a motion to dismiss has
Real Estate Mortgage subject hereof shall only be brought in or
been filed. But, as it is, improper venue not having been so
submitted to the jurisdiction of the proper court of Makati City.”
raised by respondent as a ground to dismiss, he must be
deemed to have waived the same.
The venue stipulation found in the subject contract is indeed
restrictive in nature, considering that it effectively limits the
The wrong venue in Civil Case No. 97-31709, being merely a
venue of the actions arising therefrom to the courts of Makati
procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional impediment, does not,
City. The parties, through a written instrument, may either
without timely exception, disallow the RTC of Quezon City to
introduce another venue where actions arising from such
take cognizance of, and to proceed with, the case.
instrument may be filed, or restrict the filing of said actions in a
certain exclusive venue. Where the complaint assails only the
In failing to raise his objection to it either in a motion to dismiss
terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument, the
or in his answer, coupled by his having sought relief from the
exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall still be
court and favorable judgment on his demurrer to evidence,
binding on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly
respondent has himself evinced an acceptance on the venue of
dismissed on the ground of improper venue.
the action. The court a quo has thus erred in dismissing motu
proprio the complaint on the ground of improper venue.
(Gumabon et. al vs. Larin)
Waiver
If you fail to raise your objection to improper venue, there is
waiver.
Situation Effect
Defendant contends that Defendant waives the defect
improperly laid. He filed a in venue. A party cannot
counterclaim. invoke a violation of a rule
on venue against his
counter-party, when he
himself is bound by the
same rule, but nonetheless,
seeks his own relief and in
so doing, violates it.
(Pantranco vs. Yatco)
Note: A counterclaim is not covered by the venue stipulation if
the defendant is not asserting a violation of the terms and
conditions of the contract, but rather an independent right
which arose only because of the filing of the complaint or if his
counterclaim is a compulsory counterclaim.
Rule 5: Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts
Sec. 1. Uniform procedure — The procedure in the
Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional
Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular provision
expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or
(b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure.
XPN to the rule on uniform procedure
1. Where a particular provision expressly or impliedly
applies only to either of said courts.
Ex:
 Joinder or Causes of Action – Joinder may be allowed in
the RTC. (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
 Annulment of Judgment – Judgment of MTCs may be
annulled in RTC. (Rule 47)
2. In civil cases governed by the rule on summary
procedure.
This exception is deemed amended already. By virtue of the
rules on expedited procedures, in addition to summary civil
cases, a different procedure is also followed for small claims
cases. It goes without saying that neither summary rules nor
the rule on small claims are applicable before the RTC.
Sec. 2. Meaning of terms — The term "Municipal Trial
Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Rule 6: Kinds of Pleadings
Sec. 1. Pleadings defined — Pleadings are the written
statements of the respective claims and defenses of the
parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
Sec. 2. Pleadings allowed – The claims of a party are
asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third
(fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the
pleading asserting a claim against him or her.
An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the
defending party attaches an actionable document to the
answer.
Importance of pleadings
- Sets the judicial machinery, initially passive, in motion.
- Determine the jurisdiction of the court over the subject
matter.
- Limit the issues to be tried. As a general rule, issues not
raised in the pleadings will not be considered by the court
for the purpose of trial and eventual judgment.
Determination of issues to be tried
An issue exists when the claiming party and the defending
party are not in agreement. To determine whether a matter is
at issue warrants an examination of the pleadings of both
litigants – the plaintiff’s complaint and the defendant’s answer.
Ex:
If the plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defendant owes
him money and the defendant responds through his answer
that he doesn’t – he is denying that there is a debt, then an
issue arises as to whether defendant really owes the plaintiff
money.
This issue would now determine the course of trial. The plaintiff
would present evidence tending to prove the defendant’s debt
– anything other than what the plaintiff presents will be
immaterial to the case, followed by the defendant presenting
evidence showing that no such debt exists. The court would
then decide the case based on the evidence.
1. Pleadings determine the issues.
2. Issues determine the evidence to be presented.
Note: The course of the entire case therefore hinges on the
pleadings submitted by the parties, as a general rule.
Courts cannot decide on a question that is
not an issue raised in the pleadings
A trial court cannot determine factual considerations that were
neither touched upon in the pleadings nor made the subject of
evidence at the trial. (De Yasi vs. Arceo)
The subject matter of any given case is determined by the
nature and character of the pleadings submitted by the parties
to the court for trial and judgment. (Belandrez vs. Lopez Sugar
Central Mill)
Judgments must conform to both the pleadings and the proof,
and must be in accordance with the theory of the action upon
which the pleadings were framed and the case was tried; that a
party can no more succeed upon a case proved, but not
alleged, than upon one alleged but not proved. (Ramon vs.
Ortuzar)
Courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a
question not in issue. (Lim Toco vs. Go Fay) A judgment going
outside the issues an purporting to adjudicate something upon Motion for summary motion that prays for judgment
which the parties were not heard, is not merely irregular, but judgment or a motion
extrajudicial and invalid. (Salvante vs. Cruz) to dismiss
Motion for a bill of motion that does not pray for
A party cannot raise an issue on appeal that particulars (Rule 12) judgment

was not raised during trial

A party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of
action on appeal. Courts of justice have no jurisdiction or
power to decide a question not in issue. Thus, a judgment that
goes beyond the issues and purports to adjudicate something
on which the court did not hear the parties is not only irregular
but also extrajudicial and invalid. The legal theory under which
the controversy was heard and decided in the trial court should
be the same theory under which the review on appeal is
conducted. Otherwise, prejudice will result to the adverse
party.
We stress that points of law, theories, issues, and arguments
not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court will
not be ordinarily considered by a reviewing court, inasmuch as
they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This would
be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due
process. (De los santos vs. Lucenio)
Pleadings allowed under the Rules of Court
1. Complaint;
2. Counterclaim;
3. Cross-claim;
4. Third, Fourth, etc. Party Complaint;
5. Complaint-In-Intervention;
6. Answer; and
7. Reply.
Note: The pleadings allowed by the Rules are limited. Only
those provided in the Rules of Court are allowed. Motions are
not pleadings.
Limited pleadings under the rules
Under Section 2, pleadings are limited to:
 5 initiatory pleadings
The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint,
counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or
complaint-in-intervention.
 2 responsive pleadings
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the
pleading asserting a claim against him. An answer may be
respond to by a reply if the defending party attaches an
actionable document to the answer.
Importance of classification
Knowing the type of pleading is important because whether a
certification against forum shopping (under Rule 7, Section 5)
is required depends on whether the pleading is initiatory or
merely responsive. Generally only initiatory pleadings require
such certification. The certification is not required in purely
responsive pleadings.
Initiatory pleadings
The complaint and other initiatory pleadings referred to and
subject of this Circular are the original civil complaint,
counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)- party complaint or
complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application wherein a
party asserts his claim for relief. (Administrative Circular No.
04-94 February 8, 1984)

Sec. 3. Complaint – The complaint is the pleading alleging

Distinction between pleadings and motions the plaintiffs or claiming party’s cause or causes of action.
Pleadings Motions The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant
Scope Pleadings state the Motions may or must be stated in the complaint.
respective claims and may not relate to
defenses of the parties. claims or Complaint
defenses. The allegations of the complaint determined jurisdiction over
Prayer for The ultimate objective of Motions may or the subject matter, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
judgment pleadings is to pray for may not pray for entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted
judgment on the merits. judgment. therein, a matter that can be resolved only after and as result
relief The relief that is sought The relief sought of the trial.
sought is one that is threshed is one that is
out after trial and more immediate, Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set
hearing. although motions up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss. Otherwise, the
as a general rule question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the
require hearing. defendant. (Serrano vs. Munoz (HI) Motors Inc.)
Form Always written. May be oral or
written. In determining whether the elements of a cause of action are
Limitation Limited to the ones Virtually present or whichever they have been sufficiently alleged, the
s mentioned under Rule unlimited. inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint. (Asia
6. Brewery vs. Equitable PCI Bank)

Examples of motions
Contents of a complaint
Motion for summary motion that relates to the claim. 1. Allegations constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action;
judgment 2. Names of the plaintiff and the defendant; and
3. Their residences.
Motion to dismiss or motion that relates to the defense
a demurrer
Motion for extension motion that does not relate to
either a claim or a defense
Defective complaint Affirmative defenses
A complaint that fails to state the required names and 1. Fraud;
residences is defective, specifically the defendant. Such 2. Statute of limitations;
information, insofar as the defendant is concerned, are 3. Release;
necessary in order to serve him summons and thus acquire 4. Payment;
jurisdiction over his person. 5. Statute of frauds;
6. Illegality;
Complaint alleging causes of actions must 7.
8.
Estoppel;
Former recovery;
be proved during trial 9. Discharge in bankruptcy;
The complaint is merely the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s 10. Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance; and
cause or causes of action. Its contents are merely allegations, 11. Grounds for the dismissal of a complaint:
the verity of which shall have to be proved during the trial. a. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
(Labor Congress vs. NLRC) matter;
b. That there is another action pending between the
Sec. 4. Answer – An answer is a pleading in which a same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia);
defending party sets forth his or her defenses. c. That the action is barred by a prior judgment (res
judicata);
d. That the action is barred by the statute of limitations
As to requirement of certification against (prescription). (Rule 6, Sec. 5)
forum shopping
GR: An answer per se, being purely responsive does not 12. Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending
require a certification against forum shopping. party;
13. Venue is improperly laid;
XPN: But an answer with a permissive counterclaim or cross- 14. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
claim would require such certification. 15. Pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
and
Sec. 5. Defenses — Defenses may either be negative or 16. Condition precedent for filing the claim has not been
affirmative. complied with. (Rule 8, Sec. 12)

(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material
fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential
to his or her cause or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations
in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent
or bar recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses
include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery,
discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance.
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the
dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another
action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
Types of defenses
The answer itself contains the negative, as well as affirmative,
defenses upon which the defendant may rely. (Rule 6, Sec. 4)
1. Negative defense – A defense of specific denial. A
negative defense denies the material facts averred in the
complaint essential to establish the plaintiff’s cause of
action.
2. Affirmative defense – A defense of confession and
avoidance. An affirmative defense is an allegation of a
new matter which while admitting the material allegations
of the complaint, would, nevertheless, prevent or bar
recovery by the plaintiff.
How defenses are stated in the complaint
Ex:
 Negative Defense
The allegation in paragraph 3 of the complaint is denied, the
truth of the matter being that the Defendant did not contract a
loan with the Plaintiff as the Defendant has never even met the
Plaintiff.
 Affirmative Defense
The allegation in paragraph 3 of the complaint is admitted.
However, while the Defendant had contracted a loan with the
Plaintiff, the same had already been paid as evidenced by the
attached receipt.
Sec. 6. Counterclaim — A counterclaim is any claim which
a defending party may have against an opposing party.
Counterclaim
A counterclaim is essentially a complaint by the defendant
against the plaintiff in the same action. It is a pleading, one of
the limited number allowed by the Rules. Specifically, while a
counterclaim is normally included in an answer, the
counterclaim itself is initiatory.
A counterclaim is described by the Rules of Court as any claim,
which means that the term may refer to a claim for money or
other relief which a defending party may have against an
opposing party. (Calibre Traders Inc. vs. Bayer)
Purpose of counterclaim
The object of a counterclaim is to prevent multiplicity of suits by
allowing the determination in one action of the entire
controversy between the parties, thus avoiding inconvenience,
expense, waste of the court's time and injustice. A
counterclaim also enables a defendant to make his defense
more complete and effectual than it would be if he stood on Note: A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that
one answer alone. the counterclaim is compulsory.
Types of counterclaim Counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless
of amount
1. Compulsory counterclaim – Any claim for money or In an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the
any relief, which a defending party may have against an counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the
opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or is amount. (Rule 6, Sec. 7)
necessarily connected with, the same transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s  The absence of jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim
complaint. because of the amount thereof appropriately applies to the
MTC. Hence, the MTC will not have the jurisdiction to take
It is compulsory in the sense that it is within the jurisdiction of cognizance of a counterclaim in excess of P2,000,000.
the court, does not require for its adjudication the presence of
third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction,  When the original action is filed with the RTC, the
and will be barred in the future if not set up in the answer to the counterclaim may be deemed compulsory regardless of
complaint in the same case. Any other counterclaim is the amount. Hence, a counterclaim of only P500,000 filed
permissive. (Bungcayao vs. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings) in the RTC is still a compulsory counterclaim even if the
court would have no jurisdiction over the amount claimed if
Sec. 7. Compulsory counterclaim — A compulsory it is filed as an original complaint.
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular
courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the 2. Permissive counterclaim – It has no logical
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of connection with the subject matter of the main claim.
the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court  A counterclaim for damages based on culpa aquiliana in a
cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be complaint for collection of a loan is a permissive
within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and counterclaim for not having connection with the plaintiffs
the nature thereof, except that in an original action before claim.
the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount. A  A counterclaim for damages based on a quasi-delict
compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is cannot be pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim in an
barred, unless otherwise allowed by these Rules. action for unlawful detainer. The counterclaim is
permissive. (Arenas vs. CA)
Elements of compulsory counterclaim
(1) It arises out of or is connected with the transaction or  A counterclaim for the payment of the price of the car is
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the not a compulsory counterclaim in an action to recover a
opposing party’s claim; piece of land. (Bar 1996)
In other words, were it not for the filing of the complaint, the
defendant’s claim would not exist or cannot be brought forth. Distinction between compulsory and
Ex:
permissive counterclaim
 A counterclaim purely for damages and attorneys’ fees by Compulsory Permissive
reason of the unfounded suit filed by the plaintiff.
 Counterclaims seeking moral, actual, and exemplary Where to set up A compulsory Set up as an
damages and attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff on and barring counterclaim independent action
account of their malicious and unfounded complaint. effect which a party and will not be barred
has at the time if not contained in the
(2) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of the answer is answer to the
third parties of whom the court cannot acquire filed shall be complaint.
jurisdiction; contained in the
answer because
The counterclaim, in essence, would be the same persons who a compulsory
are already parties to the main case. counterclaim not
set up shall be
(3) It must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as barred.
to the amount and the nature of the claim.
Type of Not an initiatory Initiatory pleading.
Test to determine compulsoriness pleading pleading.
1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by
the counterclaim largely the same? Certifications Not required to Accompanied by a
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's and conditions be accompanied certification against
claim, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? precedent by a certification forum shopping and
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute the against forum whenever required by
plaintiff's claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim? shopping and a law, also a certificate
And certificate to file to file action issued by
4. Is there any logical relations between the claim and the action issued by the Lupon.
counterclaim? (GSIS vs. Heirs of Caballero) the Lupon.
 Failure to Failure to A permissive
answer and
default
answer does not
lead to a default
counterclaim must be
answered by the party
Counterclaims maturing subsequent to
declaration. against whom it is answer
interposed otherwise, A counterclaim or cross-claim which either matured or was
he may be declared in acquired by a party after serving his or her pleading may, with
default as to the the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or
counterclaim. a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment.
(Rule 11, Sec. 9)
Payment of *Not subject to The docket and other
docket fees docket fees. lawful fees should be Requisites under Rule 11, Sec. 9:
paid for a permissive (1) There must be prior leave of court allowing the filing of
counterclaim. the counterclaim, upon motion by the defendant; and

(2) The counterclaim to be set up by supplemental pleading

Note: Rule 141 on Legal Fees was revised effective August 16,
2004, by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC. The revision included the
payment of docket fees not only for permissive counterclaims
but also for compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims, third-
party complaints, etc., and complaints-in-intervention.
Default in counterclaim
Thus, if the plaintiff files an action to recover possession of real
property against the defendant who interposed a counterclaim
for damages and attorney’s fees arising from the filing of the
complaint, the counterclaim need not be answered by the
plaintiff. A motion to declare him in default for failure to answer
the counterclaim must be denied because the counterclaim is
compulsory. (Bar 1996).
On the other hand, if the counterclaim is for damages arising
from the alleged tortious conduct of the plaintiff in a complaint
to collect a sum of money, the defendant may file a motion to
declare the plaintiff in default if he fails to file an answer to the
counterclaim which is simply permissive, and not compulsory.
Defendant files a counterclaim
Essentially, there will be two complaints. When the defendant
files a counterclaim against the plaintiff, the defendant
becomes the plaintiff in the counterclaim while the original
plaintiff becomes the defendant.
The filing of a counterclaim, in effect, gives rise to two
complaints, namely, the one filed by the plaintiff by way of an
original complaint and the one filed by the defendant by way of
a counterclaim.
How a counterclaim is set up
In a separate suit
The defendant can set up his claim in a separate suit. It is even
a common practice among litigants to file counter charges
against the defendant. However, the ability of the defendant to
counter the plaintiff with a suit of his own would depend on the
nature of his counterclaim. At the onset, take note that the
filing of a counterclaim in a separate suit is allowed only if
the counterclaim is permissive.
must have matured and be filed after serving answer but
before judgment.
Omitted counterclaims
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when
justice requires, he or she may, by leave of court, set up the
counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.
(Rule 11, Sec. 10)
A motion to dismiss cannot be filed with
counterclaim
If the dismissal of the main action results in the dismissal of the
counterclaim already filed, it stands to reason that the filing of a
motion to dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the
compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the motion
ultimately results in the dismissal of the counterclaim.
Thus, the filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of
a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. In
the event that a defending party has a ground for dismissal and
a compulsory counterclaim at the same time, he must choose
only one remedy. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he
will lose his compulsory counterclaim. But if he opts to set up
his compulsory counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for
dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer. (Financial
building vs. Forbes Park)
Determination of the nature of counterclaim
Determination of the nature of counterclaim is relevant for
purposes of compliance to the requirements of initiatory
pleadings. In order for the court to acquire jurisdiction,
permissive counterclaims require payment of docket fees,
while compulsory counterclaims do not.
A counterclaim purely for damages and attorneys fees by
reason of the unfounded suit filed by the respondent, has long
been settled as falling under the classification of compulsory
counterclaim and it must be pleaded in the same action,
otherwise, it is barred.

In the same action
The defendant may elect to set up his counterclaim against the
plaintiff in the same action that brought him to court in the first
place. This is true whether the counterclaim is permissive or
compulsory.
A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending
party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained
therein. (Rule 8, Sec. 11)
In this case, the counterclaims, set up by petitioner arises from
the filing of respondent’s complaint. The counterclaim is so
intertwined with the main case that it is incapable of proceeding
independently. Thus, petitioner’s counterclaims should not be
prejudiced for noncompliance with the procedural requirements
governing initiatory pleadings. (Villanueva-Ong vs. Enrile)
Failure to pay docket fees in permissive
counterclaim
Failure to pay the required docket fees, per se, should not counterclaim is counterclaim.
necessarily lead to the dismissal of a permissive counterclaim. meritorious.
While the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon
the payment of the prescribed docket fees, its non-payment at
the time of filing of the initiatory pleading does not Evidence The evidences to The evidence for the
automatically cause its dismissal provided that: prosecute or refute main claim is different
(a) the fees are paid within a reasonable period; and the main claim are from the evidence to
(b) there was no intention on the part of the claimant to defraud the same evidences prove the
the government. (Sy-Vargas vs. Estate of Ogsos) to prosecute or refute counterclaim.
the counterclaim.
Period to answer a permissive counterclaim There is no need to
The court should
require the
If a counterclaim is to be answered, the same must be made
present additional counterclaimant to
within 20 calendar days from service (Rule 11, Sec. 4).
evidence. present evidence on
the permissive
Note: Compulsory counterclaims do not need to be answered.
counterclaim.
They are deemed automatically controverted.
Sec. 8. Cross-claim – A cross-claim is any claim by one
Effect of the dismissal of the complaint on party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
the counterclaim occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original
action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may
(1) Dismissal due to affirmative defenses
cover all or part of the original claim.
The defendant does not file a motion to dismiss. Instead, he
files an answer with affirmative defenses. Included in the Necessity of co-party in a cross-claim
answer is a counterclaim. The court holds a preliminary In a cross-claim, there has to be a co-party. Thus, a cross-
hearing on the affirmative defenses. After hearing, the court claim would only be possible if there is more than one plaintiff
decides to dismiss the complaint. and/or more than one defendant.

The counterclaim is not dismissed. It may be allowed to

continue. The dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to Distinction between counterclaim and cross-
the prosecution in the same or separate action of a claim
counterclaim pleaded in the answer. Counterclaim Cross-claim
(2) Dismissal under Rule 17, Sec. 2 Filed Opposing party. Co-party.
against
The plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after Defendant files a Defendant files a
the defendant has filed his answer with a counterclaim. The counterclaim cross-claim against
motion is granted by the court. against the Plaintiff. his co-defendant.
Effect of If permissive, it is It is considered as an
The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the dismissal of considered a auxiliary suit
defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in a separate main action distinct suit that is dependent upon the
action unless within 15 calendar days from notice of the motion independent of the original action.
he or she manifests his or her preference to have his or her main action. The Hence, the dismissal
counterclaim resolved in the same action. (Rule 17, Sec. 2) dismissal of the of the main action
main action does carries with it the
(3) Dismissal under Rule 17, Sec. 3 not carry with it the dismissal of the
dismissal of the cross-claim.
This is a dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff (e.g. failure to counterclaim.
appear before the pre-trial), but again the defendant has Must arise Not necessarily. Yes.
already filed an answer with a counterclaim. of the same
transaction May be permissive The claim must arise
Like the first two situations, the dismissal is without prejudice to or compulsory. out of the same
the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the When Permissive, it transaction or
same or separate action. need not arise out occurrence that is
of the same the subject matter of
(4) Dismissal on the merits transaction or the original action or
occurrence which is a counterclaim
Plaintiff files a complaint. Defendant sets up a counterclaim in the subject matter therein.
his answer. After trial, the Complaint is dismissed on the of the original In effect and to a
merits. action. certain degree, this
makes a cross- claim
Compulsory Permissive “compulsory”.
counterclaim counterclaim May arise No. Yes.
Effect The dismissal of the The dismissal of the out of each
main complaint on main claim does not other
the merits must automatically lead to There is no A cross-claim may
contain a declaration either granting or counterclaim arise because of a
that the defendant’s dismissing the against a cross- counterclaim.
claim.
 A counterclaim
against a cross-
claim is technically
also a cross-claim.
Effect of dismissal of the complaint on the
cross-claim
The cross-claimants cannot claim more rights than the plaintiffs
themselves, on whose cause of action the cross-claim
depended. The dismissal of the complaint divested the cross
claimants of whatever appealable interest they might have had
before and also made the cross-claim itself no longer viable.
(Ruiz vs. CA)
Cross-claim for foreclosure of mortgage
against the debtor in an action for annulment
of mortgage
The action to annul the mortgage does not have the effect of
interrupting the prescription of the action for foreclosure of
mortgage as it was not an action for foreclosure but one for
annulment of title and nullification of the deed of mortgage and
the deed of sale.
It was not at all the action contemplated in Article 1155 of the
Civil Code which explicitly provides that the prescription of an
action is interrupted only when the action itself is filed in court.
Petitioner could have protected its right over the property by
filing a cross-claim for judicial foreclosure of mortgage against
respondents. The filing of a cross-claim would have been
proper there.
All the issues pertaining to the mortgage, validity of the
mortgage, and the propriety of foreclosure, would have been
passed upon concurrently and not on a piecemeal basis. This
should be the case as the issue of foreclosure of the subject
mortgage was connected with, or dependent on, the subject of
the annulment of mortgage. There would also be no forum
shopping as the issues in the cases are different. (B & I Realty
Co. vs. Caspe)
Filing of cross-claim under the registered
owner rule
The application of the registered owner rule does not serve as
a shield of the offending vehicle’s real owner from any liability.
The law us bit inequitable. Under the principle of unjust
enrichment, the registered owner who shouldered such liability
has a right to be indemnified by means of a cross-claim as
against the actual employer of the negligent driver. In this way,
the preservation of the rights of the parties concerned would be
upheld while championing the public policy behind the
registered owner rule. (Sps. Mangaron vs. Hanna Via Design)
Sec. 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-crossclaims
– A counterclaim may be asserted against an original
counterclaimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-
claimant.
Counter-counterclaims
A counter-counterclaim is a counter-claim asserted against an
original counter-claimant. A counter-counterclaim is not a
different type of pleading in addition to those enumerated in
Rule 6, Sec 2. It is simply a counter-claim.
Counter cross-claim
A counter-crossclaim is a cross-claim filed against an original
cross-claimant. A counter-crossclaim is not a different type of
pleading in addition to Sec 2. It is just a cross-claim filed
against an original cross-claimant.
Reply
 A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to
deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters
alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document. (Rule
6, Sec. 10)
 An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the
defending party attaches an actionable document to the
answer. (Rule 6, Sec. 2)
 In the event of an actionable document attached to the
reply, the defendant may file a REJOINDER if the same is
based solely on an actionable document
Note: This means that, with this mention of a rejoinder, there
are now 8 official pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court
Sec. 10. Reply – All new matters alleged in the answer are
deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any
claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such
claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental
complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the
defending party attaches an actionable document to his or
her answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to
deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters
alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the
reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based
solely on an actionable document.
Rules regarding reply
1. A reply is a purely responsive pleading. It is the response
of the plaintiff to the defendant’s answer.
2. If a party does not file such a reply, take note that all the
new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. The filing of a reply was optional under the
Rules prior to the recent amendments.
3. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of
the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth
in an amended or supplemental complaint.
4. Therefore, technically, a reply cannot contain a
counterclaim. This is so because the rules intend a reply to
be the last pleading. (ex: reply with answer to a
counterclaim – permitted; reply with counterclaim – not
permitted)
5. While the filing of a reply was optional under the old rules,
there were two occasions where a reply is, in effect,
mandatory. (Veluz vs. CA)
When reply is mandatory
Any new matter alleged by way of defense in the answer is declaration.
deemed controverted should a party fail to file a reply, except:
1. In cases where the answer alleges the defense of usury in Effect of Without a reply, all There is no
which case a reply under oath is required otherwise the
absence the new matters automatic
allegation of usury is deemed admitted; or alleged in the answer controversion with
are deemed respect to
6. In cases where the answer is based on an actionable automatically permissive
document in which case a verified reply is necessary
controverted. counterclaim.
otherwise the genuineness and due execution of said
actionable document is generally deemed admitted.
Filing of reply A reply is not A reply can still be
(Veluz vs. CA)
supposed to be filed to respond to
replied to but a the answer to the
Actionable document rejoinder may be counterclaim
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written allowed if the reply which pleads an
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or pleads an actionable actionable
document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or document. document.
a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit
which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading. (Rule 8,
Sec. 7)
Sec. 11. Third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint – A Third
When an action or defense is founded upon a written (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a defending
instrument, or attached to the corresponding pleading as party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any
the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and other relief, in respect of his or her opponents claim.
sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts; but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party The Third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied
does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when admission, and the court shall require the defendant to
compliance with an order for an inspection of the original institute a separate action, where:
instrument is refused. (Rule 8, Sec. 8)
(a) The Third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be
Distinction between reply and answer to located within 30 calendar days from the grant of such
leave;
counterclaim (b) Matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case
are raised; or
Reply Answer to
(c) The effect would be to introduce a new and separate
Counterclaim
controversy into the action.
Definition A reply is a pleading, It is a response to
the office or function the cause of Sec. 12. Bringing new parties – When the presence of
of which is to deny, action claimed by parties other than those to the original action is required for
or allege facts in the defendant the granting of complete relief in the determination of a
denial or avoidance against the counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be
of new matters plaintiff. It brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be
alleged in, or relating answers a claim in obtained.
to, an actionable defense
document Sec. 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint –
A third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant may allege in his or her
When allowed The filing of a reply is A permissive answer his or her defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims,
not allowed, as a counterclaim must including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)-party
general rule. The be answered by plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff’s claim. In
exception being that the party against proper cases, he [or she] may also assert a counterclaim
a reply may be field if whom it is against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter’s claim
an answer pleads an interposed, against the third-party plaintiff.
actionable otherwise, he may
document. be declared in Rule 7: Parts and Contents of a Pleading
default as to the
counterclaim. Sec. 1. Caption – The caption sets forth the name of the
court, the title of the action, and the docket number if
On the other assigned.
hand, failure to
answer a The title of the action indicates the names of the parties.
compulsory They shall all be named in the original complaint or petition;
counterclaim is but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name
not a cause for a of the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate
default indication when there are other parties.
 provided there is a statement in the body of the complaint
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated. indicating that such complainant/s was/were made party to
such action.

Contents of Caption This is specially true before the HLRUB where the proceedings
1. Name of the Court – particular branch will be known only are summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities
after the case is raffled. obtaining in the courts of law and where the pertinent concern
is to promote public interest and to assist the parties in
2. Title of the action – indicates the names of the parties – obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
i.e., the plaintiff or defendant. They shall be named in the action, application or other proceedings. (Sps. Genato vs.
original complaint or petition. Viola)

In subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name
of the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate
indication when there are other parties.
Appropriate indication – usually complied by using “et.
al” or “and others” or “etc.”
The caption of the complaint is not determinative of the nature
of an action. (Galindo et. al vs. Heirs of Roxas)
Sec. 2. The body – The body of the pleading sets forth its
designation, the allegations of the party’s claims or
defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.

3. Docket number (if assigned). (a) Paragraphs – The allegations in the body of a pleading
shall be divided into paragraphs so numbered to be
Instances when the law does not require the readily identified, each of which shall contain a
statement of a single set of circumstances so far as that
name of a party to be stated in a pleading can be done with convenience. A paragraph may be
1. Subsequent pleadings (Rule 7, Sec. 1); referred to by its number in all succeeding pleadings.
2. Class suit (Rule 3, Sec. 12);
3. Unknown defendant (Rule 3, Sec. 14);
(b) Headings – When two or more causes of action are
Unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other joined, the statement of the first shall be prefaced by
designation. Pleading must be amended when his identity the words “first cause of action,” of the second by
or true name is discovered. “second cause of action”, and so on for the others.

4. Entity without juridical personality (Rule 3, Sec. 15); and When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed
5. Party is sued in his official capacity, where impleading him to one of several causes of action in the complaint, they
in his official capacity is sufficient. (Unabia vs. City Mayor) shall be prefaced by the words “answer to the first cause of
action” or “answer to the second cause of action” and so on;
and when one or more paragraphs of the answer are
effect of failure to comply addressed to several causes of action, they shall be
Requirement Purpose Effect of error or prefaced by words to that effect.
non-compliance
Name of Court This is to be able The case may go
to file the case in to a court which (c) Relief – The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but
the proper court. does not have it may add a general prayer for such further or other
jurisdiction. The relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
case will therefore
be dismissed (d) Date – Every pleading shall be dated.
eventually.
Names
parties
of the This enables the
court to determine
Failure to include
a party might
Numbered paragraphs
- The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided
who will be issued mean that
into paragraphs so numbered to be readily identified.
processes such jurisdiction over
- The use of numbered paragraphs makes it possible for
as summons. the unnamed or
litigants to simply refer to a certain paragraph in the
improperly
pleading rather than reproducing it in toto.
designated party
- With the use of numbered paragraphs, all the defendant
will not be
has to do is to refer to it by its paragraph number and
acquired.
frame his response accordingly.
Docket number This is for In the complaint,
convenience or there is still no
Ex: “Defendant admits the allegations contained in
for easy archiving docket number. In
paragraph 1 of the Complaint.”
and retrieval. The subsequent
docket number pleadings, failure
also indicates that to indicate the Headings
the case has proper docket - A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
already been number is not otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
official filed. fatal. against an opposing party. (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
- When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
addressed to one of several causes of action in the
Body prevails over the caption complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words "answer to
The non-inclusion of one or some of the names of all the the first cause of action”.
complainants in the title of a complaint, is not fatal to the case,

Relief
- The party who pleads is required to state the specific relief
or reliefs he expects to obtain from the court if ever he is
successful in the suit.
- The pleader also has the option to add a general prayer
for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or
equitable.
Failure to specify relief may be excused if
there is a general prayer
While the prayer by the respondents in their Answer mentions
only exemplary damages, moral damages and attorney's fees,
therein also is a plea for “such further relief” as this Honorable
Court may deem just and equitable." This prayer may include
"actual damages", if and when they are proved. (Heirs of
Justiva vs. CA)
Importance of the prayer
Just by examining the prayer, the court would have a general
idea about what reliefs the pleader is asking for. By way of
effect, if the prayer includes a relief that the court is not
empowered to grant (i.e., a prayer for damages in the amount
of P500,000 before the Municipal Trial Court), the receiving
clerk of the court may properly advise the plaintiff to perhaps
consider filing his complaint before another court.
Similar to the rule with respect to captions, the prayer of the
complaint would not be determinative of the nature of the
action. In case of conflict between the enumerated reliefs
sought and those elaborated in the body of the pleading, it
would be the latter that prevails. The same rule would apply in
the assessment of the filing and docket fees to be paid. The
amounts actually prayed for in the body of the complaint ought
to prevail over the listing of these amounts in the prayer.
Date
- Every pleading, whether initiatory or responsive, is
required to be dated for the purpose determining
compliance with prescriptive and reglementary periods.
- A complaint, for example, must be filed before it is barred
by the statute of limitations. An answer must be filed within
30 days from service of summons upon the defendant.
Conflicting dates
In case of conflict between the stated date of the pleading and
the date of filing, it is the date of filing that determines whether
the pleading was filed on time.
Application
The requirements in Section 1 with respect to captions and
designations and Section 2 with respect to numbered
paragraphs and the statement of reliefs and dates are also
applicable to motions.
Sec. 3. Signature and address –
(a) Every pleading and other submissions to the court must
be signed by the party or the counsel representing him
or her.
(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him
or her that he or she has read the pleading and
document; that to the best of his or her knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose,
such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or
needlessly increase the cost of litigations;
(2) The claims, defenses and other legal contentions
are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or
by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;
(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support
or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after availment of the modes of
discovery under these rules; and
(4) The denials of the factual contentions are
warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so
identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack
of information.
(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and
after notice and hearing, that this rule has been violated, it
may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation
to the proper office for disciplinary action, on any attorney,
law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible for
the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm
shall be held jointly and severally liable for a violation
committed by its partner, associate or employee. The
sanction may include, but shall not be limited to, non-
monetary directive or sanction, an order to pay a penalty in
court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective
deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part
or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees for the filing of the
motion for sanction. The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on
the monetary penalty to the client.
Signature and address
- It does not actually contain a requirement requiring the
pleader, or his counsel for that matter, to state his
address.
- The old Section 3 required that every pleading must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in
either case his address which should not be a post office
box.
- The omission of the requirement in the current incarnation
of the provision does not do away with the requirement
that the parties should state their addresses.
- The plaintiff must state his address because the court has
to know where the plaintiff can be served with its notices
and processes.
- The address of the defendant must also be known
because the court will serve him summons and other
notices and processes at that address.
- The current provision no longer contains a statement of
the effects of failure to sign a pleading that was present
prior to amendment, to wit:
“An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However,
the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be
remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay. XXX”
Signature requirement
- Every pleading and other written submissions to the court
must be signed by the party or counsel representing him
or her.
- These other submissions include motions, comments and
oppositions to motions, and notices (like a notice of death
under Rule 3, Sec. 16) and written compliances, among
others.
Address and other information requirements
Apart from the signature itself, additional information is
required to be indicated as part of a counsel’s signature:
(1) Per Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a counsel’s
address must be stated;
(3) In Bar Matter No. 1132, this court required all lawyers to
indicate their Roll of Attorneys number;
(3) In Bar Matter No. 287, this court required the inclusion of
the “number and date of their official receipt indicating
payment of their annual membership dues to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year”; in
lieu of this, a lawyer may indicate his or her lifetime
membership number;
(4) In accordance with Section 139 of the Local Government
Code, a lawyer must indicate his professional tax receipt
number;
(5) Bar Matter No. 1922 required the inclusion of a counsel’s
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption; and
(6) This court’s Resolution in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC required the
inclusion of a counsel’s contact details.
As with the signature itself, these requirements are not vain
formalities. The inclusion of a counsel’s Roll of Attorneys
number, professional tac receipt number, and Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) receipt (or lifetime membership) number
is intended to preserve and protect the integrity of legal
practice. These pieces of information, protect the public from
bogus lawyers.
The inclusion of information regarding compliance with (or
exemption from) Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) seeks to ensure that legal practice is reserved only for
those who have complied with the recognized mechanism for
keeping abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintaining] the
ethics of the profession, and enhancing the standards of the
practice of law.
Lastly, the inclusion of a counsel’s address and contact details
is designed to facilitate the dispensation of justice. These
pieces of information aid in the service of court processes,
enhance compliance with the requisites of due process, and
facilitate better representation of a client’s cause. It is doubly
painful if defeat is occasioned by his attorney’s failure to
receive notice because the latter has changed the place of his
law office without giving the proper notice therefor.
effect of unsigned pleading
- A counsel’s signature is such an integral part of a pleading
that failure to comply with this requirement reduces a
pleading to a mere scrap of paper totally bereft of legal
effect. (Intestate of Jose Uy vs. Maghari III)
- Counsel’s duty and authority to sign a pleading is personal
to him and may not be delegated to just any person. The
preparation and singing of a pleading constitute legal work
involving practice of law which is reserved exclusively for
the members of the legal profession. Counsel may
delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer but
cannot do so in favor of one who is not. (Republic vs.
Kenrick Development Corporation)
- Thus, the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency
to be remedied if it appears that the failure to affix the
required signature was due to mere inadvertence and not
intended for delay.
Implied certification in a pleading
Under Section 3(b), the signature of counsel in a pleading
constitutes a certificate by him or her that:
(a) he or she had read the pleading and document; and
(b) to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
1. It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such
as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation;
2. The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are
warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or by a
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or
reversing existing jurisprudence;
3. The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, of
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after availment of the modes of discovery under
these rules; and
4. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the
evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably
based on belief or a lack of information.
Sanctions for violations
- The court may impose an appropriate sanction or refer
such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action, on
any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is
responsible for the violation.
- Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held
jointly and severally liable for a violation committed by its
partner, associate, or employee. These “exceptional
circumstances” may include one where the erring lawyer
acted on his own in a rouge manner that is not reflective of
the law firm’s traditional practice.
The sanction mentioned in the provision may include, but shall
not be limited to:
(1) Non-monetary directive or sanction;
(2) An order to pay a penalty in court; or,
(3) If imposed on motion and warranted for effective
deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of
part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other
expenses directly resulting from the violation, including
attorney’s fees for the filing of the motion for sanction.
The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to
the client.
Sec. 4. Verification – Except when otherwise specifically
 required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly
authorized to sign verification. The authorization of the
affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a
secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney, should
be attached to the pleading, and shall alleged the following
attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct
based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on
authentic documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support
or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a
certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the
pleading.
Purpose of verification
The verification requirement is simply intended to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and
correct, and not the product of the imagination or a matter of
speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.
(Medado vs. Heirs of Consing)
The requirement of verification serves the following
purposes:
(1) It seeks to forestall perjury by requiring the party
concerned from making false allegations;
(2) Because of the danger of being held liable for perjury, the
requirement seeks to avoid the filing of baseless or
groundless suits; and
(3) It aims to ensure that what will be brought before the
consideration of the court will only be matters that are
susceptible of proof, the allegations being based on either
personal knowledge or authentic records.
effect of lack of verification
- Verification is merely a formal, not jurisdiction,
requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading
such that non-compliance therewith does not render the
pleading fatally defective.
- The court may in fact order the correction of the pleading
verification is lacking or it may act on the pleading
although it may not have been verified, where it is made
evident that strict compliance with the rules may be
dispensed so that the ends of justice may be served.
How a pleading is verified
- A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly
authorized to sign the verification. An affidavit is a
statement under oath of facts. (Wassmer vs. Velez)
- Violation of this oath “to tell the truth is what makes a
person liable for perjury.
- The affidavit verifying the pleading need not be one signed
by the party litigant himself. It is enough that the affiant is
one authorized to sign said verification.
- The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party,
whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special
power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.
Knowledge
- Knowledge means personal and actual knowledge.
- The testimony must have been a product of a person’s
own perception rather than a mere recollection of what
was merely related to him by another.
- It should not be second-hand information. In sum, it must
not be mere hearsay.
- Allegations or facts based on mere information constitute
hearsay which the law abhors for lack of a real opportunity
to cross-examine.
1964 Rules - Belief or knowledge.
- Information and belief were sufficient.
1997 Rules - Knowledge and belief.
Amendment 1. The allegations in the pleading are true
by A.M. NO. and correct based on his or her
19-10-20-SC personal knowledge, or based on
authentic documents;
2. The pleading is not filed to harass,
cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of
litigation; and
3. The factual allegations therein have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likewise have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity
for discovery.
True and correct on the basis of personal
knowledge or authentic records
- The allegations contained in the pleading must be true and
correct of a party’s personal knowledge and not just on
information or belief.
- The rule includes verification based on authentic records
as an alternative mode of verifying a pleading.
- Sometimes, the allegations in the pleading appear to be
based solely on personal knowledge and yet the
verification would state that “the allegations in the
pleadings are true and correct based on his or her
personal knowledge, or based on authentic document.”
This verification would actually be defective and improper.
Verification is the assurance that the allegations of the petition
have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not
mere speculative. Marohomsalic has apparently missed the
import of the foregoing rule.
A reading of Section 4 of Rule 7 indicates that a pleading may
be verified under either of the two given modes or under noth.
The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may be affirmed
based on either one’s own personal knowledge or on authentic
records, or both, as warranted. The use of the prepositition “or”
connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for
verification and, needless to state, the concurrenct of both
sources is more than sufficient.
Authentic records as a basis for verification bear significance in
petitions wherein the greater portions of the allegations are
based on the records of the proceedings in the court of origin
and/or the court a quo, and not solely on the personal
knowledge of the petitioner.
It was important therefore for petitioner to have state in his Earlier, We held that it is only when the person verifying is
verification that (1) his allegations in the petition were true and other than the attorney who signs the pleading that the affiant
correct of his personal knowledge and (2) if the petition relied must state that the allegations thereof are true of his own
on documents and records attached to the petition, that his knowledge, but when the complaint is signed by the attorney
allegations were based on records whos authenticity he the latter's oath couched in the usual form 'subscribed and
warranted. sworn to before me, etc.' is substantial compliance with the
Rules of Court. (Uy vs. Workmen’s compensation commission)
The CA found that only the March 24, 2004 order of the Office
of the Ombudsman was an original copy. The copy of the
February 23, 2004 decision of the Ombudsman was a machine
effect of verifying a pleading not required to
copy. Furthermore, of the ten other documents attached to the be verified
petition, none was certified as a true and authentic copy. The - Treated as a mere surplusage.
only conclusion we can make is the Marohomsalic’s verification - Has two adverse effects:
was not based either on personal knowledge or on authentic 1. It would show that the party and his counsel are
records. (Marohomsalic vs. Cole) ignorant of the rules;
2. The party unnecessarily opens himself to a charge of
Pleadings required to be verified perjury.
1. Any pleading to be filed in response to one that pleads an
actionable document must be verified. Otherwise, the Verification by a few parties
genuineness and due execution of such document shall be In the present case, the problem is not the lack of a verification,
admitted; but the adequacy of one executed by only two of the 25
2. Relief from order of default (Rule 9, Sec. 3b); petitioners. These two signatories are unquestionably real
3. Depositions before action (Rule 24, Sec. 1); parties in interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge
4. Petition for relief from judgments, order, or other and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the Petition.
proceedings (Rule 38); This verification is enough assurance that the matters alleged
5. Petition for review from the RTC to the CA (Rule 42); therein have been made in good faith or are true and correct,
6. Appeal from the CTA, and Quasi-judicial agencies to the not merely speculative. The requirement of verification has
CA (Rule 43, Sec. 5); thus been substantially complied with. (Torres vs. Specialized
7. Appeal by Certiorari to the SC; Packing Development Corporation)
8. Annulment of judgments, or final orders and resolutions
(Rule 47);
9. Application for preliminary injunction or temporary
Liberal policy
restraining order (Rule 58, Sec. 4); - Even if the verification is flawed or defective, the Court
10. Application for appointment of a receiver (Rule 59); may still give due course to the pleading if the
11. Application for support pendente lite as well as comment circumstances warrant the relaxation of the rule in the
to the application (Rule 61); interest of justice. (Tanjuatco vs. Gako jr.)
12. Review of judgments and final orders, or resolutions of the
COMELEC and COA (Rule 64); - A pleading which is required by the Rules of Court to be
13. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65); verified may be given due course even without a
14. Quo Warranto (Rule 66); verification of the circumstances warranting the
15. Expropriation (Rule 67); suspension of the rules in the interest of justice. When
16. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer (Rule 70); circumstances warrant, the court may simply order the
17. Contempt (Rule 71); correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and
18. Appointment of guardians (Rule 93); waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the
19. Spelling and encumbering property of ward (Rule 95); ends of justice may thereby be served. the absence of
20. Termination of guardianship (Rule 97); verification is a mere formal, not jurisdictional defect. (Sari-
21. Habeas Corpus (Rule 102); sari group of companies vs. Piglas Kamao)
22. Petition for change of name (Rule 103);
23. Voluntary dissolution of corporations (Rule 104); - This Court has consistently held that the requirement
24. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not
(Rule 108); jurisdictional. Such requirement is a condition affecting the
25. Bar examination, by questions and in writing (Rule 138, form of the pleading; non-compliance with this requirement
Sec. 10); does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.
26. All pleadings under summary rules; The purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and
27. Petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void penalize the evils of forum-shopping. (Benguet
marriages and annulment of voidable marriages (A.M No. Corporation vs. Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc.)
02-11-10);
28. Special rules of court on alternative dispute resolution - When a strict and literal application of the rules on non-
(A.M No. 07-11-08-SC); forum shopping and verification will result in a patent
29. Petitions for writ of habeas data or writ of amparo; denial of substantial justice, these may be liberally
30. Small claims cases; construed.

In a number of cases, this Court has excused the belated

Verification by counsel
A verification by the attorney is adequate compliance with Rule
7, Sec. 6, it being presumed that facts by him alleged are true
to his knowledge in view of the sanctions provided in Sec. 5 of
the Rules of Court.
filing of the required verification and certification of non-
forum shopping, citing that special circumstances or
compelling reasons make the strict application of the rule
clearly unjustified. This Court ruled that substantial justice
and the apparent merits of the substantive aspect of the
 case are deemed special circumstances or compelling afterthought, hence, cannot be granted. (Rivera-Pascual
reasons to relax the said rule. vs. Sps. Lim)

In fact, this Court has held that even if there was complete
non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum
effect of defective verification
- The last paragraph of Section 4 provides that a pleading
shopping, the Court may still proceed to decide the case
on the merits, pursuant to its inherent power to suspend its
own rules on grounds, as stated above, of substantial
justice and apparent merit of the case.
- In the absence of proper and authorized verification, the
The unquestioned nullity of the above assailed Tax
Ordinances upon which petitioners were previously taxed,
makes petitioners' claim for tax refund clearly
meritorious. On this basis, petitioners’ meritorious claims
are compelling reasons to relax the rule on verification and
certification of non-forum shopping.
Hence, the signature of the representative of the other co-
plaintiffs may be considered as substantial compliance
with the rule on verification and certification of non-forum
shopping, consistent with this Court's pronouncement that
when all the petitioners share a common interest and
invoke a common cause of action or defense, the
signature of only one of them in the certification against
forum shopping substantially complies with the rules. (SM
Land Inc. vs. City of Manila)
Cases wherein the liberal policy was NOT applied:
- The lone signature of Martos would have been sufficient if
he was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them.
Unfortunately, petitioners failed to adduce proof that he
was so authorized. The liberal construction of the rules
may be invoked in situations where there may be some
excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading,
provided that the same does not subvert the essence of
the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable
attempt at compliance with the rules.
Not being inflexible, the rule on verification allows for such
liberality. Considering that the dismissal of the other
complaints by the LA was without prejudice, the other
complainants should have taken the necessary steps to
rectify their procedural mistake after the decision of the LA
was rendered. They should have corrected this procedural
flaw by immediately filing another complaint with the
correct verification this time. Surprisingly, they did not
even attempt to correct this technical blunder. Worse, they
committed the same procedural error when they filed their
appeal16 with the NLRC. (Martos et. al vs. New San Jose
Builders, Inc.)
required to be verified which contains a verification based
on “information and belief” or upon “knowledge,
information and belief” or lacks a proper verification, shall
be treated as an unsigned pleading.
appeal filed is deemed as an unsigned pleading and
considered as a mere scrap of paper.
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping — The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith:
a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action
or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein;
b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof;
and
c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending,
he shall report that fact within 5 calendar days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party,
whether in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special
power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not
be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings
therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same
shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and
shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.

- Consolacion’s counsel failed to indicate in the petition his

Forum shopping
There is forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse
MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption Number
decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks
Also, the jurat of Consolacion’s verification and
a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than
certification against non-forum-shopping failed to indicate
appeal or certiorari. Forum-shopping exists when two or more
any competent evidence of Consolacion’s identity apart
actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and
from her community tax certificate.
circumstances; and raise identical causes of action, subject
matter, and issues.
Notably, Consolacion and her counsel remained obstinate
despite the opportunity afforded to them by the CA to
Still another test of forum-shopping is when the elements of litis
rectify their lapses. While there was compliance, this took
pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case
place, however, after the CA had ordered the dismissal of
will amount to res judicata in another – whether in the two or
Consolacion’s petition and without reasonable cause
more pending cases, there is an identity of:
proffered to justify its belatedness. Consolacion and her
(a) parties or at least such parties as represent the same
counsel claimed inadvertence and negligence but they did
interests in both actions;
not explain the circumstances thereof. Absent valid and
(b) (b) rights or causes of action; and
compelling reasons, the requested leniency and liberality
(c) reliefs sought. (Polanco vs. Cruz)
in the observance of procedural rules appears to be an
elements of forum shopping made in good faith,
or are true and
remedies in different
fora, as this practice
By forum shopping, a party initiates two or more actions in
correct and not is detrimental to
separate tribunals, grounded on the same cause, trusting that
merely speculative. orderly judicial
one or the other tribunal would favorably dispose of the matter.
proceedings.
Process The party verifies that The plaintiff/principal
The elements of forum shopping are the same as in litis
he has read the certifies under oat
pendentia where the final judgment in one case will amount to
pleading and that the that he has not
res judicata in the other.
allegations therein commenced any
are true and correct action or filed any
The elements of forum shopping are:
of his personal claim involving the
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would
knowledge or based same issues in any
represent the same interest in both actions;
on authentic records. court, tribunal or
(2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
quasi-judicial
being founded on the same facts; and
agency, and to the
(3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any
best of his
judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of
knowledge, no other
which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
action/claim is
action under consideration.
pending therein.
Here, however, the various suits Fidela initiated against When Applies only when Applies to
Evelina and Aida involved different causes of action and applicable the law/rules state complaints and
sought different reliefs. The present civil action that she filed that a pleading must other initiatory
with the RTC sought to recover possession of the property be verified. pleadings which
based on Evelina and Aida’s failure to account for its fruits. include the original
civil complaint,
The estafa cases she filed with the RTC accused the two of counterclaim, cross-
misappropriating and converting her share in the harvests for claim, third (fourth-
their own benefit. Her complaint for dispossession under etc)-party complaint
Republic Act 8048 with the DARAB sought to dispossess the or application
two for allegedly cutting coconut trees without the prior wherein a party
authority of Fidela or of the Philippine Coconut Authority. asserts his claim for
Consequently, it cannot be said that the grant of receivership in relief.
one case will amount to res judicata on the merits of the other Effect of Does not necessarily Non-compliance or
cases. (Chavez vs. CA) non- render the pleading a defect therein is
compliance fatally defective. The generally not
court may order its curable by its
submission/correctio subsequent
Certification may be signed by another n or act on the submission or
person authorized by the party pleading if attending
circumstances are
correction thereof.
XPN: There is a
The certification against forum shopping may be signed by a
such that strict need to relax the
representative. The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf
compliance with the rule on the ground
of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate of a
Rule may be of:
board resolution authorizing a particular person to sign or
dispensed with in 1. Substantial
special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.
order that the ends of compliance;
justice may be 2. Special
As a consequence of the receivership, the closed bank may
served thereby. circumstances;
sue and be sued only through its receiver, the Philippine
or
Deposit Insurance Corporation. Any action filed by the closed
3. Compelling
bank without its receiver may be dismissed.
reasons.
When petitioner was placed under receivership, the powers of Who Party or counsel. Party pleader.
its Board of Directors and its officers were suspended. Thus, its executes
Board of Directors could not have validly authorized its XPN: For
Executive Vice Presidents to file the suit on its behalf. The reasonable or
Petition, not having been properly verified, is considered an justifiable reasons,
unsigned pleading. A defect in the certification of non-forum the party-pleader
shopping is likewise fatal to petitioner's cause. must execute a SPA
designating his
Being an unauthorized pleading, this Court never validly counsel of record to
acquired jurisdiction over the case. The Petition, therefore, sign on his behalf.
must be dismissed. (Banco Filipino Savings vs. BSP) Who signs Need not be signed Must be signed by
by all parties. all
Distinction between verification and certification Deemed substantially plaintiffs/petitioners.
Verification Certification complied with when Those who did not
on who has ample sign will be dropped
Purpose To secure an A party litigant shall
knowledge to swear as parties to the
assurance that the not be allowed to
to the truth of the case.
allegations of the pursue
allegations in the
petition have been simultaneous
 complaint or petition
signs the verification,
XPN: Common
and when matters Interest of the
alleged in the petition petitioners. The
have been made in signature of only
good faith or are true one of them
and correct. substantially
complies with the
rule.
Common interest
The rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote
and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be
interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own
ultimate and legitimate objective.
The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with
respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the
requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding
the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its
mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether
dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.
All the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the
properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon. They
also share a common defense in the complaint for partition
filed by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant
petition, they filed it as a collective, raising only one argument
to defend their rights over the properties in question. There is
sufficient basis, therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to
speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners.
The merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be
deemed as "special circumstance" for the Court to take
cognizance of a petition for review although the certification
against forum shopping was executed and signed by only one
of the petitioners. (Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile)
But, while procedural requirements such as that of submittal of
a certificate of non-forum shopping cannot be totally
disregarded, they may be deemed substantially complied with
under justifiable circumstances.
One of these circumstances is where the petitioners filed a
collective action in which they share a common interest in its
subject matter or raise a common cause of action. In such a
case, the certification by one of the petitioners may be deemed
sufficient.
Here, KPE and Petron shared a common cause of action
against petitioners Espiritu, et al., namely, the violation of their
proprietary rights with respect to the use of Gasul tanks and
trademark. Furthermore, Atty. Cruz said in his certification that
he was executing it "for and on behalf of the Corporation, and
co-petitioner Carmen J. Doloiras.”
Besides, the failure of KPE to sign the certificate of non-forum
shopping does not render the petition defective with respect to
Petron which signed it through Atty. Cruz. (Espiritu et. al vs.
Petron Corporation)
Requirement of certification as to
corporations
If the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer of the
corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping so
long as he has been duly authorized by a resolution of its
board of directors.
Substantial compliance
The verification requirement is deemed substantially complied
with when a person who has sufficient knowledge to swear to
the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the
verification; and matters alleged therein have been made in
good faith or are true and correct. Thus, there is substantial
compliance if at least one of the petitioners makes a proper
verification.
In this case, three out of six petitioners signed three separate
verifications appended to the Petition for Certiorari. Their
signatures are sufficient assurance that the allegations in the
Petition were made in good faith, or are true and correct. Thus,
there is substantial compliance with the verification
requirement.
On the other hand, as a rule, the certificate against forum
shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners;
otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to
the case. Under reasonable or justifiable situations, such as
when the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and
invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of
one of them in the certificate against forum shopping is
considered substantial compliance with the rules.
Here, three of six petitioners signed the certificate of non-forum
shopping. At the least, the CA could have ordered that those
who did not sign it be dropped as parties, but not the outright
dismissal of the Petition.
The Court, nevertheless, holds that there are justifiable
reasons for the relaxation of the rules on the filing of a
certificate of non-forum shopping and that the certificate
against forum shopping signed by three out of six petitioners
suffices.
Specifically, petitioners' cause of action revolves on the same
issue, that is, respondents illegally dismissed them under
similar circumstances. The requirement of strict compliance
with the rules on filing of certificate against forum shopping
highlights the mandatory character of the submission of such
certificate. However, this mandatory requirement allows
substantial compliance provided that there are justifiable
circumstances for the relaxation of the rules. (Bacolor vs. VL
Makabali Memorial Hospital)
effect of amendment
A certification against forum shopping is a peculiar and
personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the
court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases
involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of
action. It must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney (SPA) designating his counsel of record to
sign on his behalf.
Here, the original complaint contained a proper verification and
certification against forum shopping duly signed by Naval-Sai
as plaintiff. The verification and certification in the amended
complaint, on the other hand, was only signed by her counsel,
Atty. Norberto L. Ela. Atty. Ela was not authorized to sign on
behalf of Naval-Sai.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint. For all intents and
purposes, therefore, the original complaint and its verification
and certification ceased to exist. This, notwithstanding, we find
there was still substantial compliance with the Rules.
While we said that, strictly, a certification against forum
shopping by counsel is a defective certification, the verification,
signed by petitioner’s counsel in said case, is substantial
compliance because it served the purpose of the Rules of
informing the Court of the pendency of another action or
proceeding involving the same issues.
We have ruled that the general rule is that non-compliance or a
defect in the certification is not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction. However, there are cases where we
exercised leniency and relaxed the rules on the ground of
substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances
or compelling reasons.
The rules on forum-shopping are designed to promote and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be
interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own
ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of
procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as
expeditiously as possible. (Uy vs. CA)
President of corporation can sign without
board resolution
DEU's petition for certiorari was filed on October 20, 2014. The
verification and certification of non-forum shopping included
therein was signed by Alan D. Licardo (Licardo) as president of
DEU. The board resolution it submitted in its Compliance,
designating and authorizing Licardo to represent DEU in the
suit, was issued only on December 15, 2014.
The Court finds the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping in DEU's petition for certiorari to be substantially
compliant with the Rules of Court. The petition was signed by
Licardo as President of DEU.
Nevertheless, the recognition of the authority of the president
of a juridical entity (whether a corporation or a union) to sign
verifications and certifications without prior board approval is
based on the role and function of a president within the juridical
entity, such that the president is in a position to verify the
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. It
cannot therefore be said that Licardo was absolutely bereft of
authority to sign the petition, considering that he is the
president of DEU and the DEU board subsequently ratified his
act. (Digitel employees union vs. Digital Telecoms Philippines)
Other corporate officers
A corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its
directors and officers and can only exercise its corporate
powers through the board of directors. Thus, it is clear that an
individual corporate officer cannot solely exercise any
corporate power pertaining to the corporation without authority
from the board of directors.
However, we have recognized the authority of some corporate
officers to sign the verification and certification against forum
shopping.
The following officials or employees of the company can
sign the verification and certification without need of a
board resolution:
(1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors;
(2) the President of a corporation;
(3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager,;
(4) Personnel Officer; and
(5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.
While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of
authorized signatories to the verification and certification
required by the rules, the determination of the sufficiency of the
authority was done on a case to case basis. The rationale
applied in the foregoing cases is to justify the authority of
corporate officers or representatives of the corporation to sign
the verification or certificate against forum shopping, being in a
position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations in the petition.
From the foregoing, it is thus clear that the failure to attach the
Secretary's Certificate, attesting to General Manager Antonio
Merelos's authority to sign the Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping, should not be considered fatal to the
filing of the petition. Nonetheless, the requisite board resolution
was subsequently submitted to the CA, together with the
pertinent documents. (Mid-Pasig Land development
corporation vs. Tablante)
Admittedly, the authorization of petitioner PPSTA's corporate
secretary was submitted to the appellate court only after
petitioners received the comment of respondents. However, in
view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case and in
the interest of substantial justice, and considering further that
petitioners submitted such authorization before the Court of
Appeals resolved to dismiss the petition on the technical
ground, we hold that, the procedural defect may be set aside
pro hac vice.
The "peculiar circumstances in Philippine Public School
Teachers Association pertained to a finding that the signatory
of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping,
Ramon G. Asuncion, Jr., was the former Acting General
Manager of the Philippine Public School Teachers Association
and was, thus, previously authorized to sign a verification and
certification of non-forum shopping on behalf of the
Association.
By the time the Association actually filed its petition before the
Court of Appeals, however, his authority as the Acting General
Manager had ceased, and the Association's Board of Directors
needed to give him specific authority to sign a certification of
non-forum shopping.
We find this case to be attended by analogous circumstances.
As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, respondent's counsel,
Balgos and Perez, has been representing respondent (and
signing documents for it) since the original Petition for
Cancellation of Letter Patent No. UM-7789 was filed. Thus, its
act of signing for respondent, on appeal before the Director
General of the Intellectual Property Office, was not an
aberration. It was a mere continuation of what it had previously
done.
It is reasonable, therefore-consistent with the precept of
liberally applying procedural rules in administrative
proceedings, and with the room allowed by jurisprudence for
substantial compliance with respect to the rule on certifications
of non-forum shopping-to construe the error committed by
respondent as a venial lapse that should not be fatal to its
cause. We see here no wanton disregard of the rules or the
risk of causing needless delay in the administration of justice.
On the contrary, construing it as such will enable a full
ventilation of the parties' competing claims. (Palao vs.
Florentino International)
Similarity between verification and 2. Reveals the pendency of a similar action but does not
report its status;
certification 3. Learns of a similar action but fails to report it within five (5)
Both are required to be sworn or made under oath. This has calendar days from obtaining knowledge.
led to the practice of lumping the verification and certification in
one affidavit. Effect: The party shall be cited in indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and
criminal sanctions for perjury.
effect of violation of the requirement of
forum shopping Willful and deliberate forum shopping
There are three possible violations of the requirement of The party (and/or his counsel) knowingly and intentionally
certification against forum shopping: forum shops or initiates two or more actions in separate
1. Failure to comply with the requirements in general; tribunals, grounded on the same cause. In other words, the
2. Submission of a false certification or non-compliance with error is not merely in the certification. There is actual forum
any of the undertakings in the certification; and shopping.
3. Willful and deliberate forum shopping.
Such acts shall be ground for summary dismissal with
Failure to comply in general prejudice to refiling and shall constitute direct contempt, as well
The party: as a cause for administrative sanctions.
1. Fails to submit a certification against shopping;
2. Fails to execute it under oath; Submission of a Willful and
3. Fails to attach the requisite authorization in case someone false certification or deliberate forum
other than the party signs it; non-compliance shopping
4. Otherwise submits an incomplete or defective certification. with undertakings
Administrativ YES YES (against
Effect e and criminal counsel)
- While the error is simply as to form, failure to comply shall sanctions
not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint of Ground for NO YES
other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the summary
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise dismissal
provided, upon motion and after hearing. Contempt Indirect contempt Direct contempt

- The adverse party is allowed to file a motion to dismiss the
case for violation of Section 5. The dismissal will be due to
the fault of the plaintiff for failure to comply with the Rules
and any order of the court without justifiable reason. (Rule
17, Sec. 3)
Effects of actual forum shopping
The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is
whether a final judgement in one case amounts to res judicata
in another or whether the elements of litis pendentia are
present.

Dismissal Thus, forum shopping exists when more than once case is filed
Failure to comply Rule 17, Section 3 and the filing of such cases would give rise to res judicata or
with Section 5 litis pendentia. Forum shopping has the same elements of litis
How made Both dismissals must be upon motion. Since pendentia. When forum shopping exists, litis pendentia exists.
Section 5 does not specify upon whose When there is litis pendentia, there is multiplicity of suits and in
motion, the dismissal can be upon motion of effect, the party violates the rule against splitting a cause of
the adverse party or by the court mot proprio. action.
Effect Dismissal is without Dismissal with
prejudice. The case prejudice to refiling. Thus, the necessary consequence is splitting a cause of action.
can be refiled. Dismissal shall have (Rule 2, Sec. 4) Forum shopping is a ground for summary
XPN: The case the effect of an dismissal of both initiatory pleadings, without prejudice to the
cannot be refiled only adjudication upon taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party
if the court declares. the merits (res concerned.
judicata). Litis Pendentia Forum Shopping
Ground of Motion to dismiss Ground to dismiss
XPN: The case can dismissal (Rule 15, Sec. 12) (Rule 17, Sec. 3)
be refiled only if the Effect Only one action will All actions thus filed
court so declares. be dismissed. The can be summarily
filing of one is a dismissed.
- It is wholly up to the court whether the case can be refiled. ground to dismiss
- If the court decides to dismiss the case with prejudice, he the others.
must afford the erring party an opportunity to be heard. Contempt NO YES
Disciplinary NO YES
Submission of a false certification or non- action
against
compliance with any of the undertakings counsel
The party: Filing Need not be filed by Filed by one party
1. Certifies against forum shopping but in fact there is one party. only.
another case pending between the same parties for the
same cause; Sec. 6. Contents — Every pleading stating a party's claims
 or defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by Section
2, Rule 7, state the following: Plain, concise and direct statement
The pleader must allege facts in a clear manner and avoid the
(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a use of superfluity.
party's claim or defense;
(b) Summary of the witnesses' intended testimonies, Ultimate facts/Facta Probanda
provided that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses - Principal, determinate and constitutive facts upon the
shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral existence of which a party’s cause of action or defense
part thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits rests.
are attached to the pleading shall be presented by the - Do not refer to the details of probative matters or
parties during trial. Except if a party presents particulars of evidence by which these material elements
meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of are to be established.
additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall - They consist in propositions still to be established and are
be heard or admitted by the court; and necessarily hypothetical.
(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the
allegations contained in the pleading.
Test in determining ultimate facts
If the omission of such a statement in a pleading renders the
Judicial affidavits and evidence cause of action or defense incomplete, or by reason of such
The admission of judicial affidavits was meant to be a separate omission an element of the pleader’s cause of action
filing. (Judicial affidavit rule, Sec. 2) There was even no disappears, then it must be a statement of ultimate fact.
requirement that they be attached to the pre-trial brief, but
because the pre-trial brief was required to contain the names of Elements of Cause of Action
witnesses and reveal the substance of their intended Statement of the:
testimonies, it was good and economical practice to submit 1. Right;
judicial affidavits together with it. 2. Obligation;
3. Violation; and
Failure to include judicial affidavits 4. Damage.
The RTC erred in ruling that the petition is infirm for failure to
attach judicial affidavits. As previously stated, Rule 8 requires Thus, for the plaintiff, if any of the foregoing elements of the
cause of action disappears if the statement is omitted from the
that the petition should be verified, contain supporting evidence
and must be accompanied by a sworn certification of non- pleading, then such statement is an ultimate fact.
forum shopping. There is nothing in Rule 8 that compels the
inclusion of judicial affidavits, albeit not prohibited. It is only if effect of omission of an ultimate fact
the evidence of the petitioner would consist of testimony of Upon a proper invocation by the defendant, the complaint is
witnesses that it would be the time that judicial affidavits susceptible to dismissal of the affirmative defense that the
(affidavits of witnesses in the question and answer form) must pleading asserting a claim states no cause of action or
be attached to the petition/complaint. simply failure to state a cause of action. (Rule 8, Sec. 12)
Failure to state a cause of action is not a ground for a motion to
Every pleading stating a party’s claim or defense shall already dismiss.
include the judicial affidavits of witnesses, which are attached
to the pleading and form an integral part thereof. Only
witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading evidentiary or intermediate acts/Facta
shall be presented by the parties during trial. Except if a party Probantia
presents meritorious reasons as basis for admission of - Facts which are necessary for the determination of the
additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall be ultimate facts.
heard or admitted by the court. - They are premises upon which conclusion of ultimate facts
are based.
By virtue of the 2019 amendments, pleadings are now required - They are brought forward as a reality to convince the
to also contain the parties’ documentary and object evidence in tribunal that the factum probandum is also real.
support of the allegations contained therein. (Rule 7, Sec. 6) - Every pleading shall now contain a plain, concise, and
Rule 7: Manner of making allegations in direct statement of the ultimate facts and include “the
evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or her
Pleadings claim or defense, as the case may be. (A.M. No. 19-10-
20-SC)
Sec. 1. In general — Every pleading shall contain in a
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise, and direct
Factum Factum Probans
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading
Probandum
relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be. If a
cause of action or defense relied on is based on law, the
pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him or Definition Ultimate Facts Intermediate or
her shall be clearly and concisely stated. evidentiary facts

Proposition Proposition still to Material evidencing the

In a methodical and logical form be established proposition
- Methodical means that the pleading must be orderly and
coherent. Nature Hypothetical Existent
- Logical which means that the pleading must be well
reasoned and syllogistic.
 Effect The end to be The means to achieve If from the facts in evidence, the result can be reached by that
achieved such end process of natural reasoning adopted in the investigation of
truth, it becomes an ultimate fact, to be found as such. If, on
Prior rule Under the former The former rule the other hand, resort must be had to the artificial processes of
rule, parties were required that the law, in order to reach a final determination, the result is a
required to state statements of mere conclusion of law. (Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank)
only the ultimate evidentiary facts should
facts be omitted Note: Conclusions of fact or law are not proper to be alleged. In
fact, making a conclusion of law is beyond the power of a
party-litigant to make. It is the judge who is a proper party to
Principles make such a conclusion.
- Every evidentiary question involves the relationship
between the factum probandum and factum probans.
- The facta probanda therefore are the facts you need to essential fact
prove to prevail in an action. They are the facts in issue. A fact is essential if they cannot be stricken out without leaving
The relationship between the factum probandum and the statement of the cause of action inadequate. Since the
factum probans is described as – RELEVANCY (Rule 128, inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material
Sec. 3) allegations, it follows that the analysis should be confined to
the four corners of the complaint and no other.
Types of defenses If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence
According to the nature of the allegation: of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a
1. Negative Defense – defense of denial; and motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of
2. Affirmative Defense – defense of confession and action. A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to
avoidance. the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from
mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of law. General
According to basis: allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair, and
1. Factual Defense – a defense based purely on facts; reasonable, are mere conclusions of law. Likewise, allegations
2. Legal Defense – If a defense relied on is based on law, that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or
the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to against public policy, without stating facts showing its invalidity,
him or her shall be clearly and concisely stated. (Rule 8, are mere conclusions of law.
Sec.1)
Hence, by merely stating a legal conclusion, the Amended
Matters which may be omitted from the Complaint presented no sufficient allegation upon which the
Court could grant the relief petitioner prayed for. Thus, said
pleadings pleading should be dismissed on the ground of failure to state
1. Facts which are presumed by law; cause of action. (Santos vs. Santos-Gran)
2. Conclusions of fact or law;
3. Matters which are in the domain of judicial notice need not
be alleged. Matters of judicial notice
- Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which
judges may properly take and act on without proof
Presumptions because they already know them.
- Presumptions need not be alleged in a pleading. - Judicial notice is based upon convenience and expediency
- When a fact is already a presumed by law, there is no for it would certainly be superfluous, inconvenient, and
need to make that allegation because, even if you do not expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in
allege it, your cause of action would still be complete the ordinary way, of facts which are already known to the
- When a presumption is applicable, the burden of proof is courts.
shifted from the party who alleges a fact to the one
defending.

Conclusions
- Conclusions of law or fact may be omitted from the
pleading. Under Section 1, a party can make a statement
of law if he relies upon it for his cause of action or defense.
- A party can also make statements of fact. But they are
different from a conclusion of fact or law.

Ex: Where the plaintiff state that he is entitled to moral

damages or attorney’s fees, that is not a statement of fact but a
mere conclusion. It would be a proper statement of fact if the
plaintiff cites the basis why he is entitled to those reliefs.

Allegation of conclusion
A bare allegation that one is entitled to something is an
allegation of a conclusion. Such allegation adds nothing to the
pleading, it being necessary to plead specifically the facts upon
which such conclusion is founded.